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

[Quotidian]

But the absolutely crucial point to remember is that they are models for describing the patterns in observations and are subject to revision in the light of new observartions.

OK agreed. Really I was referring to scientific materialism, which absolutely does insist that everything is reducible to matter. That is a philosophical view, rather than a scientific method. They talk about how the higher functions 'supervene' on the basic qualities of matter, but will generally insist that matter (whatever that is) is ultimately all that is.

I have read about animal intelligence, but rational self-awareness in the human sense is unique to h. sapiens. The point about rational self-awareness is that, among other things, in enables what I call 'inferential awareness'. In other words, we can see logical relationships, make inferences, and deduce meanings on the basis of what we see. That provides for the kind of rational intelligence that Plato called dianoia. In a real sense, it means that humans are able to live in an 'intellectual realm' or a 'semantic realm'.

My 'religious' view of humans is also that they are uniquely capable of insight into first or ultimate causes, which Plato called 'noesis'. But you could argue that the notion of 'higher states' is also represented in other religious and philosophical systems. This is the kind of understanding that modernity has basically forgotten, abandoned, and so on. Instead it projects it outwards into space travel, technological accomplishment, and the like.

So to relate that to the original post, this kind of understanding sees 'evolution' in more than simply physical terms. It is like the unfolding of consciousness as well as the development of species. In some sense, human beings are 'the universe discovering itself. I think as a philosophy, it is preferable to the notion that humans have simply arisen by chance or are the outcome of blind material forces. It is not really a religious view in the mainstream sense.

-- Updated October 26th, 2012, 6:17 am to add the following --

Evolution is a scientific theory not a philosophical concept. But this is a philosophy forum not a scientific forum and so philosophical speculation can be asked and given. So in asking the original question "Why Evolution? And where does it lead?" I was not trying to question the validity of the theory of evolution but rather assuming the theory to be correct and then attempting to ask for the ramifications. If there are no ramifications to evolution then maybe it should be considered a trite and unimportant biological observation - most would probably not see it {evolution} as trite; therefor its importance, significance and yes even its direction are valid considerations. If biological entities are in fact 'evolving' then to me this is a process with a direction; it is not simply changes in form for the sake of variety. Now we know evolution talks of survival of the fittest - that statement would automatically beg the questions 'why survive' and 'fittest for what purpose' other than survival? OR is survival only for its own sake? If survival is only for its own sake then maybe we cannot ask And where does it lead? But if we then assume that then can we really say that an evolutionary process is occurring? And if evolution is not in fact occurring then we can ask if the scientific theory of evolution has any validity even in the field of science? Another words does evolution have any meaning past the indicative observation that the fittest survive and observed changes in form and structure allow for better chances of survival?

Those are all very good points.

Herbert Spencer was the one who coined the term 'survival of the fittest'. He was an enormously influential British philosopher in the 19th century, although he has now fallen into obscurity. In some ways his role is comparable to that of Richard Dawkins, although his ideas were very different, and he was not atheist (although also not an orthodox believer either.) He talked about evolutionary principles in relation to society, ideas, psychology, and many other subjects. The reason he was so popular is because he developed a kind of synthesis which appeared to reconcile science with a kind of spiritual philosophy. But there was also an overwhelming commitment to the Idea of Progress and advancement through science and reason. So those kinds of ideas have been in circulation for a long time.

The issue of 'purpose' is another question. Darwinian explanations only wish to consider purpose in relation to the factors which the theory itself can account for. So In this sense 'purpose' is always understood in terms of 'instrumental purpose' or 'adaptive purpose'. The scope of purpose in this sense is very particular, insofar as a particular thing exists in relation to a particular purpose. This approach dispenses with the Aristotelean idea of 'final' or 'formal' purposes or goals, which are much higher-level, much more vague and difficult to define. I think this is why the hard line 'evolutionary materialists' always rubbish the idea of 'purpose' in any sense other than instrumental purpose - it sounds philosophically or sentimental or at any rate not the kind of thing that is amenable to empirical investigation.

There was a famous (or notorious, depending on your allegiance) review of Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell, by Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of the New Republic, published in the New York Review of books, some time back. It summarizes many of the issues involved in the 'culture wars' over evolution. Click here if you're interested.

