Luc Turpin Posted January 1 Posted January 1 1 hour ago, swansont said: “Guided evolution” as I’ve seen it used, has an end goal in mind. Unguided does not. Unguided follows the rules that exist within its realm. The source of those rules doesn’t matter. This comment opened the door for me. Mind is my favourite subject. I am entirely in agreement with the above indicated statement. If you assume, as I do (backed by evidence), that there are varying degrees of intelligence (a substrate of mind for me) in all living things, then it follows the there is only one kind of evolution; guided evolution; not the one guided by a supreme being, but by intelligence (primitive at first in small living things) that gives a bit of vision back to the blind watchmaker. However, intelligence is only a single piece (important one though) in the complex puzzle that is evolution. Note: If the conversation remains on non-living things, then, by all means, disregard my comment!
mar_mar Posted January 1 Posted January 1 Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations heritable /ˈhɛrɪtəbl/ adjective (of a characteristic) transmissible from parent to offspring. So. Who is the "parent" of intelligence?
zapatos Posted January 1 Posted January 1 (edited) 5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: there is only one kind of evolution; guided evolution; How do you suppose slime molds came up with an "end goal". And what is its end goal? Does evolution simply stop once the end goal is met? What evidence do you have? 52 minutes ago, mar_mar said: Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations heritable /ˈhɛrɪtəbl/ adjective (of a characteristic) transmissible from parent to offspring. So. Who is the "parent" of intelligence? Well, based on your first two lines, there is no "parent" of intelligence. There is a parent of an offspring who inherited the intelligence. Edited January 1 by zapatos 1
Ken Fabian Posted January 1 Posted January 1 Not sure it is intelligence but natural selection does work a bit like trial and error, where the errors get left out in future iterations and the things that work persist. It can look like Life is making choices... but I think it is survivor bias.
Luc Turpin Posted January 1 Author Posted January 1 2 hours ago, mar_mar said: Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations heritable /ˈhɛrɪtəbl/ adjective (of a characteristic) transmissible from parent to offspring. So. Who is the "parent" of intelligence? No parent! As evolutionists would say, intelligence is an emergent property of life; as life is an emergent property of matter. -1
exchemist Posted January 1 Posted January 1 7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: This comment opened the door for me. Mind is my favourite subject. I am entirely in agreement with the above indicated statement. If you assume, as I do (backed by evidence), that there are varying degrees of intelligence (a substrate of mind for me) in all living things, then it follows the there is only one kind of evolution; guided evolution; not the one guided by a supreme being, but by intelligence (primitive at first in small living things) that gives a bit of vision back to the blind watchmaker. However, intelligence is only a single piece (important one though) in the complex puzzle that is evolution. Note: If the conversation remains on non-living things, then, by all means, disregard my comment! This seems a bit meaningless. Animal intelligence is, like other traits, a product of evolution. All such traits obviously play a role in determining the future evolution of the organism. But as we don’t say evolution is “guided” by the presence of, say, a sense of smell, or a pair of legs, why should it suddenly be termed “guided” when an organism has evolved a degree of intelligence? It seems quite arbitrary.
mar_mar Posted January 1 Posted January 1 2 hours ago, zapatos said: Does evolution simply stop once the end goal is met? Well, I am scratching my head. Where those new evolved homo sapiens???? 2 hours ago, zapatos said: Well, based on your first two lines, there is no "parent" of intelligence. There is a parent of an offspring who inherited the intelligence. Doesn't offspring=intelligence? 18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: No parent! As evolutionists would say, intelligence is an emergent property of life; as life is an emergent property of matter. I see. Life emerged by it's own.
CharonY Posted January 1 Posted January 1 3 hours ago, mar_mar said: Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations heritable /ˈhɛrɪtəbl/ adjective (of a characteristic) transmissible from parent to offspring. So. Who is the "parent" of intelligence? Not really, evolution is the change in the total genetic composition (i.e. gene pool) over time. Even if no traits are changed, the gene pool can. However, selection happens on heritable traits, which is what you are thinking about. But this is only one aspect of evolution and not the only one. And what parents transmit to the next generation are not identical traits, it is the genetic material. This is an important distinction as depending on the mix the next generation(s) receive, the traits might be quite different from those of the parents. 1
iNow Posted January 1 Posted January 1 1 hour ago, mar_mar said: Where those new evolved homo sapiens???? Some of them are interacting with you here. Some are being born anew each day. 1 hour ago, mar_mar said: Doesn't offspring=intelligence? Depends on the parent, but I’d wager not yours. 1 hour ago, mar_mar said: I see. Life emerged by its own. Beautiful, isn’t it? Profound and awe inspiring, even.
