WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

[Greta]

There can be any number of evolutionary patterns in nature, no two overlapping. You seem to think intelligence is what evolution strives for and that because it happened once it's likely going to happen again.

Nothing of the kind; that's not how evolution works or I don't understand its fundamentals which is first and foremost adaptation, the ability to survive and procreate. If intelligence on our level or even on a lower primate level is not required, it won't happen; there wouldn't be any necessity for it.

Believe as you like; it's natural to observe patterns as predictive but patterns may have variations just as a musical theme can have any number of variations following it moving further away from resemblance to the original theme.

The following link (among many others) gives a neat summary of how things may play out.

http://theconversation.com/what-species ... -out-53340

No, life doesn't strive for greater intelligence. How you got that from my posts is beyond me. It's simple observation to note that life has continued to become ever more intelligent over the last few billion years.

I have a pretty decent handle on evolution, Dubious but I wonder if you do or if you just recite what you heard? The controversial view is that the trend towards greater intelligence could suddenly stop. Why would it do that after four billion years of life bouncing back after extinction events with far greater intelligence each time?

The link I provided, and there are many others, summarizes the interactions of evolution and intelligence in a clear manner without coming to any overt determinations either way. It measures probabilities based on how evolution operates by invoking intelligence as an adaptation toward survival.

But by all means observe your patterns and come to your own conclusion.

Whatever, the extinctions and rejuvenations are proved by the palaeontological and geological records. So, after each major extinction life grew back in ever more complex forms, and ever more rapidly. That's the reality, not just interesting theorising about specific qualities of life, as per the link you provided.

There are many such links by those who are far more knowledgeable on the subject then you or I. As with stocks, past performance is not indicative of future results. Congrats on knowing the reality. Most experts are still theorizing!

Why are you trying to misrepresent me?

Please pay attention: the timeline I described is not theoretical, it's in the fossil record, as stated more than once.

[Nick_A]

Greta

I have a pretty decent handle on evolution, Dubious but I wonder if you do or if you just recite what you heard? The controversial view is that the trend towards greater intelligence could suddenly stop. Why would it do that after four billion years of life bouncing back after extinction events with far greater intelligence each time?

As I understand it, evolution refers to the change of being from one quality into another - a change of what something is. Adaptation is the process of a given quality adjusting to the environment it is a part of.

At one time there was a cosmic necessity in which mitosis was insufficient for the purpose of life on earth. It was necessary to create sexual reproduction. This change was unnecessary for nature but necessary for a cosmic purpose.

Physical man is fully evolved. You are referring to the adaptation of physical man. Man must evolve consciously. Without conscious evolution the scattered nature of our being assures mutual self destructing during attempts at adaptation.

[Greta]

Greta

I have a pretty decent handle on evolution, Dubious but I wonder if you do or if you just recite what you heard? The controversial view is that the trend towards greater intelligence could suddenly stop. Why would it do that after four billion years of life bouncing back after extinction events with far greater intelligence each time?

As I understand it, evolution refers to the change of being from one quality into another - a change of what something is. Adaptation is the process of a given quality adjusting to the environment it is a part of.

At one time there was a cosmic necessity in which mitosis was insufficient for the purpose of life on earth. It was necessary to create sexual reproduction. This change was unnecessary for nature but necessary for a cosmic purpose.

Physical man is fully evolved. You are referring to the adaptation of physical man. Man must evolve consciously. Without conscious evolution the scattered nature of our being assures mutual self destructing during attempts at adaptation.

Actually, sexual reproduction simply competed effectively due to greater genetic diversity, and thus greater adaptability and robustness (just as crossbreed dogs tend to have fewer health problems than thoroughbreds).

As for "physical man", you ain't seen nothing yet! Once augmented by technology a whole new round of changes will arrive. My gut feeling is that AI is more likely to muster the kind of fairness that humans aspire to but can't help failing to achieve. Hopefully the AI won't decide that the best fairest solution is to cut the child in half and deliver a portion to each parent ...

As for humans, we're a conduit, not an end. I think AI is probably a conduit too, towards something much greater that is yet to come. Maybe everything will always simply be both a conduit and an end it itself? Or perhaps there a definitive mature form of life yet to be achieved? There are obvious potentials for life / humanity (in all areas, not just physical), not easily achieved but possible over the longer term.

[Dubious]

Whatever, the extinctions and rejuvenations are proved by the palaeontological and geological records. So, after each major extinction life grew back in ever more complex forms, and ever more rapidly. That's the reality, not just interesting theorising about specific qualities of life, as per the link you provided.

