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

[Nick_A]

It might be male means it might be female.

To be politically correct you should include the LGBTQ Community of Arachnids as a possibility. You must be a forward looking example for the young.

[Walker]

It might be male means it might be female.

To be politically correct you should include the LGBTQ Community of Arachnids as a possibility. You must be a forward looking example for the young.

Possibly, possibly,
I’m just looking logically.
Looking logically and possibly
At ordering of the language
At options in the spider webbers’ world.

Is it possible … that given the play of nature, both hermaphrodite and asexual arachnids may lightly scamper here and there, requiring additions to the known alphabet, if not already in the taxonomy?

To resist the Google Mind that orders what lands on page one, first speculate on what might be, then investigate where folks have gone before.

Speculation carries the biggest rewards, and risks,
Both the dissolution of delusion, and actual creation.

[Age]

That is the idea, especially in a philosophy forum, when all else fails and you unable to provide any sound nor valid arguments for your position any more

Stop writing things as though you have knowledge/absolute certainty of what "soundness" and "validity" entails!

Why can I not?

Do you think/believe that you, and/or some others, are the only ones allowed to write as though you have knowledge/absolute certainty about things?

I already told you. I am not here to justify my position.

I do not recall you saying that before.

So, do you really think that it is okay for YOU to express your positions here, but then not have to justify them?

If this is the case, then that seems a hard expectation, especially since you write your positions down from an absolutely true, right, and correct perspective.

Are other people allowed to express their positions but do not have to justify them also? Or, is this privilege only for the one labelled "timeseeker"?

I am here to show you that your position is wrong in more ways than mine;

I also do not recall you ever saying this before either.

How can you show me that my position is wrong (in more ways then yours) especially when I have not expressed a position, opposing yours, yet?

Also, how can you become LESS WRONG when you hold an attitude like this?

If you are here to show me, and/or others, how our position is wrong in more ways than yours, then that certainly does not come across as you wanting to become LESS WRONG. Speaking like that comes across as though you are MORE RIGHT than me, and/or others.

OR learn how my position is wrong.

But I already KNOW when, and how, your position/s is/are wrong.

That does NOT make be "absolutely right". It makes me actively trying to be LESS WRONG! It looks to me as though I am succeeding so far.

Well that certainly does NOT appear to the case to me.

How could you ever become LESS WRONG when you believe you are RIGHT, and write in such a way?

We are clearly playing "philosophy" by different rules!

Very true. You are not doing 'philosophy' how I do it.

I 'philosophize' from the perspective of having the love-of-learning.

How do you PLAY 'philosophy'?

To me, you really do come across as wanting, and needing, to be always right and also always superior to others.

But that is only my view, which obviously could be 100% totally wrong and incorrect.

You are wrong. I am showing you the error you have made.

But you have NOT showed me any error here.

In fact you the more you write the more you are backing up and supporting my view.

Just saying you say that do do some thing does not mean that you are actually doing that, especially when your other words clearly show what you are really doing.

You have incorrectly presupposed my objective, my goals and the rules by which I play.

But I have NEVER presupposed your objective, your goals nor the rules by which you play at all. I just obtain a view, from your written words. I then express what I see.

I really do not care what you say your objective, goals, and rules are especially since they come across to me as not at all what you say they are.

I express what I see from your writings. If you do not want to accept that, then so be it. If you do not want to change, nor change the way you write, then do not. If you want to continue to write from the perspective that you are absolutely true, right, and correct, then I will keep pointing this out to you, and others.

[Dubious]

Actually, what I'm saying is completely orthodox. Consider that trilobites appeared ≈500m years ago and died out ≈250m years ago. Dinos first appeared ≈240m years ago and died out ≈60m years ago. It was ≈45m years ago that the first dominant giant mammals appeared.
If mammals (incl. humans) go extinct soon, then why would you assume that life won't bounce back, and in yet more sophisticated forms? How is that far fetched? Yours is the speculative view, suggesting a new and novel variation in evolution. My speculation here is orthodox - observing patterns and using them to try to predict future events.

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

[Age]

"From my viewpoint evolution does not have a purpose, but that does not mean that this is true, right, nor correct".

Well OBVIOUSLY it's from my point of view - I speak for myself. From whose point of view would I be saying "evolution doesn't have a purpose". Yours? Charles Darwin's ?