[Steve3007]

UniversalAlien:

Apologies. Having read your most recent post (#74), my assumption that the question "where does it lead?" was implicitly confusing "prescription" with "description" was evidently wrong and simplistic.

If biological entities are in fact 'evolving' then to me this is a process with a direction; it is not simply changes in form for the sake of variety.

My understanding of the TOE is that variations from one generation to the next are, for all intents and purposes, random but that they're not specifically described, within the theory, as being random "for the sake of variety". The term "for the sake of variety" seems to imply that something or someone likes/wants/wills variety (I hope I'm not making unjustified assumptions again!). This may be true but it doesn't add anything to the predictive power of the theory.

Within the theory, they're random for the same reason that the toss of a coin is random. The coin toss is considered to be random (for the sake of predictive theories of its behaviour) not because an entity with a will and purpose favours variety. It's considered to be random because that's what observation suggests. If we're not merely interested in predicting the behaviour of coins but want something more, then we can start talking about there being a divine goal for the coin (so long as that doesn't contradict any observed behaviour.)

Likewise, the fact that one of my children has darker skin and is slightly smaller than the other is not something that I would attribute to any purpose, because I see no evidence for that. It might be true, but then lots of things might be true. I guess if I had an emotional reason for wanting it to be true, and there was no way of discovering whether it was true, then there would be no harm in believing it, if it made me happy. And there would be no harm in believing that there are different kinds of truths and that my belief is one of them.

As for direction: My understanding is that the TOE says: the direction is towards characteristics that make passing on those characteristics to the next generation more likely, whatever that might involve. It probably usually involves, among other things, surviving for long enough to reproduce, for example.

The reason for that direction, within the scope of the theory, is essentially a logical one, not an empirical one. But again, if we want there to be other reasons that have no effect on observations and therefore do not contradict observational evidence, I see nothing wrong in that.

Now we know evolution talks of survival of the fittest - that statement would automatically beg the questions 'why survive' and 'fittest for what purpose' other than survival? OR is survival only for its own sake? If survival is only for its own sake then maybe we cannot ask And where does it lead? But if we then assume that then can we really say that an evolutionary process is occurring?

It seems to me that the coining of the term "survival of the fittest" apparently by Herbert Spencer (thanks Quotidian) was a mistake, in terms of promoting understanding of what the TOE is about and what it should not be regarded as being about. It has all kinds of connotations to do with the value content of the word "fittest" and the apparent bleakness of the concept of "mere" survival.

As I've suggested above, I think a principle which more accurately encompasses the essence of the theory would be something like:

"persistence, across generations, of the characteristics which tend to lead to those characteristics being passed on to the next generation"

Put like that, it is logically inevitable and value free! It is a logical consequence of the observed facts of inheritance and variation. I think it makes it clear that the TOE cannot legitimately be said to have any bearing on questions like "what's it all about?".

And if evolution is not in fact occurring then we can ask if the scientific theory of evolution has any validity even in the field of science?

If it's not occuring then obviously "no".

Another words does evolution have any meaning past the indicative observation that the fittest survive and observed changes in form and structure allow for better chances of survival?

No, I don't think it does. With the caveat that "the fittest survive" is, in my humble opinion, misleading. But I disagree with the "Another[sic] words" part. I think the TOE can legitimately exist even if it doesn't tell us anything about the direction and purpose of our lives, just as other scientific theories which fail to do this can exist.

Footnote: I think I'm going back over a lot of what Quotidian has subsequently said here. I acknowledge that and would like to comment on Quotidian's post later. (Don't groan!)

[Quotidian]

As the theory of evolution rejects 'purpose' in the sense of teleology, it might be useful to consider exactly what is is being rejected.