There are many such links by those who are far more knowledgeable on the subject then you or I. As with stocks, past performance is not indicative of future results. Congrats on knowing the reality. Most experts are still theorizing!

Why are you trying to misrepresent me?

Please pay attention: the timeline I described is not theoretical, it's in the fossil record, as stated more than once.

I'm well aware that the long saga of intelligence is inscribed in the fossil record as is nearly everything else in the history of the planet. Where else could it be documented!

What I disagree with is your contention that the human scope of intelligence can recreate itself if humans die out. The fossil record is mainly a recording in the evolution of events. There is no imperative in it to conclude that it must continue especially when pertaining to human intelligence which far outstrips every other. Consider its vast separation between our closest compatriots (chimpanzees) while at the same time having nearly 99% of DNA in common. That's a colossal difference based on almost no difference at all. This - and for other more scientific reasons - infers that humans are a special event within evolutionary time. Such events have a very low probability of occurring again on the same planet and certainly not decided by the fossil record.

I don't want this to get nasty but your assertion that human intelligence will happen again or exceed itself based on the fossil record is one I completely distrusted from the beginning.

What I would recommend is only that you examine the literature a little more. Someone as scientifically inclined as you should be interested enough to investigate it further.

Here's two more links regarding the evolution of human intelligence...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 165229.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142323.htm

If you're going to dismiss it like the first link then there is no reason to continue with the inquiry; simply continue to believe that evolution will repeat an exception.

The articles are at least interesting in how intelligence and its repeatability could be interpreted. It should offer the opportunity to rethink a position. In science there are no other options since what we think usually gets amended.

[Nick_A]

Greta

I have a pretty decent handle on evolution, Dubious but I wonder if you do or if you just recite what you heard? The controversial view is that the trend towards greater intelligence could suddenly stop. Why would it do that after four billion years of life bouncing back after extinction events with far greater intelligence each time?

As I understand it, evolution refers to the change of being from one quality into another - a change of what something is. Adaptation is the process of a given quality adjusting to the environment it is a part of.

At one time there was a cosmic necessity in which mitosis was insufficient for the purpose of life on earth. It was necessary to create sexual reproduction. This change was unnecessary for nature but necessary for a cosmic purpose.

Physical man is fully evolved. You are referring to the adaptation of physical man. Man must evolve consciously. Without conscious evolution the scattered nature of our being assures mutual self destructing during attempts at adaptation.

Actually, sexual reproduction simply competed effectively due to greater genetic diversity, and thus greater adaptability and robustness (just as crossbreed dogs tend to have fewer health problems than thoroughbreds).

As for "physical man", you ain't seen nothing yet! Once augmented by technology a whole new round of changes will arrive. My gut feeling is that AI is more likely to muster the kind of fairness that humans aspire to but can't help failing to achieve. Hopefully the AI won't decide that the best fairest solution is to cut the child in half and deliver a portion to each parent ...

As for humans, we're a conduit, not an end. I think AI is probably a conduit too, towards something much greater that is yet to come. Maybe everything will always simply be both a conduit and an end it itself? Or perhaps there a definitive mature form of life yet to be achieved? There are obvious potentials for life / humanity (in all areas, not just physical), not easily achieved but possible over the longer term.

Mitosis preceded sexual reproduction. How did it begin. What purpose did it serve to create death? there is no logical reason for it to miraculously appear by accident. IYO how did it begin and how did it expand into the variety of life forms that reproduce sexually on earth?

[Greta]

Greta



As I understand it, evolution refers to the change of being from one quality into another - a change of what something is. Adaptation is the process of a given quality adjusting to the environment it is a part of.

At one time there was a cosmic necessity in which mitosis was insufficient for the purpose of life on earth. It was necessary to create sexual reproduction. This change was unnecessary for nature but necessary for a cosmic purpose.

Physical man is fully evolved. You are referring to the adaptation of physical man. Man must evolve consciously. Without conscious evolution the scattered nature of our being assures mutual self destructing during attempts at adaptation.

Actually, sexual reproduction simply competed effectively due to greater genetic diversity, and thus greater adaptability and robustness (just as crossbreed dogs tend to have fewer health problems than thoroughbreds).

As for "physical man", you ain't seen nothing yet! Once augmented by technology a whole new round of changes will arrive. My gut feeling is that AI is more likely to muster the kind of fairness that humans aspire to but can't help failing to achieve. Hopefully the AI won't decide that the best fairest solution is to cut the child in half and deliver a portion to each parent ...