Once again you have completely MISSED the mark.

Do you remember the reason WHY I wrote that?

Can you remember WHAT you had written, which I was replying to?

Do you make it a habit to speak from other peoples' points of view? Is this why you project your expectation onto me that I must be explicit about the point of view I am speaking from?

You have completely and utterly MISSED the point.

I have also said that I do not believe in absolute knowledge, nor absolute truth, nor absolute rightness, nor absolute correctness. I am not an absolutist.

SO then do NOT write from an absolutist perspective.

Are you aware that you are saying one thing but doing the exact opposite? Or, can you still not see this yet?

So again: you are projecting an EXPECTATION onto me. You are mandating that I MUST say those things when I speak because <reasons>.

I am NOT saying that you must do any thing. I am just saying that if, and when, you write from the absolutist perspective, then I will point it out.

In case you have forgotten, which appears to be the case, once again, YOU were the ONE who asked me for examples of how you can write in another way. I did this by providing examples. But then you appear to have completely forgotten WHY I wrote it.

Why do you insist on me being explicit about things which cannot be any other way!

Writing "cannot be any other way" IS just writing in another absolutist perspective way.

If you can not be explicit about things in another way, then so be it. I have already given examples of how you can.

In fact there are plenty of other ways you can express. But that is only if you are open to them, of which you are obviously showing that you are NOT.

You do not come across as being less wrong at all. In fact you continually come across as being more stubborn about more absolutely true, right, and correct the further we go into this and all of our other discussions.

Evolution does not have a purpose. If you disagree, think that I am wrong, then please correct me by providing evidence for Evolution's purpose.

But you are NOT open to any thing other than "Evolution does not have a purpose". You have clearly and explicitly shown, by your writings, that you BELIEVE that 'Evolution does not have a purpose' is absolutely true, right, and correct.

You also have some sort of twisted and distorted view/belief that you do NOT have to justify this position.

You come across also as being so self-centered and superior that you can have and hold a position, express it and do NOT have to justify it. But if any other has a different or opposing position, then it is up to them to justify and that they HAVE to justify to you.

You are so blinded to what is actually going on here. But the reasons for your blindness can be clearly seen by others.

[TimeSeeker]

Are you aware that you are saying one thing but doing the exact opposite? Or, can you still not see this yet?

I am aware that this is how you mis-interpret my words and my actions. But that's only because you are ignorant and don't know the difference between abductive and deductive reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

You must get rid of your BELIEF. But you can't because physics!

You can't read my mind so you will always be a victim of abductive reasoning - because you have only partial information.

Information asymmetry is a thing. So you must learn to gamble...

[Age]

I have rather more faith in nature and humanity than you. While we both see the current situation as fatally flawed, you see it as a need for mystical transformation and I see it as a lack of maturity.

Reality has worked itself out better than we could have conceived thus far over 13.8b years, and I fully expect reality to continue operating far beyond our conceptions. We grasp the mere fringes of what's going on and then figure that we understand. Yet these are early days. The idea of humans understanding the universe is akin to babies understanding ethics and nuclear medicine. We simply don't have the capabilities, but they will grow.

Who can answer the question - what kind of entities will be present in the universe in 50 or 100 billion years' time? Anyone who can't authoritatively know has barely a clue what's really going on with reality.

I do not see how your answer follows your question.

Why do you propose that if one can not authoritatively know what entities will be present in the Universe in 50 or 100 billion years time, how they would also not have barely a clue about what is really going on with reality?

A human being could have already worked our what is really going on with reality, but not necessarily KNOW, from your perspective of 'authoritatively knowing', what kind of entities will be present in some future time. How are you defining 'entities' here?

I am defining 'entities' as whatever follows biological life, which is clearly a transitional phase rather than an end point or mature form.

Are you proposing that there is/could be some thing other than biological life?

If you are a baby, having only lived a small proportion of your span and incapable of comprehending adulthood, would you say you are capable of understanding reality?

That would depend on what you think babies are capable of understanding or not. That kind of example I was saying to me does not follow. It is said that no person knows what the future holds, but it is also said these people still understand some things.

Just because a human being may not know one thing does not mean that they can not know nor understand another. Especially in regards to not knowing what may or may not happen in the future and how that then supposedly follows and means then that that person must not be able understand some thing else as simple as 'reality'.