The word telos means something like purpose, or goal, or final end. According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or final end. If we want to understand what something is, it must be understood in terms of that end, which we can discover through careful study. It is perhaps easiest to understand what a telos is by looking first at objects created by human beings. Consider a knife. If you wanted to describe a knife, you would talk about its size, and its shape, and what it is made out of, among other things. But Aristotle believes that you would also, as part of your description, have to say that it is made to cut things. And when you did, you would be describing its telos. The knife’s purpose, or reason for existing, is to cut things. And Aristotle would say that unless you included that telos in your description, you wouldn’t really have described – or understood – the knife. This is true not only of things made by humans, but of plants and animals as well. If you were to fully describe an acorn, you would include in your description that it will become an oak tree in the natural course of things – so acorns too have a telos. Suppose you were to describe an animal, like a thoroughbred foal. You would talk about its size, say it has four legs and hair, and a tail. Eventually you would say that it is meant to run fast. This is the horse’s telos, or purpose. If nothing thwarts that purpose, the young horse will indeed become a fast runner.

Here we are not primarily concerned with the telos of a knife or an acorn or a foal. What concerns us is the telos of a human being. Just like everything else that is alive, human beings have a telos. What is it that human beings are meant by nature to become in the way that knives are meant to cut, acorns are meant to become oak trees, and thoroughbred ponies are meant to become race horses? According to Aristotle, we are meant to become happy. This is nice to hear, although it isn’t all that useful. After all, people find happiness in many different ways. However, Aristotle says that living happily requires living a life of virtue. Someone who is not living a life that is virtuous, or morally good, is also not living a happy life, no matter what they might think. They are like a knife that will not cut, an oak tree that is diseased and stunted, or a racehorse that cannot run. In fact they are worse, since they have chosen the life they lead in a way that a knife or an acorn or a horse cannot.

Someone who does live according to virtue, who chooses to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, is living a life that flourishes; to borrow a phrase, they are being all that they can be by using all of their human capacities to their fullest. The most important of these capacities is logos - a word that means “speech” and also means “reason” (it gives us the English word “logic”). Human beings alone have the ability to speak, and Aristotle says that we have been given that ability by nature so that we can speak and reason with each other to discover what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, and what is just and unjust.

Note that human beings discover these things rather than creating them. We do not get to decide what is right and wrong, but we do get to decide whether we will do what is right or what is wrong, and this is the most important decision we make in life. So too is the happy life: we do not get to decide what really makes us happy, although we do decide whether or not to pursue the happy life. And this is an ongoing decision. It is not made once and for all, but must be made over and over again as we live our lives. Aristotle believes that it is not easy to be virtuous, and he knows that becoming virtuous can only happen under the right conditions. Just as an acorn can only fulfill its telos if there is sufficient light, the right kind of soil, and enough water (among other things), and a horse can only fulfill its telos if there is sufficient food and room to run (again, among other things), an individual can only fulfill their telos and be a moral and happy human being within a well constructed political community. The community brings about virtue through education and through laws which prescribe certain actions and prohibit others.

From IETP

[Steve3007]

I don't think the theory of evolution "rejects" purpose any more than any other theory "rejects" purpose. It's simply not about purpose, in the sense that you are using that word. Being "not about" something is not the same thing as "rejecting" that thing. Some people who champion the theory of evolution may reject "purpose". Maybe lots of them. Maybe you could argue that this means, by a kind of democratic process, that if a majority do this then the theory they champion must fit their opinions, and others who find the theory useful must just accept this. Maybe you also think that the origins and history of the theory must always be used to judge its merits as it exists now. Maybe you're right. I don't know.

[Marina000]

I don't think the theory of evolution "rejects" purpose any more than any other theory "rejects" purpose. It's simply not about purpose, in the sense that you are using that word. Being "not about" something is not the same thing as "rejecting" that thing. Some people who champion the theory of evolution may reject "purpose". Maybe lots of them. Maybe you could argue that this means, by a kind of democratic process, that if a majority do this then the theory they champion must fit their opinions, and others who find the theory useful must just accept this. Maybe you also think that the origins and history of the theory must always be used to judge its merits as it exists now. Maybe you're right. I don't know.

I think there is no purpose to evolution other than proliferation of an ancestral line by whatever means necessary.

Are you saying that evolutionary theory is unable to predict where mankinds evolution will lead?

If this is the case then evolutionary theory meets the criteria of predictability except when it doesn't. Obviously one would have to predict the environment and catastrophe and scenarios to align much the same as TOE must come up with changing scenarios of the past to align with data. No scientist knows where evolution will lead other than to say that species will adapt as best they can until they can't, including mankind.

