Science fiction proposal

[ScottTheSculptor]

Imagine a being who's sensory system is tied directly to its memory. Hardwired. All five senses sequentially writing data. Photographically. Add to this being a brain that evolved for millions of years under evolutionary pressure to logically extrapolate the sensory input as rapidily and as far into the future as possible. A necessity to outwit the other beings in its environment. That are under the same evolutionary pressure. To out logically extrapolate them.

 

Imagine a being at the peak of this evolutionary battle.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[granpa]

sounds like a titan

[ydoaPs]

Imagine a being who's sensory system is tied directly to its memory. Hardwired. All five senses sequentially writing data. Photographically. Add to this being a brain that evolved for millions of years under evolutionary pressure to logically extrapolate the sensory input as rapidily and as far into the future as possible. A necessity to outwit the other beings in its environment. That are under the same evolutionary pressure. To out logically extrapolate them.

 

Imagine a being at the peak of this evolutionary battle.

So, Vulcans?

[ScottTheSculptor]

So, Vulcans?

 

 

Actually . . . . . . . humans.

 

 

 

Every creature on earth logically extrapolates every move that it will make based on it's goals and its sensory input.

 

From flagella on tiny creatures to the predator-prey battle that is not about brawn - but on how to out extrapolate your adversary. . . . .

Edited April 6, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[md65536]

Actually . . . . . . . humans.

Humans are not the peak of an evolutionary process, but rather part of a continuum of evolution. Evolution has been ongoing for billions of years and humans have only been around for maybe a few hundred thousand. Given another few billion years of evolution, the results will be new species, not just "more-advanced humans".

 

Unless you mean, "peak up until now", in which case having our imagination restricted to only the past suggests we might not be beings who are able to extrapolate as far into the future as possible.

[ScottTheSculptor]

Humans are not the peak of an evolutionary process, but rather part of a continuum of evolution. Evolution has been ongoing for billions of years and humans have only been around for maybe a few hundred thousand. Given another few billion years of evolution, the results will be new species, not just "more-advanced humans".

 

Unless you mean, "peak up until now", in which case having our imagination restricted to only the past suggests we might not be beings who are able to extrapolate as far into the future as possible.

 

 

No. Humans will not survive, they will not continue in evolution.

 

But yes, they currently "believe" they are at the peak.

Their temporary position is an illogical hiccup in a long evolution of logic.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[Stefan-CoA]

Actually, recent evidence suggests that there are already several micro-evolutionary events underway in humans. I'm not saying that we will end up as fish-people any time soon, but we haven't stopped evolving. Neither are we on the brink of extinction.

 

And there isn't such a thing as being evolutionary better than something else, fair enough we are better at abstract thoughts than a shark, but a shark can live under water a whole deal better than we can. Currently we are just better adapted to technology than the rest of the natural world, although they are getting there I think.

[CaptainPanic]

No. Humans will not survive, they will not continue in evolution.

 

But yes, they currently "believe" they are at the peak.

Their temporary position is an illogical hiccup in a long evolution of logic.

We're not at the peak of evolution. We're just at the top of the food chain, and the masters (although quite careless) of our planet. That's something different though.

[ScottTheSculptor]

We're not at the peak of evolution. We're just at the top of the food chain, and the masters (although quite careless) of our planet. That's something different though.

 

 

Imagine a species that can "believe".

The definition of belief is to lie to oneself and accept it as and communicate it as the truth.

This same ability also gives this species the ability to manipulate symbols, record their incremental accomplishments and "have advantage" over other species.

 

This has no supportable logical extrapolations.

 

(keep in mind the title of this thread. While you're imagining the above. . .also imagine that the author of this thread is super humanly logical ;-) )

[CaptainPanic]

Please put the word "believe" or "imagine" every time you want us to imagine stuff.

 

It's not too often on this forum we're asked to believe or to imagine. It is easy to forget.

[ScottTheSculptor]

Please put the word "believe" or "imagine" every time you want us to imagine stuff.

 

It's not too often on this forum we're asked to believe or to imagine. It is easy to forget.

 

Apologies. This is a speculation.

Should I not do this here?

[ydoaPs]

Every creature on earth logically extrapolates every move that it will make based on it's goals and its sensory input.

Logic is not natural to humans. Our brains work by analogy.

[ScottTheSculptor]

Logic is not natural to humans. Our brains work by analogy.

 

This is a theory that may fit the available data.

 

I have another.

See my "cognitive" thread.

[md65536]

Imagine a species that can "believe".

The definition of belief is to lie to oneself and accept it as and communicate it as the truth.

This same ability also gives this species the ability to manipulate symbols, record their incremental accomplishments and "have advantage" over other species.

 

This has no supportable logical extrapolations.

But what is the difference between belief, and the ability to logically extrapolate the future (or "predict", as physics allows us to do), when the future has an inherent uncertainty?

 

It seems to me advantageous to be able to predict a specific future and act on it, despite the the uncertainty of that future. I suppose in other words, taking chances can be advantageous. Thus beliefs should have a measure of logic to them -- some beliefs are more logical than others but belief and logic are not mutually exclusive.

 

I suppose one way to make beliefs more logical it to incorporate the uncertainty into them, so that we can predict things but act according to an understanding that things may turn out differently. Then a belief is more of a guess than a lie.

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

But what is the difference between belief, and the ability to logically extrapolate the future (or "predict", as physics allows us to do), when the future has an inherent uncertainty?

