Philosophy Discussion Forums

The perceived balance in ecosystems is just the end result of species evolving next to each other. If you ever look up the results from foreign species being introduced into a different ecosystem, you will notice that the animals do not conform themselves into the perceived balance but instead use any advantage given to them even if it means the extinction of other species or the environmental destruction. Same happens when sudden changes in climate benefit one species over another. Spikes and declines in numbers are nothing unusual in animal species.

While the development of human intelligence can be seen as an anomaly because of to the narrow circumstances required to even begin evolving towards it, I would not call it a "mistake", simply because the word "mistake" indicates that there would be a right or wrong way to evolve, which I don't think there is. But even if I would entertain the idea of a possible evolutionary mistake, than it would seem more like not evolving towards intelligence in due time is the failure, given that the perceived goal of survival is not really met by species like Polar Bears and Tigers and so on.

As we are part of nature, to consider a species fit to survive, it would also have to be able to live in conjunction with us, as there are species who have done that. Also consider that we are the only chance life on this planet has to survive Earth once our planet becomes uninhabitable, be it through a meteor strike, the sun burning out or other disasters. As such, intelligence is a crucial component to retain life in the universe.

Humanity is as dominant as it is and as adaptable to all climates and circumstances because of it's intelligence. Overpopulation is a luxury problem to have as a species and even in the worst case scenario it would only mean large populations could die from hunger and wars, but after all of that, humanity as a species would still be going strong, a lot stronger than your average Lions or Elephants or Koala Bears, some of whom could go extinct merely as collateral damage of humanity having a bad day.

Obviously our perception of intelligence is subjective, then again we are the only species who would even care. Still, as Intelligence being our main advantage in terms of survival, how would this trait not be considered superior to species that are so strongly linked with their ecosystem that they go extinct if the temperature rises a few degrees.

Zhan wrote:I suggest that Intelligence is a subjective theory created by human kind itself. Yet human kind only maintains its theoretical measure of intellegence by comparing its very own being with other living types surviving on this planet. A genetic mistake might cause the human species to think in this manner. Yet where is there any Cosmic truth to be found that can verify the human species is the most intelligent ? The animal and insect world has an equilibrium which, despite its apparent ruthlessness and cruelty in human terms, works efficiently for the benefit of all to prevent an over crowding of any given species; plus an elimination of the weaker species of any type to eliminate substandard reproduction. And it all appears to work very efficiently. Whereby the human animal chooses to ignore these rulings; preferring to breed continuously without due regard to food resources, habitat, or spacial comfort. And it perpetuates it's ever regard for human survival by ensuring it's old and unproductive types survive as long as they are able through medication and care where in a balanced animal world the old and infirm would be allowed to die naturally or be eliminated by natural means. However the human 'intelligent' way is to preserve human life at all costs thus creating insurmountable problems totally unrelated to the efficient survival of the fittest and productive of the human race. In due course this so called ' intelligent ' approach to survival must surely lead to a form of mass human catastrophe unknown in the animal ' unintelligent' kingdom. A genetic mistake in the human being animal ?

Humans are no different than any other animals or plants in their breeding habits.

They all keep doing it until something external limits them.

Trees grow and cover the African savannah.

Elephants come along and tear down the trees and eat their branches and leaves.

Hence elephants control tree grown.

And tree grown controls elephant populations.

Any model of population will follow this approach as well.

Human population growth seems out of control at the moment. However unhealthy gluttony, cigarette smoking, bird flu, AIDS, car accidents, and suicides and genocides all tend here and there to curb human populations a bit.

What we need is a really big war like WW1 or WW2 or a really big plague like the 1918 flu pandemic to kill off about 10% to 20% of the world's population and then there would be prosperity again.

-- Updated May 31st, 2016, 3:21 pm to add the following --

Atreyu wrote:

Steve3007 wrote:Atreyu: I presume you're being ironic there and are not really suggesting that Nature somehow had a goal in mind from the beginning, and that the goal was homo sapiens sapiens?

Well, let's just say that at some point in time, Nature decided that homo sapiens would be a good idea, i.e. it was determined that a self-evolving being was necessary. At least in this corner of the Universe (Earth)....

The modern Catholic view is that at some point God put a human soul into an evolving ape.

If you believe in the Big Bang instead of God, then it just happened on its own, and as the apex predator superior to even the blue whales, the elephants, and the grizzly bears, humans have simply evolved all the way to the top thanks to a relatively large cerebral cortex and opposing thumbs.