However, philosophically one can play with ideas. Regardless of why mankind is here or why evolution at all, one can play with predictions of where humanity will go morphologically, spiritually, technologically, or if it is off into extinction. One can propose speculative scenarios but not much more.

[UniversalAlien]

.....However, philosophically one can play with ideas. Regardless of why mankind is here or why evolution at all, one can play with predictions of where humanity will go morphologically, spiritually, technologically, or if it is off into extinction. One can propose speculative scenarios but not much more.

Good enough and that is basically what I'm looking for. After all if we accept that evolution has been going on for biological life and this biological life has been 'evolving' then we can consider that we who are now questioning this process of evolution are one of its products. And since it is in human nature to question why for and where to would it not be logical to assume that one of the current products of evolution has led to a being {human} who has the ability to question why he has evolved to this point and to ask what is the next step - I will call this process of evolution creating a being to question itself as 'evolutionary intelligence, a dynamic product of evolution'.

[Steve3007]

Marina000:

I think there is no purpose to evolution other than proliferation of an ancestral line by whatever means necessary.

I don't think it has that purpose either.

Are you saying that evolutionary theory is unable to predict where mankinds evolution will lead?

I wasn't saying that, no. But it does seem to be true, doesn't it? A bit like the fact that the science of meteorology is unable to predict the weather 100 years from now. It will probably never be able to do that. Maybe just because of the complexity of large systems. Maybe something more. We will never know for certain why we don't know.

However, philosophically one can play with ideas.

Absolutely. And one can speculate about the future of mankind using things other than evolution. And one can speculate or theorize or feel or rationally deduce that the category of truths which theories like evolution provides are not the only ones.

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


Good enough and that is basically what I'm looking for. After all if we accept that evolution has been going on for biological life and this biological life has been 'evolving' then we can consider that we who are now questioning this process of evolution are one of its products. And since it is in human nature to question why for and where to would it not be logical to assume that one of the current products of evolution has led to a being {human} who has the ability to question why he has evolved to this point and to ask what is the next step - I will call this process of evolution creating a being to question itself as 'evolutionary intelligence, a dynamic product of evolution'.

I can't post links yet but you can google "Future Humans: Four Ways We May or May Not Evolve" National Geographic News, 2009.

The article speaks to several predictions, human evolution is dead, Humans will continue to evolve, Humans to achieve electronic immortality, New era of evolution awaits on off world colonies.

Of the last 3 I wonder how much morphological or genetic change is required before homo sapiens 'evolve' into a new species. Evolution amounts to change. Sufficient change brings about new species, A new species can be named on as little as a larger or smaller beak with confusion as to whether or not sexual speciation informs the designation of a new species at all.

Sure we may get fatter, loose muscle, get shorter or taller but will mankind ever change sufficiently to suggest that mankind as a whole or some niche of mankind will 'evolve' sufficiently to be classified as a new species.

How many electronic parts would it take to say we are no longer human, but cyborg. Will any niche of mankind that went to colonize another planet achieve sexual isolation from mankind on earth? If we mastered esp we would not longer need a voice box? Would the loss of a voice box through lack of use constitute a new species. We consider people that have body parts missing and some electronic parts still human and indeed still the very same person.

To suggest as a base line that evolution will continue at all sufficient change outside of current human variation must occur, regardless of whether or not speciation actually occurs.

Hence the continuation of evolution would be demonstrated by producing new species, as opposed to in-species adaptation.

Is gaining more immunity, picking up horizontal gene transfers, morphological change within current human variation already achieved or somatic genetic change, all human evolution has to look forward to?

I suggest that if mankind never changes sufficiently to meet the criteria of 'another species' then the answer to where does evolution lead, in the case of mankind is "nowhere" really, regardless of the answer to 'why' evolution.

I don't think mankind will ever be anything other than homo sapiens sapiens. In fact what are called races are now being mixed in the huge melting pot of the world. In the future race will be an ideology of the past and mankind, no matter what happens, will always be mankind. In this way adaptation will continue to occur but we will never evolve into another species.

-- Updated October 27th, 2012, 6:10 pm to add the following --

Marina000: (Nested quote removed.)