 

It seems to me advantageous to be able to predict a specific future and act on it, despite the the uncertainty of that future. I suppose in other words, taking chances can be advantageous. Thus beliefs should have a measure of logic to them -- some beliefs are more logical than others but belief and logic are not mutually exclusive.

 

I suppose one way to make beliefs more logical it to incorporate the uncertainty into them, so that we can predict things but act according to an understanding that things may turn out differently. Then a belief is more of a guess than a lie.

 

 

 

Correct. You can only extrapolate from known data.

 

The difficulty is always in the quality or "truth" of the data.

 

All human knowledge is based on logic being translated into symbols.

 

Over eons this knowledge grows. it is added to the previous logically derived data. The complexity of the symbols grows. The belief grows. The "truth" of the data transitions from purely logic based to be more about the belief in the symbols.

 

 

What is the logical extrapolation?

[Srilatha]

Imagine a being who's sensory system is tied directly to its memory. Hardwired. All five senses sequentially writing data. Photographically. Add to this being a brain that evolved for millions of years under evolutionary pressure to logically extrapolate the sensory input as rapidily and as far into the future as possible. A necessity to outwit the other beings in its environment. That are under the same evolutionary pressure. To out logically extrapolate them.

 

Imagine a being at the peak of this evolutionary battle.

 

After the first few lines, I thought 'man'. But, it could also refer to any living organism at any point of time in earth's evolutionary history that was, then at the peak of evolution??

[farmboy]

Correct. You can only extrapolate from known data.

 

The difficulty is always in the quality or "truth" of the data.

 

All human knowledge is based on logic being translated into symbols.

 

Over eons this knowledge grows. it is added to the previous logically derived data. The complexity of the symbols grows. The belief grows. The "truth" of the data transitions from purely logic based to be more about the belief in the symbols.

 

 

What is the logical extrapolation?

 

What point is it that you are actually making dude, I'm not quite sure. Are you saying that it is wrong, or illogical, to build our knowledge from the ground up using symbols and that it is actually somehow more logical to just invent our theories without building on anything which has gone before? If so, can't you see that this is just fundamentally illogical?

 

You asked ''what is the logical extrapolation?'' By this I assume that you mean no logic goes into the formation of mathematically grounded theories. Again if this is the case I suggest you go out and learn how some of these theories are arrived at. Every single step in a theory can be arrived at independently using logic. Symbols (like c for example or one of the other thousands that are used in maths) aren't just established and then accepted as fact never to be revisited. These symbols can still be derived logically and they can then be used as the basis to create more complex theories. This is an entirely logical progression starting with real world observable data. I can't see how you are managing to find a flaw in it.

[ScottTheSculptor]

Human history with two cognitive modes.

 

Animal = logical cognitive mode

 

Human = Born in logical mode and traverse to the symbolic cognitive mode. Humans range in ability in use of both cognitive modes. All revert to logical mode under extreme stress. Damage in development likely to "stick" a homo sapien in the logical mode.

 

"Pack", as in "prefered group" ability evolutionarily gained around mid mammal - "protect the young" is logical all the way back.

 

Pack predator co-evolved with the herds? Probably after. The herds would have changed to avoid the predators. The long ingrained pattern maintained momentum long after the predators got clever.

 

Humans and dogs . . .

 

Pack is "prioritized emotional memory".

 

Predator is "superior logical extrapolations", speed and accuracy.

 

Human is "super pack predator", using all of memory for symbol manipulation instead of the limited ability in "pack".

 

Day zero: Neanderthal - pack predator, no symbols.

 

Day one: Homo sapien - the arrival of symbols

 

Men hunted and were logical. Women maintained the symbols and communicated.

 

There are still tribes where this is the way. Evolution matches the most symbolic women with the most logical men. The dancers, the pattern makers, the communicators, the symbol makers - evolutionary logic. This is the root of yin and yang. Male and female, logical and spiritual, fact and belief.

 

"Communication" would have started in families, families make tribes. Evolutionary patterns trapped in our DNA provides the diversity and brings along the survival tools.

 

Tribes that communicated could "believe" in the same symbols. Once a symbol system reaches critical mass then it is self sustaining. It has enough logic in it to get you "believing" but gets emotional rather quickly. Any emotional memory is prioritized over "reality". Any manipulated memory is prioritized over "reality".

 

So, you have multiple tribes. Some "believe" one thing" some "believe" something contrary.

 

Let's fight.

 

And then try and "convince" these "non-believers" to convert. If we get enough "believers" we can become an empire. All we have to do is *show* the non-believers how much "better" our lives are. They surely will start believing in our idea instead of theirs. And if they don't? Just kill or imprison them.

 

Once our symbol system is strong enough to deny nature itself? Fine. We are evolutionary beings. If we die off then something more logical will come along.

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

--

 

This also describes the worship and condemnation of genius. Genius is peak evolutionary animal combined with barely enough symbol ability to exist in symbol based society. Many just go insane amongst the insane. They are childlike. They are not greedy. They are "stubborn" because they are correct. They speak the truth. They are symbolized as great humans for lacking the ability to "believe". They are burned for not "believing". Then used as symbols. . .

 

 

Also explains "advertising"

Edited April 14, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[farmboy]

Evidence?

 

EDIT

 

Seriously dude, how do you arrive at these conclusions? I am genuinely curious. As far as I can see there is no logic in your conclusions, it is just the ideas that sound good or accurate to you. Is this about right?

Edited April 14, 2011 by farmboy