Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Alec Smart]

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)....

No, let's not just say that. If we did just say that, we would sound as bonkers as you.

[Ormond]

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?

And are you suggesting that you somehow know that Nature itself is not in some manner intelligent, and thus capable of goals? Are we perhaps seeing your faith again?

-- Updated June 4th, 2016, 10:14 am to add the following --

Yet human kind only maintains its theoretical measure of intellegence by comparing its very own being with other living types surviving on this planet.

Yes, agreed, this is where our view of our own intelligence comes from, a comparison to other living things on this planet. Ah, but wait, it would be more precise to say, "the other living things we know about."

What if there are species on this planet that we don't know about, species more intelligent than us?

At first this sounds preposterous because as I'm sure someone was about to type, where are they then? This challenge presumes that we could see higher life forms if they existed, thus our lack of such seeing seems to convincingly prove that they don't.

Here's what the evidence provided by many millions of known life forms may suggest.

Each species tends to be somewhat brilliant within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there, competition and survival of the fittest being what it is. And of course some species have remarkable abilities which even humans can not replicate. But...

The other thing all known species seem to have in common is that they are largely blind beyond their niche, having little to no need for this extra information.

A squirrel knows your back yard far better than you ever will, but it is utterly incapable of grasping the Internet unfolding on your laptop where you sit underneath the tree. The carpet mites living at the bottom of your living room carpet pile have absolutely no clue where the flesh flakes they feast on come from.

Think about it. Pretty much every species ever discovered, brilliant within a narrow range, and blind beyond.

Yes, our niche is surely wider than other creatures on Earth, but does that automatically equal our vision being unlimited? Are we fundamentally different than the creatures we arose from not so long ago? Seems unlikely.

What if like the squirrel and every other known creature on Earth, we are brilliant within a particular slice of reality, and blind beyond?

Here's an imperfect example. For most of human history, until quite recently, we had no knowledge of the microscopic, atomic and quantum realms. They were right there, everywhere, the whole time, as real as the nose on our face, but we couldn't see them. Of course we did eventually discover them, which makes this example imperfect.

Another imperfect example is our vision, which can perceive only a tiny slice of the electro-magnetic spectrum. We don't see reality with our eyes in the manner we presume, we see only a very small fragment of reality.

It seems reasonable to propose that there may be intelligent things going on over our heads that would be as foreign and inaccessible to us as the Internet is to a squirrel.

The fact that we think we are an intelligent species may itself be the proof that we are not.

[Steve3007]

Greta:

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.

"Blueprint" and "plan" seem pretty much the same to me. i.e. a thing which describes how to arrange various bits of the world in a particular configuration with a knowledge, from past experience, that they will subsequently behave in certain ways that will end up with them being in a configuration that was originally desired by the writer of the blueprint, or plan.

Ormond:

And are you suggesting that you somehow know that Nature itself is not in some manner intelligent, and thus capable of goals? Are we perhaps seeing your faith again?

Nice one. No, I don't know anything for certain. I've said that many many times. Like everyone else, all I can do is spot patterns in my observations, speculate as to whether those patterns might continue in as-yet unmade observations and discuss the meanings of words.

So I can start by discussing what the word "intelligent" means and observe that we define it, as we do most things, by pointing to something and saying: "that". In this case, when asked "what does the word intelligent mean?" all we can do is point to humans and other animals and say "that thing that they do when they work stuff out".

I can then discuss the definition of the word "goal". It seems to be what these "intelligent" things do when they spot patterns in the world and use those patterns (through induction) to predict what the world would do next in various different initial circumstances, then decide that they want the world to do a particular thing at some point in the future and arrange the initial circumstances such that that thing comes to pass. This process of "arranging the initial circumstances" is what we call "design".

For example: Suppose I have a goal to make a functioning watch. I know from past experience that if various pieces of metal are put together in various specific arrangements they then tend to behave in specific ways. So I arrange them in ways that I know from past experience makes them behave like a watch. A person examining a watch, being a human being like me, knows that they would probably arrange them similarly to achieve a similar goal. So when they look at the watch they can regard themselves as having good evidence that there was some kind of "intelligence" that created a "design" with a "goal" in mind. They're not certain of this, of course. They're just using induction like we all do. They've spotted a pattern: bits of metal arranged in certain ways are usually arranged like that by a designer, so let's assume that's true here too.