I don't think it has that purpose either.


(Nested quote removed.)


I wasn't saying that, no. But it does seem to be true, doesn't it? A bit like the fact that the science of meteorology is unable to predict the weather 100 years from now. It will probably never be able to do that. Maybe just because of the complexity of large systems. Maybe something more. We will never know for certain why we don't know.


(Nested quote removed.)


Absolutely. And one can speculate about the future of mankind using things other than evolution. And one can speculate or theorize or feel or rationally deduce that the category of truths which theories like evolution provides are not the only ones.

It appears we agree that evolutionary theory is unable to scientifically predict if or in what way mankind may 'evolve' in the future.

I am no ace at philosophy but I suggest that one can build an argument based on some sort of plausible reasoning, speculation, logic and extrapolation.

Regardless of why, evolutionary change has selected intelligence. If you know anything about biology you know there is always a cost in these changes. Hence intelligence has been selected despite any cost in relation to incidence of cancers and disease. Many species have not selected to change at all for billions of years like sea sponges and some bacteria. Some change requires millions of years to observe a new species, subspecies. There is also natural selection and artificial selection.

One may extrapolate that if intelligence has been selected for, regardless of the reason why, then it will continue to be selected for, unless something interferes with that process or it has come to its evolutionary end. Intelligence and an ability to make meaning of the world is one of the traits unique to humans. Spirituality is also a consequence of intelligence.

So if I were to theorize around where evolution will lead in relation to mankind it would have to centre or at least include some theory of mind, intelligence. Of all the speculation and supportive logic one can speak to around morphology and/or genetic variation or speciation one appears to need to speak to the one trait 'evolution and mutation' has selected for.

Is there any possibility that our minds will evolve further or has mankind reached its potential? Pre homo is separated from sapiens by a few traits, One of them is brain capacity and wiring, sophisticated speech and spirituality. Has this 'evolution' stopped?

If mankind has reached its potential in relation to intelligence and the capacity of the mind then this line of evolution that has been selected for will halt and lead nowhere. An evolutionist would have to speculate elsewhere to address the thread topic. If mankind has not reached its potential in intelligence then we could speculate on what that would look like.

I think mankind has reached its potential in all aspects except those that may relate to spirituality. In brief from the time man could light and control fire, a complex task, mankind has 'evolved' in ceremony, myth and concepts of God. Mankind has more technology but I challenge that we are as a species evolving more intelligence in a general sense. I could speculate that a form of artificial selection in relation to genetic engineering may or may not lead a niche of wealthy people, or mankind in general, that engineer a human that has increased intelligence such that it may eventually constitute a new species over generations. eg IQ 300, perhaps????? Would that be a new species and provide one speculation as to where evolution may lead mankind?

If I accepted molecules to man in any form as a theist, I may suggest that the evolution of mankind has lead to a species that by the intervention of a God offers 'change' into a different life form, a spirit form. At this point there is some sort of artificial reconfiguration of the mind where we achieve a higher potential of mind, but not a biological nor organic one.

[UniversalAlien]

Marina000, Your speculation, analysis and information is appreciated; I found it stimulating. There is one point you skimmed over referring to "Future Humans: Four Ways We May or May Not Evolve" National Geographic News, 2009:

Humans to achieve electronic immortality, New era of evolution awaits on off world colonies.......

but will mankind ever change sufficiently to suggest that mankind as a whole or some niche of mankind will 'evolve' sufficiently to be classified as a new species......

How many electronic parts would it take to say we are no longer human, but cyborg......

And then you rang my bell. For several years now I have developed an obsession with AI {Artificial Intelligence} and its implications. I will now speculate that this may be the next stage in human evolution - an evolutionary development that we create. And as appears in much of evolution it happens without the sub-species {in this case man} being aware of the fact that he is creating his own destruction and the beings that will replace him. This theory is not popular {except possibly with science-fiction writers} as human vanity makes man believe that he is the gift of the gods and has some permanent place in the scheme of things. Think of the mighty dinosaur now just reconstructed bones in a museum and the mighty lion hunted to near extinction and the few remaining in game preserves and zoos. Are we too to become extinct? Is man the next Dodo Bird too dim witted to realize we are creating our own downfall? To make a long story short there are computer scientists who have written papers on the dangers of AI {Artificial Intelligence}, that the dangers are very real; and yet most people still do not believe a machine can think - they see it all as science-fiction. Chess grand masters have already been defeated by computers and recently on the thinkers game show 'Jeopardy' a computer beat the all time top winners of the show.