AIkonoklazt Posted January 2 Posted January 2 Quote What is the difference? If an organism manages to propagate, I would say whatever new features are propagated (regardless of how they became a part of it to begin with) have become part of the organisms evolution. @npts2020 swansont explained it in the originating thread: Quote “Guided evolution” as I’ve seen it used, has an end goal in mind. Unguided does not. Unguided follows the rules that exist within its realm. The source of those rules doesn’t matter.
mar_mar Posted January 2 Posted January 2 52 minutes ago, iNow said: Some of them are interacting with you here. Some are being born anew each day. Could you, please, expand your thought. So, you mean evolution of the mind. Do I understand correctly?
Luc Turpin Posted January 2 Author Posted January 2 2 hours ago, exchemist said: This seems a bit meaningless. Animal intelligence is, like other traits, a product of evolution. All such traits obviously play a role in determining the future evolution of the organism. But as we don’t say evolution is “guided” by the presence of, say, a sense of smell, or a pair of legs, why should it suddenly be termed “guided” when an organism has evolved a degree of intelligence? It seems quite arbitrary. A sense of smell or a pair of legs do not make choices in trying to achieve a certain outcome. However, intelligence makes this possible. Your sense of touch allows you to "sense" the keys on your keyboard, but its your intelligence that allowed you to know that you were typing an "A" and allowed you to type this text asking a very valid question. 4 hours ago, zapatos said: How do you suppose slime molds came up with an "end goal". And what is its end goal? Does evolution simply stop once the end goal is met? What evidence do you have? Well, based on your first two lines, there is no "parent" of intelligence. There is a parent of an offspring who inherited the intelligence. I do not know if there is an "end game", but there is at least an immediate purpose. In many cases, its' about finding food to stay alive, and this is best done with a bit of intelligence on your side, because doing it only by trial and error is costly in the survival game.
AIkonoklazt Posted January 2 Posted January 2 9 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: If you assume, as I do (backed by evidence), that there are varying degrees of intelligence (a substrate of mind for me) in all living things, then it follows the there is only one kind of evolution; guided evolution; not the one guided by a supreme being, but by intelligence (primitive at first in small living things) that gives a bit of vision back to the blind watchmaker. However, intelligence is only a single piece (important one though) in the complex puzzle that is evolution. No. The process of natural evolution isn't guided by anything. The overall environment responsible for both retiring organisms and allowing them to survive should not be considered to be intelligent i.e. the organisms may be intelligent, but the environment isn't.
iNow Posted January 2 Posted January 2 37 minutes ago, mar_mar said: Could you, please, expand your thought. So, you mean evolution of the mind. Do I understand correctly? no
swansont Posted January 2 Posted January 2 44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I do not know if there is an "end game", but there is at least an immediate purpose. In many cases, its' about finding food to stay alive, and this is best done with a bit of intelligence on your side, How is it that non-intelligent species are able to find food? 44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: because doing it only by trial and error is costly in the survival game. Do non-intelligent species all do trial and error? Or is this a false dichotomy?
zapatos Posted January 2 Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I do not know if there is an "end game", but there is at least an immediate purpose. In many cases, its' about finding food to stay alive, and this is best done with a bit of intelligence on your side, because doing it only by trial and error is costly in the survival game. So you don't agree with your opening post?!?! 3 hours ago, mar_mar said: Well, I am scratching my head. Where those new evolved homo sapiens???? Seems like you are scratching something else. What new evolved homo sapiens are you talking about? 3 hours ago, mar_mar said: Doesn't offspring=intelligence? No. Check your dictionary for the meaning of those words. 3 hours ago, mar_mar said: I see. Life emerged by it's own. Yes.
exchemist Posted January 2 Posted January 2 9 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: A sense of smell or a pair of legs do not make choices in trying to achieve a certain outcome. However, intelligence makes this possible. Your sense of touch allows you to "sense" the keys on your keyboard, but its your intelligence that allowed you to know that you were typing an "A" and allowed you to type this text asking a very valid question. I do not know if there is an "end game", but there is at least an immediate purpose. In many cases, its' about finding food to stay alive, and this is best done with a bit of intelligence on your side, because doing it only by trial and error is costly in the survival game. It seems to me you are artificially separating intelligence from other evolved traits, without justification. Of course a creature with intelligence will respond to its environment in ways a less intelligent one might not. But then a creature with keen sight will make different choices from one that has poor vision. But a more important objection is that it is the responses of individual creatures in individual circumstances that are "guided" by intelligence, if you will. There is no way for a creature to apply its intelligence to the evolution of the population of which it is a member, which is what would be need to it to be correctly termed "guided evolution". A population of intelligent creatures can't make choices about how it evolves.
