It’s a concept that is a part of Evolutionary Epistemology.
I tend towards ” b. The Non-Adaptationist Approach within EE”
which is a systems theoretic POV recognizing that beings are homeostatic – balance seekers – and are partially closed / partially open systems.
The 3 major ways to evaluate Evolutionary Epistemology seems to be:
a) Evolution from the point of view of the environment, which lead to traditional, adaptationist approaches to EE;
b) Evolution from the point of view of the organism, which lead to non-adaptationist, constructivist approaches; and
c) Evolution from the point of view of genes, which opens the quest for universal selection formulas.
To answer your question, one proposed “human extended phenotype” would be a computer. Or by further extension, copper networks starting with telegraph towards internet binding computers together.
But that appears to be mimickry rather than extension.
Computers are a human mimic of the brain and computer networks a human mimic of human social networks.
well, ultimately, we’re kind of speaking different languages Naveed.
You’re Dawkins-y, I’m Adaptive Systems-y, particularly sold on Practopoeisis as the correct model for intelligent systems.
Intellegent systems adapt to their envronment while also adapting their environments to suit them.
I can’t reasonably state that Space travel and our adapting is genetic in origin but I can state that it’s adaptive.
I can’t state “We’re just animals” but I also can’t state “We’re just computers” or “We’re just robots”.
I can state we’re adaptive intelligent creatures. I can also state that plants are adaptive intelligent creatures.