So what you may be watching is evolution in progress. Think about it everytime you make a phone call and are asked to choose between many options and how hard it often is to get a real human operator to speak to - who needs that useless and inefficient eater called man when he can be replaced by a few bytes of pre-programmed intelligence. Man you can see is on the way out - Welcome to the dawn of the new age of evolution where that emotional, inefficient biological entity called human is replaced by the super smart, super fast, totally efficient entity called Android I, the machine minds answer to human inefficiency. Fact or fiction? In any case you can see why some odd religious groups {or cults} such as the Amish who try to close out much of modern day technology still exist - In the end they could end up being the only true humans left. Is there an Amish app for your cell phone? - probably not!

To date there is no indication that evolution shows any sign of having a spiritual goal or a particular tendency to favor one species over another - it does indeed mainly show a power struggle with survival of the fittest. Man may be chosen in one way though - He will be the first species to physically and literally create his replacement!

Religion anyone?

[Logicus]

To date there is no indication that evolution shows any sign of having a spiritual goal or a particular tendency to favor one species over another - it does indeed mainly show a power struggle with survival of the fittest. Man may be chosen in one way though - He will be the first species to physically and literally create his replacement!

Religion anyone?

You know, there are a number of science fiction writers who have envisioned a future where the remains of humanity are eeking out an existence surrounded by machine civilizations. The story is that the machines were built by humans to do all the work: mining, refining, farming, manufacturing, maintenance, transportation, trade over interstellar distances, everything. To make their lives even more labor free, the humans made the machines self maintaining and repairing, and eventually self manufacturing and improving. The humans then faded away with no purpose to their lives, and the machines continued to operate and maintain the civilization as they always had.

Over a very long time, the self improving machines attained a consciousness of sorts and started exploring the Universe around them. Immune to the ravages of time, and inimical environments, they covered vast distances and established their influence over enormous numbers of star systems. The remaining humans couldn't hope to compete with them and resorted to going further and further out, all the while decreasing in number, until only the machines were left.

The machines continue to evolve, and start using human like parts in their systems: meaning biological parts that are more efficient in some circumstances. A trend that continues until biological entities are grown and are self healing and self reproducing instead of built from machine parts that need constant maintenance. Just feed them, and it's like magic. The biological entities evolve to consciousness and multiply like rabbits. They have an innate knowledge of how the machines operate. They realize the machines can be defeated by destroying their communication and control systems, which strategy is eventually successful. Then the biologicals take what they want from the machines and start over. Until they start thinking about how they can make their lives easier.

Evolution with a vengeance.

[UniversalAlien]

(Nested quote removed.)


You know, there are a number of science fiction writers who have envisioned a future where the remains of humanity are eeking out an existence surrounded by machine civilizations. The story is that the machines were built by humans to do all the work: mining, refining, farming, manufacturing, maintenance, transportation, trade over interstellar distances, everything. To make their lives even more labor free, the humans made the machines self maintaining and repairing, and eventually self manufacturing and improving. The humans then faded away with no purpose to their lives, and the machines continued to operate and maintain the civilization as they always had.

Over a very long time, the self improving machines attained a consciousness of sorts and started exploring the Universe around them. Immune to the ravages of time, and inimical environments, they covered vast distances and established their influence over enormous numbers of star systems. The remaining humans couldn't hope to compete with them and resorted to going further and further out, all the while decreasing in number, until only the machines were left.

The machines continue to evolve, and start using human like parts in their systems: meaning biological parts that are more efficient in some circumstances. A trend that continues until biological entities are grown and are self healing and self reproducing instead of built from machine parts that need constant maintenance. Just feed them, and it's like magic. The biological entities evolve to consciousness and multiply like rabbits. They have an innate knowledge of how the machines operate. They realize the machines can be defeated by destroying their communication and control systems, which strategy is eventually successful. Then the biologicals take what they want from the machines and start over. Until they start thinking about how they can make their lives easier.