Zhan wrote :

I suggest that Intelligence is a subjective theory created by human kind itself

The Human species is part of one living entity that survives on this planet, made up
as it is of all the life forms that inhabit it; each species of life relies for its
survival on the others and so achieve the best outcome for the collective existence of
all life.

The earth was created some 4.55 billion years ago.

Life existed on earth at least 3.55 billion years ago as bacteria.

There has always been a debate about the emergence of life, the chemicals that are
needed can be created but putting them together in the right and a life sustainable
order is an almost impossible thing to imagine happening.

The universe can be considered infinite and therefore the chemistry of life guaranteed
to be created and to come together in the right order somewhere, but, as this planet
at its creation would have been an extremely inhospitable place for the chemistry of
life, even if it existed, to come together in the right order it is hard to imagine
this happening in its early period of its existence.

There is perhaps a cycle of life that means that eventually simple life becomes self
aware and able to comprehend its environment, detect other inhabitable worlds, create
the technology to escape the planet on which it evolved, and even create creatures
in the form of the correct bacteria to manage a journey of thousands of years to another
place on which it can thrive and itself potentially evolve to become self aware, and
begin the cycle of life once more.

Therefore an intelligent species such as the human one may be the mechanism that life uses
to propagate itself throughout the universe; its role is potentially to propel the basis of life
from the surface of this planet to other habitable worlds where it can thrive.

This does not mean the human species will make the journey, the distances and time
scales are far to great for such a venture, it is life such as bacteria that human intelligence
will enable to be sent to other worlds, and it is the achievement of this that intelligence
such as that possessed by the human species has to be the ultimate goal of life if it is to survive
beyond the eventual destruction of the planet on which it exists.

The modern Catholic view is that at some point God put a human soul into an evolving ape.

Really? I didn't know that. Perhaps they watched the movie 2001 to get that idea. Maybe it was kind of a black slab incident.

Steve3007 wrote:

The modern Catholic view is that at some point God put a human soul into an evolving ape.

Really? I didn't know that. Perhaps they watched the movie 2001 to get that idea. Maybe it was kind of a black slab incident.

"2001 Space Odyssey" came out in 1970.

I learned the ape-soul doctrine long before 1970.

Maybe the chain of cause and effect was the other way around then. Was Arthur C Clarke a Catholic?

Steve3007 wrote:Maybe the chain of cause and effect was the other way around then. Was Arthur C Clarke a Catholic?

http://www.adherents.com/people/pc/Arthur_C_Clarke.html

Looks like he is a Protestant Deist -- the clockmaker thing.

Atreyu: "Well, let's just say that at some point in time, Nature decided that homo sapiens would be a good idea, i.e. it was determined that a self-evolving being was necessary. At least in this corner of the Universe (Earth)...."

Steve3007: "Necessary for what?"

Entertainment

Steve3007 wrote:Atreyu:

Well, let's just say that at some point in time, Nature decided that homo sapiens would be a good idea, i.e. it was determined that a self-evolving being was necessary. At least in this corner of the Universe (Earth)....

Necessary for what?

Evolution. The whole Universe is trying to evolve, and the evolution of mankind is a part of that process....

Where does the theory of Evolution contain this concept of "trying"? I can't spot it.

I can see why we humans, who are always trying to do things, might imagine that the universe is trying to do things too, by projection. But it doesn't seem to be true. The evidence suggests that there are numerous ways in which the human race might never have existed. You might then conclude that the astonishing unlikelihood, from the perspective of the past, that we do actually exist is evidence of something "trying" to make us exist. But I think that this astonishment at our own existence, against huge odds, is similar to astonishment that our legs are just long enough to reach from our body to the ground. What are the chances, eh?

Steve3007 wrote:Where does the theory of Evolution contain this concept of "trying"? I can't spot it.

It doesn't.

I can see why we humans, who are always trying to do things, might imagine that the universe is trying to do things too, by projection. But it doesn't seem to be true. The evidence suggests that there are numerous ways in which the human race might never have existed. You might then conclude that the astonishing unlikelihood, from the perspective of the past, that we do actually exist is evidence of something "trying" to make us exist. But I think that this astonishment at our own existence, against huge odds, is similar to astonishment that our legs are just long enough to reach from our body to the ground. What are the chances, eh?

Not everyone shares this view. Some of us find it more likely that the Universe is, generally speaking, more like a sort of "Big Plan" than a "Big Accident". And we don't necessarily base this view on any "odds" or apparent chances that things would happen to be the way they are. Some of us generally base it on the following propositions:

1) A lower psyche cannot recognize the existence of a higher one.