As for humans, we're a conduit, not an end. I think AI is probably a conduit too, towards something much greater that is yet to come. Maybe everything will always simply be both a conduit and an end it itself? Or perhaps there a definitive mature form of life yet to be achieved? There are obvious potentials for life / humanity (in all areas, not just physical), not easily achieved but possible over the longer term.

Mitosis preceded sexual reproduction. How did it begin. What purpose did it serve to create death? there is no logical reason for it to miraculously appear by accident. IYO how did it begin and how did it expand into the variety of life forms that reproduce sexually on earth?

Dunno Nick. Maybe, maybe not. No doubt, any molecules that replicated would end up becoming plentiful.

I think you should take natural selection seriously. It makes excellent sense. Also note that multicellularity emerged from what appears to be a freak event, postulated as a mitochondrian being engulfed by an archaean, but instead of being absorbed, there was a symbiosis, with the former providing energy and the latter protection. However, mitosis was the only means of reproduction from about 3.8b years ago to about 600m years ago.

So, for over 3b years or so there was no overt change, although no doubt there were subtler changes occurring that set the stage for multicellular emergence.

I'm open to the idea of the entire biosphere in a sense operating as one. It's speculative, but it may be that biospheres follow certain patterns of development; there's no way of knowing yet if we are the first or the billionth emergence of life. It is possible that the Earth was seeded via panspermia and this is the kind of development that can occur.

Also, I don't draw such a hard line between "life" and geology so I'm not so sure about "reasons". Planets live and die. They are geologically active and have atmospheres or they are dormant. Stars too have their own life cycles. Are we so different? We mainly just seem to be the same as the rest of the cosmos, made of the same stuff so, whatever it is that they are in themselves, we seem to be smaller and more concentrated versions of them. The cycles of life and death/dormancy still play out.

[Greta]

If you're going to dismiss it like the first link then there is no reason to continue with the inquiry

You won't consider my point even in the slightest despite the obvious logic so, yes, there's not much point.

Never for one moment did I say evolution was predictable. However, the large sweeps show a very general trend - no "predicted" specifics at all. If you can't tell the difference between these positions then you should hand back your degree because you seemingly gained it under false pretences.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Dunno Nick. Maybe, maybe not. No doubt, any molecules that replicated would end up becoming plentiful.

I think you should take natural selection seriously. It makes excellent sense. Also note that multicellularity emerged from what appears to be a freak event, postulated as a mitochondrian being engulfed by an archaean, but instead of being absorbed, there was a symbiosis, with the former providing energy and the latter protection. However, mitosis was the only means of reproduction from about 3.8b years ago to about 600m years ago.

So, for over 3b years or so there was no overt change, although no doubt there were subtler changes occurring that set the stage for multicellular emergence.

I'm open to the idea of the entire biosphere in a sense operating as one. It's speculative, but it may be that biospheres follow certain patterns of development; there's no way of knowing yet if we are the first or the billionth emergence of life. It is possible that the Earth was seeded via panspermia and this is the kind of development that can occur.

Also, I don't draw such a hard line between "life" and geology so I'm not so sure about "reasons". Planets live and die. They are geologically active and have atmospheres or they are dormant. Stars too have their own life cycles. Are we so different? We mainly just seem to be the same as the rest of the cosmos, made of the same stuff so, whatever it is that they are in themselves, we seem to be smaller and more concentrated versions of them. The cycles of life and death/dormancy still play out.

This idea of accident seems impossible. My guess is that people assume it since they don't understand that the universe is a conscious machine. Like all machines it needs repair through conscious influences.

Have you ever wondered how the earth acquired such a unique atmosphere that it made organic life possible. Was this also just an accident?

Are you familiar with the Giant-Impact hypothesis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis

The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact suggests that the Moon formed out of the debris left over from a collision between Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 billion years ago, in the Hadean eon; about 20 to 100 million years after the solar system coalesced.[1].....................................

It may be possible that the purpose of energies produced by the life and death of organic life is somehow a necessary part of stabilizing the earth moon relationship. Establishing organic life on earth, this living machine which eats itself and reproduces in order to perform its function, could have been intentional. It makes far more sense to me then assuming a series of virtually impossible accidents.

[Greta]

Greta

Dunno Nick. Maybe, maybe not. No doubt, any molecules that replicated would end up becoming plentiful.

I think you should take natural selection seriously. It makes excellent sense. Also note that multicellularity emerged from what appears to be a freak event, postulated as a mitochondrian being engulfed by an archaean, but instead of being absorbed, there was a symbiosis, with the former providing energy and the latter protection. However, mitosis was the only means of reproduction from about 3.8b years ago to about 600m years ago.