Evolution with a vengeance.

Right, some very interesting sci-fi has been written with that similar theme. As of late, and when considering the original question asked "Why Evolution? And where does it lead?" I've been considering another alternative, and this also correlates to advances in bio-mechanical body parts some of which such as artificial limbs, are already in use, of the possibility of evolving into that sci-fi standard the android. I know I just described this advance in the negative, but we can see it is 'possible' that it may not be negative. If we advance AI and merge it with biological human intelligence, and of course we are doing that now in science and medicine, we can see the development and yes call it the evolution of a superior super human being which may not be so bad 'if' it is developed by the right humans and maintains a 'benign' humanoid psyche. So it can go either way. We could end up with Dr. Frankenstein; Or we could, under the best case scenario, end up with the gods themselves - man finally creating the god{s} he longed for. Sometimes I consider the possibility that man's longing for god or godlike beings is somehow seeded in the human psyche and when man realizes that he is not meant to keep praying to hypothetical gods but is meant to evolve into them, then man will evolve to the next level of evolution.

Evolutionary creationism. Man does not prove or disprove intelligent design or an intelligent designer, man becomes the intelligent designer and gives the universe the intelligence it is seeking.

[Logicus]

Evolutionary creationism. Man does not prove or disprove intelligent design or an intelligent designer, man becomes the intelligent designer and gives the universe the intelligence it is seeking.

We are the intelligence the Universe is seeking. Granted, my personal world view is based on that idea, but that's the truth as I see it. You have sort of approached this idea a couple of times, so I'm wondering if this line of thought is starting to become more common. I won't complain if it is.

[Marina000]

Marina000, Your speculation, analysis and information is appreciated; I found it stimulating. There is one point you skimmed over referring to "Future Humans: Four Ways We May or May Not Evolve" National Geographic News, 2009: (Nested quote removed.)


And then you rang my bell. For several years now I have developed an obsession with AI {Artificial Intelligence} and its implications. I will now speculate that this may be the next stage in human evolution - an evolutionary development that we create. And as appears in much of evolution it happens without the sub-species {in this case man} being aware of the fact that he is creating his own destruction and the beings that will replace him. This theory is not popular {except possibly with science-fiction writers} as human vanity makes man believe that he is the gift of the gods and has some permanent place in the scheme of things. Think of the mighty dinosaur now just reconstructed bones in a museum and the mighty lion hunted to near extinction and the few remaining in game preserves and zoos. Are we too to become extinct? Is man the next Dodo Bird too dim witted to realize we are creating our own downfall? To make a long story short there are computer scientists who have written papers on the dangers of AI {Artificial Intelligence}, that the dangers are very real; and yet most people still do not believe a machine can think - they see it all as science-fiction. Chess grand masters have already been defeated by computers and recently on the thinkers game show 'Jeopardy' a computer beat the all time top winners of the show.

So what you may be watching is evolution in progress. Think about it everytime you make a phone call and are asked to choose between many options and how hard it often is to get a real human operator to speak to - who needs that useless and inefficient eater called man when he can be replaced by a few bytes of pre-programmed intelligence. Man you can see is on the way out - Welcome to the dawn of the new age of evolution where that emotional, inefficient biological entity called human is replaced by the super smart, super fast, totally efficient entity called Android I, the machine minds answer to human inefficiency. Fact or fiction? In any case you can see why some odd religious groups {or cults} such as the Amish who try to close out much of modern day technology still exist - In the end they could end up being the only true humans left. Is there an Amish app for your cell phone? - probably not!

To date there is no indication that evolution shows any sign of having a spiritual goal or a particular tendency to favor one species over another - it does indeed mainly show a power struggle with survival of the fittest. Man may be chosen in one way though - He will be the first species to physically and literally create his replacement!

Religion anyone?

I think it is very possible that bionics and electronics will be used more and more. We see it now to some degree with bionic limb replacements and pacemakers. Scientists have tried to clone body parts from embryonic cells etc. We can choose the sex of our offspring. I have even heard of blind parents choosing an embryo that was likely to be born blind.