So, next, armed with these definitions and the tool of inductive reasoning, we can look at nature and see whether a similar pattern can be spotted. So far, at least in the particular context of life on Earth and the development of humans, I've seen lots of evidence that there is no pre-decided goal. That's not conclusive. There may still be a goal. It might be a kind of goal that we don't recognize because the analogy with the kinds of goals that we might aim for with our particular type of intelligence might be inappropriate. But seeing as that is the only analogy we have, it's the only one we can use for now. So, so far, the balance of probability seems to me to be against the hypothesis that humans developed as a result of a pre-decided goal, a.k.a. a plan.

[Sy Borg]

Greta:

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.

"Blueprint" and "plan" seem pretty much the same to me. i.e. a thing which describes how to arrange various bits of the world in a particular configuration with a knowledge, from past experience, that they will subsequently behave in certain ways that will end up with them being in a configuration that was originally desired by the writer of the blueprint, or plan.

Steve, would you describe DNA as more of a plan or a blueprint? For me, "plan" semantically suggests a designer, intent, whereas blueprints appear constantly in non-human nature via DNA, spores, seeds, eggs and simply cultural communication (eg. bird call memes). To some extent it depends on how much humanlike intelligence is implied by "plan".

I suggest that the biosphere, like any living entity, can either develop fairly normally or not. "Normal' would refer to the evolutionary increases in complexity and order over time, with the consequent development of intelligence (as we define it) if all goes well. The process would be analogous to usual maturation in following a natural blueprint.

The biosphere can either grow to maturity or its growth might be stymied before reaching reproductive age, just like any other living thing. For example, a biosphere might not succeed in developing due to a unfavourable locale; a planet too close or too far from its star for terrestrial life would be roughly equivalent to a plant seed floating into a location too sunny or shady for survival. Other animal and plant analogies might be drawn with asteroid strikes, being ejected from orbit, black hole or supernova encounters, and so on.

It's obviously theoretically possible that humanity is an unsustainable mutation as per the OP. Problems can occur during metamorphosis where DNA instructions are improperly rendered, and I'm guessing that's a possibility with humanity. Maybe a case of too much growth too soon?

However, advancement requires large populations. If not for dense conglomerations of people, our advancement today would be far less than it is. Today, humanity as a whole is a case of emergence, a new phenomenon. I suggest that emergence, evolution, metamorphosis and embryonic growth are all the same dynamic observed from different standpoints or occurring at different stages. In each case an entity does not just grow, but changes its form - a change that is limited by its blueprint, its informational initial form. For us it's DNA. For the biosphere, we don't know. Maybe the blueprint is in the solar system's and the Earth's chemical makeup? (Just a stab in the dark).

If the biosphere is to reproduce* then its information must be sent into space in a protected and self-sustaining way, like seeds. For me, this is a point against the idea of humans as an unhelpful mutation, since any developments leading up to, or fostering, space exploration would be aiding the biosphere's possible propagation. That suggests that humanity, nature and the biosphere are more likely to be "on track with the blueprint" than off it.

I am not suggesting that the biosphere as a whole wants to reproduce any more than a caterpillar wants to metamorphose. It's not as though we chose to change from embryo to adult either.



* Whether the biosphere can potentially reproduce via its own natural blueprint or simply through human volition doesn't much matter with this attempted rebuttal of the humans-as-bad-mutations proposition.

[Atreyu]

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.

Well, it appears that the Plan involves some kind of "growth". The Universe appears to expanding outside of the boundaries of Itself. It also appears to move from the simple to the more complex. And also from the less intelligent to the more intelligent, as we've seen with life here on Earth.

Of course, that in no way implies any Plan. That could just be how the Universe works. Perhaps it's just the nature of the Universe. But some of us get the feeling that such an apparatus implies a corresponding Mind or Plan. A certain kind of will or intention seems to be behind such a Universal process. The "ummpphh" which seems to be driving it all, to be behind it all, does not give us the impression of being completely mechanical....

[Steve3007]

Greta:

Steve, would you describe DNA as more of a plan or a blueprint?

You may think this odd, but strictly speaking I wouldn't describe it as either. We might describe it like that in a metaphorical way - by analogy with things that are actually plans or blueprints. But, still, it seems to me that it is inherent in the meaning of both those words that there is a mind that has decided how he/she/it wants things to be at some point in the future and has worked out, using their knowledge of physics and chemistry (a.k.a. the patterns in their past observations) how to achieve that.

This may be true of DNA. It may have been designed by a creator. But I see no evidence of that so far, and, from my limited, layman's popular-biochemistry-book-reading perspective there seems to be plenty of evidence of the lack of a plan or blueprint. Plenty of evidence that DNA has formed without any ability to look at what would be most advantageous in the future and how best to get there.