Maybe the better question I should have asked you is, how are you defining 'reality' here?

That is our situation, 13.8 billion years into a lifespan of about 1,000 billion years.

Why do you propose such a defined and only figure of about 1,000 billion years here.

[Greta]

Actually, what I'm saying is completely orthodox. Consider that trilobites appeared ≈500m years ago and died out ≈250m years ago. Dinos first appeared ≈240m years ago and died out ≈60m years ago. It was ≈45m years ago that the first dominant giant mammals appeared.
If mammals (incl. humans) go extinct soon, then why would you assume that life won't bounce back, and in yet more sophisticated forms? How is that far fetched? Yours is the speculative view, suggesting a new and novel variation in evolution. My speculation here is orthodox - observing patterns and using them to try to predict future events.

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?

[Age]

Are you aware that you are saying one thing but doing the exact opposite? Or, can you still not see this yet?

I am aware that this is how you mis-interpret my words and my actions. But that's only because you are ignorant and don't know the difference between abductive and deductive reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

That is the way. Tell the other that they are ignorant.

I am just expressing MY VIEWS, by what I SEE you are doing. Here, your actions are speaking much louder than your words, as they say.

For example you are, once again, expressing as though you KNOW what is 100% absolutely true, right, and correct, which is even a harder thing to expect others to accept especially when you are talking about what you KNOW in regards to what another KNOWS.

Obviously you have missed it, or are ignorant of it, but I have clearly expressed that I could be 100% wrong.

Also, it is extremely very simple and easy for another to appear to not know, and/or to know, some thing to manipulate and control you, in whatever way they want to. Just some thing to think about.

You must get rid of your BELIEF. But you can't because physics!

But you have to be clearly able to show what you think/presume/believe what my BELIEF is, before I could get rid of "it".

Do you remember what I have clearly expressed in regards to beliefs and me?

You can't read my mind so you will always be a victim of abductive reasoning - because you have only partial information.

I would NOT be so certain and sure of things, especailly like this.

Once again expressing, "You can't ..." comes across as that you are absolutely 100% sure.

There are some who can do, and know, things far beyond what you can even imagine, yet.

Information asymmetry is a thing. So you must learn to gamble...

MUST I?

Is this another one of your having "no knowledge" and/or "not absolute certainty" remarks?

Or, are you absolutely certain that I must learn to gamble?

I do NOT like to gamble, and also see NO need for it.

You BELIEVE otherwise, right?

[TimeSeeker]

For example you are, once again, expressing as though you KNOW what is 100% absolutely true, right, and correct, which is even a harder thing to expect others to accept especially when you are talking about what you KNOW in regards to what another KNOWS.

You are a liar.

I have said it like 10 times now. I do not have absolute knowledge/truth. I am not absolutely right/correct. What I express is the most plausible hypothesis given the evidence I have examined. I am getting tired of pointing it out - so now I will just call you out on your bullshit.

Was what I said (about inductive reasoning) wrong/incorrect according to you?
This is a yes or no question.

If I was wrong - then I trust you will correct me and point me to better knowledge.
If I was right - you can shut the fuck up.

Do you remember what I have clearly expressed in regards to beliefs and me?

I do. You said you don't have any. That is - you lied. Again.

I would NOT be so certain and sure of things, especailly like this.

Once again expressing, "You can't ..." comes across as that you are absolutely 100% sure.

There are some who can do, and know, things far beyond what you can even imagine, yet.

Having explicitly stated that I have no 100% certainties that is you lying again. For the 3rd time now.

MUST I?

Only if you want to be good at it.

Is this another one of your having "no knowledge" and/or "not absolute certainty" remarks?

Yes.

Or, are you absolutely certain that I must learn to gamble?

No. Only certain enough to say it.

I do NOT like to gamble, and also see NO need for it.

Then you better move to another Universe.

If you are 99% certain, then there is 1% chance that you are wrong. You are gambling!
Whether you recognise it for what it is speaks of your ignorance.

Physics does not allow for 100% certainty.

You BELIEVE otherwise, right?

Yes.