So, for over 3b years or so there was no overt change, although no doubt there were subtler changes occurring that set the stage for multicellular emergence.

I'm open to the idea of the entire biosphere in a sense operating as one. It's speculative, but it may be that biospheres follow certain patterns of development; there's no way of knowing yet if we are the first or the billionth emergence of life. It is possible that the Earth was seeded via panspermia and this is the kind of development that can occur.

Also, I don't draw such a hard line between "life" and geology so I'm not so sure about "reasons". Planets live and die. They are geologically active and have atmospheres or they are dormant. Stars too have their own life cycles. Are we so different? We mainly just seem to be the same as the rest of the cosmos, made of the same stuff so, whatever it is that they are in themselves, we seem to be smaller and more concentrated versions of them. The cycles of life and death/dormancy still play out.

This idea of accident seems impossible. My guess is that people assume it since they don't understand that the universe is a conscious machine. Like all machines it needs repair through conscious influences.

Have you ever wondered how the earth acquired such a unique atmosphere that it made organic life possible. Was this also just an accident?

Are you familiar with the Giant-Impact hypothesis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis

The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact suggests that the Moon formed out of the debris left over from a collision between Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 billion years ago, in the Hadean eon; about 20 to 100 million years after the solar system coalesced.[1].....................................

It may be possible that the purpose of energies produced by the life and death of organic life is somehow a necessary part of stabilizing the earth moon relationship. Establishing organic life on earth, this living machine which eats itself and reproduces in order to perform its function, could have been intentional. It makes far more sense to me then assuming a series of virtually impossible accidents.

The Theia impact is the most likely explanation for the the Moon's very similar chemical makeup content to the Earth's. Given that most bodies in the solar system have suffered massive impacts, it's clear that the earlier solar system was a more turbulent place than it is today (which in itself is reminiscent of life - or the other way around, for that matter). For instance, Mercury was hit so hard its entire mantle was removed and, if vulcanoids can be found between Mercury and the Sun, that could provide evidence. Venus was hit so hard that it how a slow retrograde orbit. Mars has a gouge in it many times larger than the Grand Canyon. Jupiter and Saturn are boss and don't care about impacts Even giant Uranus was bashed to its side in what is believed to be a one-two hit by two separate giant objects.

Part of the turbulence came due to what's known as The Grand Tack, where in the very early solar system Jupiter was first to form and ploughing through so much dust that it slowed its orbit and it drifted towards the Sun. If Saturn had not formed, with the gas giants pulling it out again, it would have been lost, ploughing into the Sun. This isn't much relevant but I love this stuff.

I don't think of the events as intentional, just as I don't think of our own physical (and to a fair extent, mental) growth as intentional. No one decided to grow their particular body parts and go through various stages of life development. The universe didn't decide to grow, it just did. I don't discount the possibility of a pre-existing system followed by growing / living entities. Like you, I think coincidences are piling up to the extent that it's either the weak anthropic principle at play or there's a pre-existing mold into which we fit.

However, it seems to me that consciousness (as we know it) is growing rather than pre-existent. By the same token, our consciousness was primitive until we developed.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't think of the events as intentional, just as I don't think of our own physical (and to a fair extent, mental) growth as intentional. No one decided to grow their particular body parts and go through various stages of life development.

We, humans, have. Not at the individual scale, but at the social scale. We are currently growing/engineering body parts - bio AND mechanical. We are augmenting our mental capacity and bodies with technology.

Q.E.D Thanks to Google we have shifted from using our minds for "fact-storage" (memory) towards "decision-making" (choice/intentionality).
This is measurable simply by the rate of change/growth in society. It's exponential!

However, it seems to me that consciousness (as we know it) is growing rather than pre-existent. By the same token, our consciousness was primitive until we developed.

Allow me to speculate. You seem to have invented the dualism "physical brain" vs "consciousness" so that you can differentiate the intentional from the unintentional.

There's really non need for that. Our brains allow for intentionality/goal-driven behavior. This grants us agency and it allows us to be causal factors in the universe. And our impact is like the impact of an ant's fart in the wind. Scale/proportionality is the only distinction necessary.

To state the obvious: technology/numbers is simply a multiplier of intentionality.

[Dubious]

If you're going to dismiss it like the first link then there is no reason to continue with the inquiry

You won't consider my point even in the slightest despite the obvious logic so, yes, there's not much point.

Never for one moment did I say evolution was predictable. However, the large sweeps show a very general trend - no "predicted" specifics at all. If you can't tell the difference between these positions then you should hand back your degree because you seemingly gained it under false pretences.