mar_mar Posted January 2 Posted January 2 8 hours ago, zapatos said: What new evolved homo sapiens are you talking about? Homo sapiens, who has evolutionary changes in one's development. According to your questios 14 hours ago, zapatos said: Does evolution simply stop once the end goal is met? What evidence do you have? you think that evolution doesn't have an end goal. 12 hours ago, CharonY said: Not really, evolution is the change in the total genetic composition (i.e. gene pool) over time. Even if no traits are changed, the gene pool can. However, selection happens on heritable traits, which is what you are thinking about. But this is only one aspect of evolution and not the only one. And what parents transmit to the next generation are not identical traits, it is the genetic material. This is an important distinction as depending on the mix the next generation(s) receive, the traits might be quite different from those of the parents. What time?
Bufofrog Posted January 2 Posted January 2 1 hour ago, mar_mar said: you think that evolution doesn't have an end goal. That is correct, there is no end goal.
Luc Turpin Posted January 2 Author Posted January 2 11 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: No. The process of natural evolution isn't guided by anything. The overall environment responsible for both retiring organisms and allowing them to survive should not be considered to be intelligent i.e. the organisms may be intelligent, but the environment isn't. Guided evolution does not need the environment to be intelligent, only organisms. But organisms do shape their environment, at least their immediate one (e.g. slime mould) 10 hours ago, swansont said: How is it that non-intelligent species are able to find food? Do non-intelligent species all do trial and error? Or is this a false dichotomy? If intelligence is in all living things, then there is no non-intelligent species. There are less and more intelligent species. If there were non-intelligent species, then only trial and error would be left to find food, but I am not sure that this would be a viable strategy in the long term. 10 hours ago, zapatos said: So you don't agree with your opening post?!?! I should have said that I do not know what the end-game is, not that I do not know if there is an end-game. You were correct in pointing out this contradiction. 1 hour ago, exchemist said: It seems to me you are artificially separating intelligence from other evolved traits, without justification. Of course a creature with intelligence will respond to its environment in ways a less intelligent one might not. But then a creature with keen sight will make different choices from one that has poor vision. But a more important objection is that it is the responses of individual creatures in individual circumstances that are "guided" by intelligence, if you will. There is no way for a creature to apply its intelligence to the evolution of the population of which it is a member, which is what would be need to it to be correctly termed "guided evolution". A population of intelligent creatures can't make choices about how it evolves. First paragraph - No need to artificially separate intelligence from other traits as long as we recognize that intelligence is playing a role in evolution. Second paragraph - As a minimum, the organism's choices allow him to either survice or die, which shapes how species evolve.
iNow Posted January 2 Posted January 2 If intelligence is required for evolution then how did intelligence itself evolve?
dimreepr Posted January 2 Posted January 2 5 minutes ago, iNow said: If intelligence is required for evolution then how did intelligence itself evolve? "Oh come on, it's right there 'in the script'" "Jesus" 😣 "OK, let's take it from the top"...
swansont Posted January 2 Posted January 2 15 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: If intelligence is in all living things, then there is no non-intelligent species. There are less and more intelligent species. If there were non-intelligent species, then only trial and error would be left to find food, but I am not sure that this would be a viable strategy in the long term. There are organisms without brains. How intelligent is a carrot? An amoeba?
Luc Turpin Posted January 2 Author Posted January 2 15 minutes ago, iNow said: If intelligence is required for evolution then how did intelligence itself evolve? Intelligence emerged from matter, and then evolved by increasing its domination over the environment. This is one way at least forintelligence to have evolved. 7 minutes ago, dimreepr said: "Oh come on, it's right there 'in the script'" "Jesus" 😣 "OK, let's take it from the top"... No need for Jesus in guided evolution 6 minutes ago, swansont said: There are organisms without brains. How intelligent is a carrot? An amoeba? You would be surprised by how intelligent cells can be and they have no brains. Just the cilia and its role of scrutinizing the outside (of cell) world is astonishing. I can hear some of you laugh already, but you would also be surprised by the level of communication between plants. A good book to start with is the "Secret Language of Cells" by Jon Lieff.
dimreepr Posted January 2 Posted January 2 3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Intelligence emerged from matter, and then evolved by increasing its domination over the environment. This is one way at least forintelligence to have evolved. An ant has evovled to prove intelligence doesn't matter... 😉
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now