[Dubious]

Actually, what I'm saying is completely orthodox. Consider that trilobites appeared ≈500m years ago and died out ≈250m years ago. Dinos first appeared ≈240m years ago and died out ≈60m years ago. It was ≈45m years ago that the first dominant giant mammals appeared.
If mammals (incl. humans) go extinct soon, then why would you assume that life won't bounce back, and in yet more sophisticated forms? How is that far fetched? Yours is the speculative view, suggesting a new and novel variation in evolution. My speculation here is orthodox - observing patterns and using them to try to predict future events.

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.

[Age]

For example you are, once again, expressing as though you KNOW what is 100% absolutely true, right, and correct, which is even a harder thing to expect others to accept especially when you are talking about what you KNOW in regards to what another KNOWS.

You are a liar.

I have said it like 10 times now. I do not have absolute knowledge/truth.

COMPLETELY missed the mark, and point, ONCE AGAIN.

I am not absolutely right/correct.

I KNOW you are not absolutely right/correct. A huge amount of what you say is wrong/incorrect, or partly wrong/incorrect.

What I express is the most plausible hypothesis given the evidence I have examined.

WHY make up some 'plausible hypothesis'? WHY not just express the Truth?

You WILL FIND that you WILL become far LESS WRONG, far MORE OFTEN.

I am getting tired of pointing it out - so now I will just call you out on your bullshit.

What do you propose is MY bullshit?

You have a tendency to NOT leave the preceding quote in, this of course depends on what you want the readers to see because some times you do leave the preceding quote in. Do you think this helps you in TRYING TO distort what is actually going on here? Or, are you totally unaware of what you have been doing here?


You wrote that you are aware of how I mis-interpret your words and your actions.
I expressed that you are once again showing that you BELIEVE that you KNOW, for sure, some things, like; you are aware of how I mis-interpret your words and your actions. Thus you are inferring that you BELIEVE that you are absolutely right/correct in KNOWING how I mis-interpret your words and your actions.

I am free to express what I see and view. I view and see you NOT acting in the way you say you do. To me your words are proof of this. I have also completely acknowledged that I could be WRONG. But your words, thus actions, speak for themselves. It is for the readers to decide because it is the readers who can and will see what is actually true, right, and correct here.

You would have to be able to KNOW what I KNOW to be able to be aware of how I am supposedly mis-interpreting your words and your actions, right? You insist that one does not KNOW themself, let alone what another KNOWS, is this also correct?

People, who are interested, can and will read back what has ACTUALLY been taking place here and in regards to WHAT exactly.

Was what I said (about inductive reasoning) wrong/incorrect according to you?

What did you say (about inductive reasoning only)?

What I read and saw in what you wrote was; I asked you two questions.
Specifically; Are you aware that you are saying one thing but doing the exact opposite? Or, can you still not see this yet?

Of which you did not answer.

But you did write;
I am aware that this is how you mis-interpret my words and my actions. But that's only because you are ignorant and don't know the difference between abductive and deductive reasoning.

What I see is you BELIEVE that I do NOT know the difference between abductive and deductive reasoning, and because of this this is how I mis-interpret your words and your actions.

I have already alluded to the fact that you would have to KNOW, what I KNOW (or do NOT know) in order to be able to form the conclusion you have from the "premise" that you are making.

Can YOU KNOW what I KNOW (or do not know)?

This is a yes or no question.

This IS not a yes or no question, to me. To me, answering this question correctly is depended upon understanding some things first.

If I was wrong - then I trust you will correct me and point me to better knowledge.

Is what wrong? What you already BELIEVE is absolutely true, right and correct?

In other words do I KNOW the difference between abductive and deductive reasoning or do I NOT know the difference between abductive and deductive reasoning?

You say you do NOT know things but by your actions/words you come across as though you do KNOW. In fact, you base your reasoning of how you became aware of something on the fact that I am ignorant and do NOT know the difference between two things.

If I was right - you can shut the fuck up.

So, if I just shut the fuck up, then does that mean you will have further confirmation that you are RIGHT/CORRECT?

Is that how you think you have "won" most of your arguments in adult life? (If others do not speak, then I am RIGHT) That is some self-talk there. See how much you are teaching me, in learning how to communicate better. The MORE I can understand you, human beings, then the BETTER I can be heard, and understood.