2) Order implies plan/consciousness.

To put it very simply that's all there is to it.

Anyone who generally agrees with those two principles is not going to look around and say that Everything is an accident. For if there is no Plan of any kind, then surely there could not be so much apparent order (apparent Plan). The order of the Universe implies a Plan, otherwise you have to be a believer in what I might call "Universal Coincidence" (that coincidence is sort of like a universal law which permeates everything) , and that requires more faith than believing in virgin births and man-gods...

Steve3007 wrote:Atreyu:

Well, let's just say that at some point in time, Nature decided that homo sapiens would be a good idea, i.e. it was determined that a self-evolving being was necessary. At least in this corner of the Universe (Earth)....

Necessary for what?

One possibility is that the biosphere is moving into a reproductive state towards the end of its life (given that it has another billion years left, maximum).

It seems likely to me that what we call evolution is the same as growth and metamorphosis - but from the perspective of a component entity. Humans appear to be functioning rather like the imaginal discs in a metamorphosing caterpillar.

Explanation of metamorphosis and the role of imaginal discs: scientificamerican.com/article/caterpil ... explainer/

First, the caterpillar digests itself, releasing enzymes to dissolve all of its tissues. If you were to cut open a cocoon or chrysalis at just the right time, caterpillar soup would ooze out. But the contents of the pupa are not entirely an amorphous mess. Certain highly organized groups of cells known as imaginal discs survive the digestive process. Before hatching, when a caterpillar is still developing inside its egg, it grows an imaginal disc for each of the adult body parts it will need as a mature butterfly or moth—discs for its eyes, for its wings, its legs and so on.

Fascinating speculations on the metaphysics of metamorphosis here: augustocuginotti.com/imaginal-cells-cat ... butterfly/

It goes like this: A caterpillar crunches its way through its ecosystem, cutting a swath of destruction by eating as much as hundreds of times its weight in a day, until it is too bloated to continue and hangs itself up, its skin then hardening into a chrysalis.

Inside this chrysalis, deep in the caterpillar’s body, tiny things biologists call ‘imaginal disks’ begin to form. Not recognizing the newcomers, the caterpillar’s immune system snuffs them as they arise. But they keep coming faster and faster, then linking up with each other.

Eventually the caterpillar’s immune system fails from the stress and the disks become imaginal cells that build the butterfly by feeding on the soupy meltdown of the caterpillar’s body.

It took a long time for biologists to understand the reason for the immune system attack on the incipient butterfly cells, but eventually they discovered that the butterfly has its own unique genome, carried by the caterpillar, inherited from long ago in evolution, yet not part of it as such (Margulis & Sagan, Acquiring Genomes 2002).

If we see ourselves as imaginal discs working to build the butterfly of a better world, we will understand that we are launching a new ‘genome’ of values and practices to replace that of the current unsustainable system. We will also see how important it is to link with each other in the effort, to recognize how many different kinds of imaginal cells it will take to build a butterfly with all its capabilities and colors.

— Elisabet Sahtouris, Ph.D., evolution biologist, lecturer and author of EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution

Humans appear likely to carry DNA from the biosphere to other worlds. So, if you ever wondered why humans act like such a bunch of dicks, it may be because, in a sense, that's what we are :) Humanity is sending "seeds" into space in search for a receptive "egg" to fertilise. Ancient mystics may well have been right with "As above, so below".

Felix wrote:Atreyu: "Well, let's just say that at some point in time, Nature decided that homo sapiens would be a good idea, i.e. it was determined that a self-evolving being was necessary. At least in this corner of the Universe (Earth)...."

Steve3007: "Necessary for what?"

Entertainment

Exactly right, Felix -- this was the foundation of ancient Greek mythology -- that the Gods created humankind for their own pleasure and entertainment.

The concept is certainly plausible within the realm of metaphysics.

There might has also been a similar related reason as well -- for company -- or to empower the birth of a Son Of God.

In Aristotle's day there was no Greek notion of a Son Of God even though the Egyptians had claimed and did claim that their Pharaohs were each sons of God.

Aristotle did not get this. However Aristotle did get First Cause.

-- Updated June 3rd, 2016, 11:56 pm to add the following --

Greta wrote:

Steve3007 wrote:Atreyu:

(Nested quote removed.)


Necessary for what?

One possibility is that the biosphere is moving into a reproductive state towards the end of its life (given that it has another billion years left, maximum).

It seems likely to me that what we call evolution is the same as growth and metamorphosis - but from the perspective of a component entity. Humans appear to be functioning rather like the imaginal discs in a metamorphosing caterpillar.