For me, "plan" semantically suggests a designer, intent, whereas blueprints appear constantly in non-human nature via DNA, spores, seeds, eggs and simply cultural communication (eg. bird call memes). To some extent it depends on how much humanlike intelligence is implied by "plan".

Yes, that's fine. If to you there's a clear distinction between "plan" and "blueprint" then I can see why you'd apply the latter to DNA.

Having read the rest of your post I can see your point. I can see that it makes quite a lot of sense to view the "natural" thing as increasing complexity. Clearly there is (almost certainly) much more complexity on Earth than there is on Mars or Venus. And I like the way you've managed to spare us humans from being characterized as a cancer!

If part of this natural process of the spread of complexity is the spread of life off the Earth, via the mechanism of the human race, then clearly we are part of it. Of course, it might not be. If the seeds of life on Earth came to us from elsewhere (organic molecules in comets, or whatever) then I suppose that could still be true. The Earth could be a temporary incubator in which complexity grows before spreading again. Or it could be simply one of many places where it grows for a while and then is snuffed out by its expanding parent star.

[Sy Borg]

Steve:

You may think this odd, but strictly speaking I wouldn't describe it as either. We might describe it like that in a metaphorical way - by analogy with things that are actually plans or blueprints. But, still, it seems to me that it is inherent in the meaning of both those words that there is a mind that has decided how he/she/it wants things to be at some point in the future and has worked out, using their knowledge of physics and chemistry (a.k.a. the patterns in their past observations) how to achieve that.

Good point. At present I'm not much concerned as to whether there is a mind or not behind all this complexity. That's politics. It's the remarkable goings on over very long periods of time that give food for thought IMO.

If part of this natural process of the spread of complexity is the spread of life off the Earth, via the mechanism of the human race, then clearly we are part of it. ... Or it could be simply one of many places where it grows for a while and then is snuffed out by its expanding parent star.

Yes, we can die at any time. For all we know, a rogue black hole could hurtle by the solar system and send the Earth spinning away from the Sun. Even if that occurred, some hardy deep Earth microbes would persist until permeated water was whipped from the planet by interstellar winds.

[YIOSTHEOY]

Steve:

You may think this odd, but strictly speaking I wouldn't describe it as either. We might describe it like that in a metaphorical way - by analogy with things that are actually plans or blueprints. But, still, it seems to me that it is inherent in the meaning of both those words that there is a mind that has decided how he/she/it wants things to be at some point in the future and has worked out, using their knowledge of physics and chemistry (a.k.a. the patterns in their past observations) how to achieve that.

Good point. At present I'm not much concerned as to whether there is a mind or not behind all this complexity. That's politics. It's the remarkable goings on over very long periods of time that give food for thought IMO.

If part of this natural process of the spread of complexity is the spread of life off the Earth, via the mechanism of the human race, then clearly we are part of it. ... Or it could be simply one of many places where it grows for a while and then is snuffed out by its expanding parent star.

Yes, we can die at any time. For all we know, a rogue black hole could hurtle by the solar system and send the Earth spinning away from the Sun. Even if that occurred, some hardy deep Earth microbes would persist until permeated water was whipped from the planet by interstellar winds.

We are so far out on our arm of the Milky Way Galaxy that the black hole in the middle of it cannot but affect us only very slightly.

Like all satellites, it is no doubt our doom to end up crashing back into it. But not within our lifetimes.

And the nearest other black hole is at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy and 2.5 million light years away.

So that black hole is unlikely if not impossible to reach us either, or we it.

If you are going to philosophize about the scientific discoveries of black holes by the Hubble Space Telescope you have to remember your rules of black holes list. Of course these rules are only inferred. But inductive logic is as good if not better sometimes than deductive logic.

Myself being a Romantic Philosopher, I am of course led immediately to the question of the Prime Mover. He/She/It/They must have done quite some fantastic chemistry tricks, or even nuclear fission/fusion triggering, to create so many black holes and nuclear radiating stars so as to fill the Universe with 100 billion galaxies and countless stars and planets and put all these IN MOTION. Ergo, "Prime Mover".

[Sy Borg]

We are so far out on our arm of the Milky Way Galaxy that the black hole in the middle of it cannot but affect us only very slightly.

Like all satellites, it is no doubt our doom to end up crashing back into it. But not within our lifetimes.