By the way, you are NOT right. In fact, you are rarely even close to being right. You are much closer to being WRONG, then you are to being right. But that is the reason WHY I chose you. I can learn far MORE from you, then from others. The more you come across as though you are RIGHT, but are in fact totally WRONG, then the more I can learn from you. It is after all the ones who do NOT come across as though they are right who are the ones who can much more easily and simply discover, learn, understand, see and reason the actual Truth of things.

It is people like you, "timeseeker", who I want to learn from. The people that it is much harder for me to show, with evidence, the Truth of things to are far more helpful than the ones who are more open to It.

Do you remember what I have clearly expressed in regards to beliefs and me?

I do. You said you don't have any. That is - you lied. Again.

Are you at all able to write down just one BELIEF that you think I have, so that we can have a look at it, then discuss it?

Or, is there some thing stopping you from doing this?

Are you aware of what is going on here now?

Are you aware that you have to provide the evidence FIRST if you want "others" to accept what you are saying is true?

Also, you come across as being absolutely SURE that I have lied, and even lied again. Would you like to write down WHERE you think that I have lied?

I would NOT be so certain and sure of things, especailly like this.

Once again expressing, "You can't ..." comes across as that you are absolutely 100% sure.

There are some who can do, and know, things far beyond what you can even imagine, yet.

Having explicitly stated that I have no 100% certainties that is you lying again. For the 3rd time now.

You know you come across as a very confused and puzzled human being. For example you write that you are not certain of any thing, yet you say I am lying.

Are you saying that you do NOT know, for sure, if I am lying or not?

If yes, then that is great.
But if you say that I am lying, for sure, then provide the evidence, so that others can and will be aware of this also. Are you also ready to discuss that?

MUST I?

Only if you want to be good at it.

Again, continually leaving out what your response is in relation to, does not help readers follow this properly and correctly. Is there some reason WHY you do this?

Is this another one of your having "no knowledge" and/or "not absolute certainty" remarks?

Yes.

So you write "information asymmetry is a thing", but you also opening admit that you have no knowledge if this is correct or not, and that you are not absolute certain if information asymmetry is a thing or not.

Fair enough. I can see HOW you have become very puzzled about things here, in life.

Or, are you absolutely certain that I must learn to gamble?

No. Only certain enough to say it.

So, how certain are you then that I must learn to gamble?

I do NOT like to gamble, and also see NO need for it.

Then you better move to another Universe.

If you are 99% certain, then there is 1% chance that you are wrong. You are gambling!
Whether you recognise it for what it is speaks of your ignorance.[/quote]

Remember it is YOU who says you are NOT certain of things, and that you have no knowledge. I have NOT said this.

I am just clarifying with you what you actually know, from what you say you know, which through your actions, by your words, you are showing to the readers here.

Physics does not allow for 100% certainty.

Who cares?

By the way 'physics' is just a word. I think it was you who has replied to me previously with the one word 'context'.

You human beings only study what you do NOT know (physics).

Once things are KNOWN, then there is NO need to study them anymore. You, human beings, can either make up theories and models of things that you do NOT know, and then TRY TO study and understand them. Or, you can just look at and see (understand) things as they REALLY are.

There is a big difference between just looking at, thus already seeing and understanding, what IS already true, right, and correct, from TRYING TO find what IS true, right, and correct.

Once the Truth is seen, and understood, then there is NO need to keep studying (what some call "physics") and looking for It.

One reason you human beings have taken so long to see and understand the big picture of things, that is; the Truth of what IS, is because you do not just look at what IS, you instead look at what COULD BE, make up models and theories in regards to that, and then, usually unintentionally admittedly, TRY TO fit "that" into the big and True picture of things. This is a complete waste of what you human beings call "time and energy".

Once YOU learn HOW to look at ALL things properly and correctly, then you can and DO see the True, whole big picture of things.

You BELIEVE otherwise, right?

Yes.

This is WHERE your confusion comes from, and is set in.

You BELIEVE (action) "information asymmetry is a thing. So you must learn to gamble..." but say (speak) the other.

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

[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.

The patterns of life and extinctions over the last few billion years or are not actually "my patterns". I have so far been unable to bring life forth and lead it on such a grand journey. I'm flattered that you may think I have such creativity and power. So far I've only managed are some pretty average songs, drawings and writings, alas.

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.

[Dubious]

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!

[TimeSeeker]

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