If humanity became extinct at some point in the future

[zapatos]

How did humans evolve a smarter mind?

 

A random genetic mutation that resulted in an increased chance of the organism surviving long enough to reproduce.

[dimreepr]

A turtle doesn't emerge from it's egg and think "I must dig my way to the surface and run like f$%£ to the ocean" it does that because the only ancestors it has, did that.

[Raider5678]

 

A random genetic mutation that resulted in an increased chance of the organism surviving long enough to reproduce.

I wonder how the idea behind thoroughbred horses works?

I thought that was simply take the healthiest horses, train them. Then breed them. From there, keep doing that to get healthier, stronger, and faster horses.

 

I can see why you'd think that way, inherited traits, after all, are there for all to see.

 

But you're confused as to how evolution actually works i.e. you pass on your genes not your thoughts.

Okay, but what about child development?

 

If you separate a child from humans at birth, they won't be as smart. Logically speaking and educationally speaking.

If they expose them to a lot of education and teach them a lot, their mind develops smarter. Hence the case for teaching kids at a young age.

Now I'd assume it works for primates as well.

If during childhood, it's taught and raised by primates that have a lot of logical capacity, wouldn't they also somewhat teach their kids that? Even if the child doesn't learn 100% of their logical ability, it will be smarter then it's parents were at the same age.

So continuing to expose it to logic problems, it will be able to solve slightly more complex ones then it's parents. Simply because it's parents passed on a small amount of their logical ability through TEACHING, not genes.

Eventually, if more and more logic is taught with each generation, then the child will develop smarter and smarter each generation. Even if only a little bit.

[dimreepr]

I wonder how the idea behind thoroughbred horses works?.

 

I thought that was simply take the healthiest horses, train them (select the fastest). Then breed them (and repeat). From there, keep doing that to get healthier, stronger, and faster horses

 

 

FTFY

[Raider5678]

 

 

 

 

FTFY

Thanks.

But doesn't that further prove my point?

Training the horses doesn't change their genes. But somehow it passes on those traits to it's offspring?

Or does it actually change it's genes associated with those areas? In which case, the primate idea would theoretically work in a basic level.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

 

Thanks.

But doesn't that further prove my point?

Training the horses doesn't change their genes. But somehow it passes on those traits to it's offspring?

Or does it actually change it's genes associated with those areas? In which case, the primate idea would theoretically work in a basic level.

 

It's not the training that's important, it's selecting and breeding from the fastest.

[Raider5678]

 

It's not the training that's important, it's selecting and breeding from the fastest.

So taking the fastest.

Tomato tomahto.

Replace horses with primates and replace fastest with smartest.

[dimreepr]

So taking the fastest.

Tomato tomahto.

Replace horses with primates and replace fastest with smartest.

 

Evolution has no design or desire, it just happens.

[CharonY]

I wonder how the idea behind thoroughbred horses works?

I thought that was simply take the healthiest horses, train them. Then breed them. From there, keep doing that to get healthier, stronger, and faster horses.

Okay, but what about child development?

 

If you separate a child from humans at birth, they won't be as smart. Logically speaking and educationally speaking.

If they expose them to a lot of education and teach them a lot, their mind develops smarter. Hence the case for teaching kids at a young age.

Now I'd assume it works for primates as well.

If during childhood, it's taught and raised by primates that have a lot of logical capacity, wouldn't they also somewhat teach their kids that? Even if the child doesn't learn 100% of their logical ability, it will be smarter then it's parents were at the same age.

So continuing to expose it to logic problems, it will be able to solve slightly more complex ones then it's parents. Simply because it's parents passed on a small amount of their logical ability through TEACHING, not genes.

Eventually, if more and more logic is taught with each generation, then the child will develop smarter and smarter each generation. Even if only a little bit.

 

Nope. As the training is not passed on its genes, there is no reason to assume that the next generation will be smarter (however one wants to define smartness). They may have access to more information, though, which is a different matter. You are imagining a progression that exist due to accumulation of tools and information, not due to biological mechanisms.

[Raider5678]

 

Nope. As the training is not passed on its genes, there is no reason to assume that the next generation will be smarter (however one wants to define smartness). They may have access to more information, though, which is a different matter. You are imagining a progression that exist due to accumulation of tools and information, not due to biological mechanisms.

That's what the entire post was about man.

An accumulation of logical ability.

 

But, of course, the whole thing still relies on the idea that primates have not reached their max mental capacity.

[CharonY]

It does not tell you anything about mental capacities. Just that you have access to more information. The way your brain processes is, is not going to be significantly different from your parents or your grand-grand-grand.... parents.