Explanation of metamorphosis and the role of imaginal discs: scientificamerican.com/article/caterpil ... explainer/

First, the caterpillar digests itself, releasing enzymes to dissolve all of its tissues. If you were to cut open a cocoon or chrysalis at just the right time, caterpillar soup would ooze out. But the contents of the pupa are not entirely an amorphous mess. Certain highly organized groups of cells known as imaginal discs survive the digestive process. Before hatching, when a caterpillar is still developing inside its egg, it grows an imaginal disc for each of the adult body parts it will need as a mature butterfly or moth—discs for its eyes, for its wings, its legs and so on.

Fascinating speculations on the metaphysics of metamorphosis here: augustocuginotti.com/imaginal-cells-cat ... butterfly/

It goes like this: A caterpillar crunches its way through its ecosystem, cutting a swath of destruction by eating as much as hundreds of times its weight in a day, until it is too bloated to continue and hangs itself up, its skin then hardening into a chrysalis.

Inside this chrysalis, deep in the caterpillar’s body, tiny things biologists call ‘imaginal disks’ begin to form. Not recognizing the newcomers, the caterpillar’s immune system snuffs them as they arise. But they keep coming faster and faster, then linking up with each other.

Eventually the caterpillar’s immune system fails from the stress and the disks become imaginal cells that build the butterfly by feeding on the soupy meltdown of the caterpillar’s body.

It took a long time for biologists to understand the reason for the immune system attack on the incipient butterfly cells, but eventually they discovered that the butterfly has its own unique genome, carried by the caterpillar, inherited from long ago in evolution, yet not part of it as such (Margulis & Sagan, Acquiring Genomes 2002).

If we see ourselves as imaginal discs working to build the butterfly of a better world, we will understand that we are launching a new ‘genome’ of values and practices to replace that of the current unsustainable system. We will also see how important it is to link with each other in the effort, to recognize how many different kinds of imaginal cells it will take to build a butterfly with all its capabilities and colors.

— Elisabet Sahtouris, Ph.D., evolution biologist, lecturer and author of EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution

Humans appear likely to carry DNA from the biosphere to other worlds. So, if you ever wondered why humans act like such a bunch of dicks, it may be because, in a sense, that's what we are Humanity is sending "seeds" into space in search for a receptive "egg" to fertilise. Ancient mystics may well have been right with "As above, so below".

The issue would be whether the biosphere as a cosmos has that kind of volition to harness its own power?

If it does then there are no needs for any proofs of God(s) -- because it is the cosmos that is The God-force.

If it cannot then the biosphere and cosmos are only the chaos medium within which the God-force then operates.

I don't believe any of the past Romantic philosophers would have given the biosphere and cosmos a soul however.

But paradoxically the First Cause of the God-forces must have given Himself/Herself/Itself a soul in such a like manner.

Areyu:

Not everyone shares this view. Some of us find it more likely that the Universe is, generally speaking, more like a sort of "Big Plan" than a "Big Accident". And we don't necessarily base this view on any "odds" or apparent chances that things would happen to be the way they are. Some of us generally base it on the following propositions:

1) A lower psyche cannot recognize the existence of a higher one.

2) Order implies plan/consciousness.

To put it very simply that's all there is to it.

Anyone who generally agrees with those two principles is not going to look around and say that Everything is an accident. For if there is no Plan of any kind, then surely there could not be so much apparent order (apparent Plan). The order of the Universe implies a Plan, otherwise you have to be a believer in what I might call "Universal Coincidence" (that coincidence is sort of like a universal law which permeates everything) , and that requires more faith than believing in virgin births and man-gods...

The words "accident" and "coincidence" and sometimes the word "random" are often used in discussions like this as a counterpoint to the concept of "plan". If you think about what those words actually mean, I don't really think they're appropriate. If we propose that the universe is not unfolding according to a plan which is analagous to the plans made by people (i.e. something which is aimed at a specific future goal) I don't think we're saying that it is an "accident". In my view, an accident is only meaningful in the context of a plan. It is what happens when a plan goes wrong. If we remove the whole concept of planning from the universe then it makes no sense to talk about accidents.

A coincidence is when two or more events are correlated in a way that strongly implies a causal link between them when none can be found. This word seems to me even less appropriate.

The "order implies plan/consciousness" argument is essentially similar to Paley's watchmaker argument. In that case, at least, I think it can be argued that the particular type of order that we see specifically implies the lack of a plan - the lack of forward-looking. But, at the end of the day, I have no problem with anybody thinking that there is a plan but that the goal is forever hidden from us. To me, that is indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from no plan at all, so it amounts to the same thing.