Maybe all those who haven't gained theirs under false pretenses should hand their degrees back as well since there are none in agreement with your "obvious logic".

You made your position clear that intelligence equal to or greater than ours would be the logical continuation if we go extinct based on the fossil record. This you claimed as having a very high probability when according to the science the opposite is true. Go back and read your posts and try reading more science and less science fiction.

[Greta]

If you're going to dismiss it like the first link then there is no reason to continue with the inquiry

You won't consider my point even in the slightest despite the obvious logic so, yes, there's not much point.

Never for one moment did I say evolution was predictable. However, the large sweeps show a very general trend - no "predicted" specifics at all. If you can't tell the difference between these positions then you should hand back your degree because you seemingly gained it under false pretences.

Maybe all those who haven't gained theirs under false pretenses should hand their degrees back as well since there are none in agreement with your "obvious logic".

You made your position clear that intelligence equal to or greater than ours would be the logical continuation if we go extinct based on the fossil record. This you claimed as having a very high probability when according to the science the opposite is true. Go back and read your posts and try reading more science and less science fiction.

Of course it's the logical possibility.

Do you think evolution starts again from scratch, even after a major extinction? In truth, the previously developed DNA remains. If humans go extinct and rats or mole rats survive, then they are already highly intelligent creatures, immensely more so than the shrewlike mammal that started the mammal line, and it only took 60m years to go from them to modernity. Once the climate stabilises in x many million years, then life will "advance" again; it depends on periods of climate stability far into the future, which is an x factor. If the rats can find plenty of food then they will become more intelligent. Intelligence is expensive energetically but powerful if the resources are available.

You (and many scientists) are a strict Gouldians - with the tree of life being touted as "more like a bush" claim. It is obviously been proved wrong IMO, one of the few areas where I think the scientific orthodoxy is dead wrong.

All of the evidence suggests a direction - from 3b years ago to now. Ignore that evidence and all manner of theorising is possible but that is by far the most important evidence available - all else is window dressing by comparison. The very occasional cases of lost functions (eg. fish losing eyes if they move to, and evolve in, cave pools) are touted as "proof" of Gouldian biological equality, or the relative evolutionary stasis of the croc and shark, but the blatant billions of cases of progression are ignored or treated as chance.

When other species devise a space program, I'll agree that evolution is entirely egalitarian, and there's no substantial difference between humans and flatworms, that it's a bush and not a tree. Until that time, I call "overcompensation" by those wanting to counter the "humanity is divine" claims of major faiths. I don't see humans as divine, but it takes a special kind of blinkers to ignore the evidence in front of our eyes that progression has occurred. I don't even think it should be controversial. Think of the biosphere as one evolving thing. Why would you imagine that it would regress when the individual life forms follow a path from infancy to maturity to frailty to death?

The only way to settle this difference ultimately is to wait many millions of years to see if the trend of the last 3b years will finally be bucked and there will just be an endless cycle of dumb animals. as you think most likely. Or it could be that the biosphere will continue to develop as it has done for the last 3b years, which I think is more likely, as long as it lives. The capacity to reach maturity is still no guarantee that it will happen.

While I see massive culling of numbers ahead, I don't think it likely that humans will become extinct any time soon anyway.

[Atla]

If you're going to dismiss it like the first link then there is no reason to continue with the inquiry

You won't consider my point even in the slightest despite the obvious logic so, yes, there's not much point.

Never for one moment did I say evolution was predictable. However, the large sweeps show a very general trend - no "predicted" specifics at all. If you can't tell the difference between these positions then you should hand back your degree because you seemingly gained it under false pretences.

Maybe all those who haven't gained theirs under false pretenses should hand their degrees back as well since there are none in agreement with your "obvious logic".

You made your position clear that intelligence equal to or greater than ours would be the logical continuation if we go extinct based on the fossil record. This you claimed as having a very high probability when according to the science the opposite is true. Go back and read your posts and try reading more science and less science fiction.

I've long pondered the question "why are we here?". The realization, that it is extremely unlikely that another intelligent species will evolve after us on this planet, is of course a basic piece of the puzzle.

[Age]

actions speak louder than your words, as I have previously stated to, and about, YOU.

My actions coincide with my words. I am a gambler.

That you misunderstand my words is. Well - your problem

But I do NOT misunderstand your words, usually. They speak loud and clear, to Me.

Your BELIEFS are very plain and clear, to See.

[TimeSeeker]

But I do NOT misunderstand your words, usually. They speak loud and clear, to Me.

Then why do you keep asking me questions if you understand me loudly and clearly?