(October 4, 2013 at 4:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: You're hijacking my example. I'm telling you that the caveman is running away from what he *believes to be a sack of potatoes dressed as a lion*. Therefore, the response is "run away", all the while the belief is "it's a sack of potatoes dressed as a scary thing". Survivability has been preserved while truth hasn't ergo survivability is independent of anything the caveman might believe to be true, which might include a false belief as to why a sack of potatoes is after him (i.e. he doesn't understand the creature is carnivorous).
Except, it doesn't make any sense for him run away from what he believes to be a sack of potatoes. If he believes that the thing in front of him is a sack of potatoes, then the response of running away makes no sense for him. The assumption that he'd, without any cause, regard the sack of potatoes as scary is unfounded. Regarding it as scary implies that he has knowledge of something similar that he has a legitimate reason to be afraid of - ergo, the knowledge of some other truth. At its core, the fear response is the result of true knowledge. Without it, survivability has not been preserved.
(October 4, 2013 at 4:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Which in that particular example happens to be that goblins hiding underneath lion skin are after him, thus producing the "arghh... scawey!" reaction out of him.
If the goblins are not going to harm him, then his survivability was never at risk - then the question of preserving it doesn't arise at all. If the goblins are going to harm him, then the belief that "that thing is dangerous" is true - thus, making survivability dependent upon truth. And if the goblins are really there to give him free food, then his survivability has been harmed by his false belief.