And even if more information is available that does not change your starting position. The next generation would need to start reading from 0 again to catch up to the knowledge of their parents.

 

It is like saying that because I have access to the vast information of the internet I am inherently smarter than Albert Einstein.

Edited April 21, 2017 by CharonY

[Raider5678]

It does not tell you anything about mental capacities. Just that you have access to more information. The way your brain processes is, is not going to be significantly different from your parents or your grand-grand-grand.... parents.

And even if more information is available that does not change your starting position. The next generation would need to start reading from 0 again to catch up to the knowledge of their parents.

 

It is like saying that because I have access to the vast information of the internet I am inherently smarter than Albert Einstein.

There is a difference to having access to and being taught.

All children have access to just about any information.

But the children taught from a young age, were smarter then their parents. Significantly.

[CharonY]

How do yo define "smarter". Also, do you think your parents were taught nothing as children?

Edited April 21, 2017 by CharonY

[Raider5678]

How do yo define "smarter". Also, do you think your parents were taught nothing as children?

The mental capacity to solve problems.

 

Did I even say I thought my parents were taught nothing as children?

I said that children that were taught more.

As in, they were sepecifically taught more then the normal child.

That should have been a given from what I was saying.

I know I didn't specifically say "they were taught more then the children that weren't taught as much" but it should be a given that I meant comparatively. Not as in "the parents were taught absolutely nothing". I mean come on. That was obvious. You're pulling my leg there.

[CharonY]

So we are limiting the discussion here to knowledge transfer here (i.e. how much a child is taught). You describe a situation where there is a distribution of children with different amount of training. How does this explain the the proposed longitudinal change in training attainment?

[Bender]

Why bother relying on the primates to teach the children? We can do that better.

How evolution works:

- take a population

- select 10% smartest (dispose of the others somehow)

- have these breed. By random chance, some of the offspring will be slightly smarter than the parents (and some will be dumber)

- repeat

 

The only reason to train them at all, is to be able to test their learning potential, to be able to select the smartest.

You will have to start with a sufficiently large population to keep the genepool healthy. The process will also be slowed, because you also have to select on eg genetic defects, docility, pelvis of the mother co-evolving with the larger brain...

 

You only really need to train the last generation thoroughly.

 

By the time this experiment is done, we can probably do this better and more efficiently with genetic engineering. Much like how genetic modification of crops is much faster than using selection.

 

PS: you eliminate epigenetics (environmental effects) by raising them all in the same environment.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Bender

[NimrodTheGoat]

All of you are overthinking it. Of course the robots will take over.

 

 

 

 

But in truth, I beleive that social animals would most likely have the advantage in the race of learning our knowledge. Who knows, evolution is random.

[Itoero]

Yes but if all humans become extinct (including all monkeys) then evolution will have to start from scratch and it will take about 3-4 billion years.

Which life survived?

Doers abiogenesis have to happen again?

[seriously disabled]

I think it's pretty much inevitable that humanity will become extinct at some point in the relatively near future, maybe even in a 100000 years from now.

 

The problem is that I don't think that other animals will ever evolve by natural selection to be intelligent enough to re-create all of our technology and science.

 

But the point is that animals don't need to understand technology and complicated science in order to live. For animals it's only about eating, reproducing, communicating and just somehow surviving.

[dimreepr]

The problem is that I don't think that other animals will ever evolve by natural selection to be intelligent enough to re-create all of our technology and science.

 

 

Why not? We did...

[seriously disabled]

Why not? We did...

Yes but it took about 60 million years from the first primates to where we are now. 60 million years is a lot of time.

[Itoero]

The problem is that I don't think that other animals will ever evolve by natural selection to be intelligent enough to re-create all of our technology and science.

 

But the point is that animals don't need to understand technology and complicated science in order to live. For animals it's only about eating, reproducing, communicating and just somehow surviving.

You seem to make a distinction between humans and animals.

[Bender]

Yes but it took about 60 million years from the first primates to where we are now. 60 million years is a lot of time.

Not really. 60 million years is only a fraction of the time life has been on Earth, and only a fraction of the time life will be on Earth. It only took a couple of million years (if that) to get from primate intelligence to human intelligence, and it might even have happened in a few short bursts.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Bender

[Itoero]

If all life dies, do you think abiogenesis can happen again?

[dimreepr]

If all life dies, do you think abiogenesis can happen again?

 

The question depends on why all life has died.

Edited May 3, 2017 by dimreepr