Greta:

One possibility is that the biosphere is moving into a reproductive state towards the end of its life (given that it has another billion years left, maximum).

It seems likely to me that what we call evolution is the same as growth and metamorphosis - but from the perspective of a component entity. Humans appear to be functioning rather like the imaginal discs in a metamorphosing caterpillar.

Is the last billion near the end? I guess it is reasonably near the end if we go right back to the 3.5 billion years that we think life, in some form, has been around for. But still twice as long as the distance back to the Cambrian Explosion. So lots of time for interesting stuff to happen yet.

Anyway, one trend that we certainly can speculate interestingingly about is increasing complexity. Various facts about the age of the Earth compared to our best guess as to the age of (this incarnation) of the Universe as a whole, and about the origins of the heavy elements that are required to make us, suggest that we on Earth may well be among the first generations of complex life forms. The universe may be evolving towards complexity and we, at our stage of development, might indeed be on the cusp of a kind of metamorphosis in which life (a.k.a. ordered complexity) spreads like spores out among the stars.

But perhaps it's still interesting to consider whether this could rightly be characterized by the word "plan"?

Humans appear likely to carry DNA from the biosphere to other worlds. So, if you ever wondered why humans act like such a bunch of dicks, it may be because, in a sense, that's what we are Humanity is sending "seeds" into space in search for a receptive "egg" to fertilise. Ancient mystics may well have been right with "As above, so below".

Nice image . Do you agree with Atreyu that the word "plan" is appropriate here? To me, as I said, "plan" means deciding on a future goal and then using one's knowledge of which causes result in which effects to decide what actions to take in order to bring that future goal to fruition. It all seems to me very much based on strong analogies with human actions. Maybe, given that we're part of the universe, it's right to make such analogies?

One possibility is that the biosphere is moving into a reproductive state towards the end of its life (given that it has another billion years left, maximum).

It seems likely to me that what we call evolution is the same as growth and metamorphosis - but from the perspective of a component entity. Humans appear to be functioning rather like the imaginal discs in a metamorphosing caterpillar.

Steve3007 wrote:Is the last billion near the end? I guess it is reasonably near the end if we go right back to the 3.5 billion years that we think life, in some form, has been around for. But still twice as long as the distance back to the Cambrian Explosion. So lots of time for interesting stuff to happen yet.

Perhaps much of the interesting stuff will be advancements that make interstellar travel feasible, either for humans or its AI plus the biosphere's DNA. It's a huge step that may take some thousands of years to achieve.

Steve3007 wrote:Anyway, one trend that we certainly can speculate interestingly about is increasing complexity. Various facts about the age of the Earth compared to our best guess as to the age of (this incarnation) of the Universe as a whole, and about the origins of the heavy elements that are required to make us, suggest that we on Earth may well be among the first generations of complex life forms. The universe may be evolving towards complexity and we, at our stage of development, might indeed be on the cusp of a kind of metamorphosis in which life (a.k.a. ordered complexity) spreads like spores out among the stars.

But perhaps it's still interesting to consider whether this could rightly be characterized by the word "plan"?

Yes, when it comes to the Fermi Paradox I quite like the "humans are amongst the first" hypothesis.

The spored imagery is very close to the ideas I've put forward - bundles of information capable of using local energy to construct entities.

Humans appear likely to carry DNA from the biosphere to other worlds. So, if you ever wondered why humans act like such a bunch of dicks, it may be because, in a sense, that's what we are :) Humanity is sending "seeds" into space in search for a receptive "egg" to fertilise. Ancient mystics may well have been right with "As above, so below".

Steve3007 wrote:Nice image :) . Do you agree with Atreyu that the word "plan" is appropriate here? To me, as I said, "plan" means deciding on a future goal and then using one's knowledge of which causes result in which effects to decide what actions to take in order to bring that future goal to fruition. It all seems to me very much based on strong analogies with human actions. Maybe, given that we're part of the universe, it's right to make such analogies?

Thanks, I thought it was a nice image too :)

I prefer "blueprint" to "plan". It may be inevitable that worlds will develop intelligent life capable of carrying DNA or other information to other worlds, just as it's believed that abiogenesis is inevitable given the right conditions and time. I find the humans-as-agents-of-metamorphosis idea seems more likely than the humans-as-a-cancer/parasite notion, which I think would only apply if we were less ordered and complex than what had come before.