And the nearest other black hole is at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy and 2.5 million light years away.

So that black hole is unlikely if not impossible to reach us either, or we it.

If you are going to philosophize about the scientific discoveries of black holes by the Hubble Space Telescope you have to remember your rules of black holes list. Of course these rules are only inferred. But inductive logic is as good if not better sometimes than deductive logic.

Never mind. A rogue planet or star would wipe out the Earth just as effectively, truncating the biosphere's growth potential in the same way as a fatal accident would truncate our own personal potential.

It should be said there's an estimated 100 million stellar black holes in the Milky Way and it's speculated that a few thousand rogue supermassive black holes orphaned from dwarf galaxies that were cannibalised by the Milky Way are still floating around our galaxy's outskirts - the vengeful ghosts of victims stalking their killer :)))

Is everyone happy with the idea that humans are not a mistake but a potential stage of biosphere development, no less "natural" or "valid" than any other species?

[Steve3007]

Is everyone happy with the idea that humans are not a mistake but a potential stage of biosphere development, no less "natural" or "valid" than any other species?

Yes, I'm happy with the idea that humans are not a mistake because a mistake is something that goes wrong with a plan. I agree we're no less natural than other species, but only because of a particular way of defining the word "natural". Often it is defined as being, essentially, nothing to do with humans. In which case I guess we're, by definition, not natural.

I can indeed see humans as a potential stage of biosphere development and that's the interesting part, because it's interesting to think about why I like that idea. It seems that we all, in our own ways, like to think of ourselves as part of a giant ongoing story.

[Sy Borg]

Is everyone happy with the idea that humans are not a mistake but a potential stage of biosphere development, no less "natural" or "valid" than any other species?

Yes, I'm happy with the idea that humans are not a mistake because a mistake is something that goes wrong with a plan. I agree we're no less natural than other species, but only because of a particular way of defining the word "natural". Often it is defined as being, essentially, nothing to do with humans. In which case I guess we're, by definition, not natural.

I can indeed see humans as a potential stage of biosphere development and that's the interesting part, because it's interesting to think about why I like that idea. It seems that we all, in our own ways, like to think of ourselves as part of a giant ongoing story.

Yes, good scientists will always check themselves for potential bias and wishful thinking :)

It's a funny and true point about "natural" that you make. We humans are bemused by our weirdness in context with the rest of nature and inclined to see ourselves as separate. This is exactly the sticking point of the OP. If we look at humans and nature as separate then, yes, humans are wreaking destruction over nature and therefore a mutation or aberration.

However, if we see the Earth as a single system then humanity's development is part of overall natural development, and extension of biology in the same way as biology extended geology. What influences my views is not wishful thinking* but the fact that humans are creating greater order, and also that our presence seems the best and fastest way for the biosphere to reproduce.

Some would wonder why the biosphere would reproduce. The biosphere tends to be treated as an isolated, standalone entity without connection to any others - in much the same way as we see the universe - and therefore it would have no imperative to reproduce, no evolved processes. However, if we see reproduction and the reproductive system as simply extensions and facilitants of life's basic drive towards survival and growth, then even an "inexperienced" emergent biosphere, akin to LUCA, could conceivably be driven to push its information outwards by whatever means.


* Re: wishful thinking. It would be nice to think that the pain of change will count towards something better. The emergent "moth" appears to mourn to demise of the caterpillar. However, there can be no more caterpillars without the moth's ability to distribute its genetic material.

[Atreyu]

It's a funny and true point about "natural" that you make. We humans are bemused by our weirdness in context with the rest of nature and inclined to see ourselves as separate. This is exactly the sticking point of the OP. If we look at humans and nature as separate then, yes, humans are wreaking destruction over nature and therefore a mutation or aberration.

Exactly. Here is how one of my teachers put it, so long ago. I still remember his words:

He said, "Mankind thinks that he is battling with, struggling against, and to some extent overcoming the forces of Nature, with some battles being won, and others lost, but on the whole a general 'progress' seems be unfolding. And indeed at first glance it would appear to be so. But what He does not realize is that if He struggles against Her, it is because She wishes for Him to do so. Man did not choose to try and overcome Her, yea it was She who forced him to do so. So it is as if Man is an outcast of Nature, battling and struggling against the natural order, not because he wants to or chooses to, but because he has to. For even as Mankind battles and struggles against Her, he always conforms to Her interests...."

[Sy Borg]

Antreyu:

Here is how one of my teachers put it, so long ago. I still remember his words:

He said, "Mankind thinks that he is battling with, struggling against, and to some extent overcoming the forces of Nature, with some battles being won, and others lost, but on the whole a general 'progress' seems be unfolding. And indeed at first glance it would appear to be so. But what He does not realize is that if He struggles against Her, it is because She wishes for Him to do so. Man did not choose to try and overcome Her, yea it was She who forced him to do so. So it is as if Man is an outcast of Nature, battling and struggling against the natural order, not because he wants to or chooses to, but because he has to. For even as Mankind battles and struggles against Her, he always conforms to Her interests...."

Poetic, but yes, that's how the situation seems. We are little sentient bags of water and goop as rooted and beholden to the atmosphere as surely as trees are rooted and beholden to the earth. H. sapiens started as a tiny part of a much larger system but we are spreading out and taking control of the system, just as in evolution emergent brains started to control the former centre of the organism - the digestive system. And that emergent "brain" is compelled to search as far and wide as possible for resources, threats and new places to live. Humans just want to establish new places to be, and a by-product of this urge is the possible seeding of the biosphere elsewhere.

All in all, the dynamics around the Anthropocene period seems fairly typical of natural processes, just oddly more aware and empowered.

[YIOSTHEOY]

Antreyu:

Here is how one of my teachers put it, so long ago. I still remember his words:

He said, "Mankind thinks that he is battling with, struggling against, and to some extent overcoming the forces of Nature, with some battles being won, and others lost, but on the whole a general 'progress' seems be unfolding. And indeed at first glance it would appear to be so. But what He does not realize is that if He struggles against Her, it is because She wishes for Him to do so. Man did not choose to try and overcome Her, yea it was She who forced him to do so. So it is as if Man is an outcast of Nature, battling and struggling against the natural order, not because he wants to or chooses to, but because he has to. For even as Mankind battles and struggles against Her, he always conforms to Her interests...."

Poetic, but yes, that's how the situation seems. We are little sentient bags of water and goop as rooted and beholden to the atmosphere as surely as trees are rooted and beholden to the earth. H. sapiens started as a tiny part of a much larger system but we are spreading out and taking control of the system, just as in evolution emergent brains started to control the former centre of the organism - the digestive system. And that emergent "brain" is compelled to search as far and wide as possible for resources, threats and new places to live. Humans just want to establish new places to be, and a by-product of this urge is the possible seeding of the biosphere elsewhere.

All in all, the dynamics around the Anthropocene period seems fairly typical of natural processes, just oddly more aware and empowered.

Just as a reminder, those are all ideas based on their own mythologies about cave people.

We really don't know how we got here.

And one ironic twist to everything is that the further into the past we dig archaeologically the more complex the civilizations are -- Knossos on Crete for example which was prosperous around 2000 BCE.

Same is true of language -- the older the language -- such as ancient Greek -- the more complex it is.

-- Updated June 7th, 2016, 1:23 am to add the following --

It's a funny and true point about "natural" that you make. We humans are bemused by our weirdness in context with the rest of nature and inclined to see ourselves as separate. This is exactly the sticking point of the OP. If we look at humans and nature as separate then, yes, humans are wreaking destruction over nature and therefore a mutation or aberration.

Exactly. Here is how one of my teachers put it, so long ago. I still remember his words:

He said, "Mankind thinks that he is battling with, struggling against, and to some extent overcoming the forces of Nature, with some battles being won, and others lost, but on the whole a general 'progress' seems be unfolding. And indeed at first glance it would appear to be so. But what He does not realize is that if He struggles against Her, it is because She wishes for Him to do so. Man did not choose to try and overcome Her, yea it was She who forced him to do so. So it is as if Man is an outcast of Nature, battling and struggling against the natural order, not because he wants to or chooses to, but because he has to. For even as Mankind battles and struggles against Her, he always conforms to Her interests...."

That's poetic but not very good Philosophy nor Science.

[Sy Borg]

We really don't know how we got here.

Hominid evolution is increasingly well recorded. Humans "got here" the same way as everything else. Our difference is due to an extended period of dominance and isolation, with all intermediate hominid forms out-competed (hence a lack of most hominid species today).

And one ironic twist to everything is that the further into the past we dig archaeologically the more complex the civilizations are -- Knossos on Crete for example which was prosperous around 2000 BCE.

Same is true of language -- the older the language -- such as ancient Greek -- the more complex it is.

It means nothing. Different cultures mature at different times. Languages are more complex when formative because they streamline over time. Compare Shakespearean language with textspeak.