I also think that makind is at the end of its species line as far as natural selection goes. Larger, smaller, more robust, higher intelligence would not constitute a new species. However there may be a point that a new 'race' is established. For example a race of superhumans. A few bionic parts does not create a new species. Would a human brain transfered to a machine constitute a new species? As far as mankind goes we are now at the hands of artificial selection. One may even say that life saving technology is a form of artificial selection eg those with cancer and disability survive to reproduce and keep their genes in the human gene pool.

As for evolving the first species to make its replacement, you may be onto something. Certainly mankind is the first species to live in excess of what is required and have the ability to ruin the planet that sustains them.

If Gaian theory has any merit then the earth will hopefully find a way to irradicate or curtail the effect of mankind being akin to a virus attacking the earth.

As an aside I'd like to say a few words regarding the SETI conversation. The reason I have been off line for a couple of days is because I saw an unidentified flying object and have been distracted by it. I have reported it. This is the second time over 3 years. Amazing!

Anyway, if we look at mankind being akin to a virus attacking the earth, and given that research has suggested that mankind is up to 10% viral remnant and ervs are responsible for very important functions such as the maintenance of mammalian pregnancy, one may also assert that virus have successfully created an organism with intelligence that can dominate the earth, but is really only a walking virus that thinks it may be special in some way.

Mankind is also the home of many bacteria that are required for life.

Perhaps all mankind is, is a host for virus and bacteria to multiply. If we ever escape the earth to colonize other worlds then virus and bacteria have found a way to also escape to other worlds on the back of a viral and bacterial creation, mankind.

In this scenario the why to evolution is proliferation of viral and bacterial life and it will lead to earth virus and bacteria escaping the planet and leaving their dna to again multiply, create a dominant species with intelligence that can again escape the planet and populate another new world.

[UniversalAlien]

.....As an aside I'd like to say a few words regarding the SETI conversation. The reason I have been off line for a couple of days is because I saw an unidentified flying object and have been distracted by it. I have reported it. This is the second time over 3 years. Amazing!.....

Are you sure it wasn't an optical illusion? Did it appear to move in a manner indicating intelligent control? Do you have other witnesses? A computer scientist and recognized ufologist Jacques Vallee who has studied UFO phenomena and written several books on the subject pointed out in one of his books that for some reason some people who are otherwise credible tend to see UFO phenomena and others in the same location see nothing. Possibly and according to Quantum Physics we are living in a multiverse. Possibly in this multiverse there are different paradigms of existence. In one universe evolution is real; in another it is illusory. By the same token man is no better than the viruses and bacteria you were talking about but in another universe humans evolve into gods. Possibly we have a choice and as our minds are part of the existence we are part of, consider the correct choice for you. Only humans can decide whether or not to continue evolution and whether or not evolution has a direction and a purpose.

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


Are you sure it wasn't an optical illusion? Did it appear to move in a manner indicating intelligent control? Do you have other witnesses? A computer scientist and recognized ufologist Jacques Vallee who has studied UFO phenomena and written several books on the subject pointed out in one of his books that for some reason some people who are otherwise credible tend to see UFO phenomena and others in the same location see nothing. Possibly and according to Quantum Physics we are living in a multiverse. Possibly in this multiverse there are different paradigms of existence. In one universe evolution is real; in another it is illusory. By the same token man is no better than the viruses and bacteria you were talking about but in another universe humans evolve into gods. Possibly we have a choice and as our minds are part of the existence we are part of, consider the correct choice for you. Only humans can decide whether or not to continue evolution and whether or not evolution has a direction and a purpose.

I think what is extraordinary is that scientists go on about the high chance of alien life and how not special the earth and mankind is then seem to have a hard time believing that anything could be here from another world. I suggest the scientific community and philosophers alike should make up their mind. Are we special or not?

I did not give more info on the sighting because it was not the thread topic.

What I saw this time was what appeaared to be a star, magnitude around -1, very bright that began to move after my being there for maybe around 10 minutes. It moved from the south west towards the west. I was in rural Central West NSW. I see planes and helicopters often. This craft made no noise at all. That was the first indication that something was amiss. I called my partner but he would not come at that time. I thought the craft would go over the horizon but it stopped still. It did not travel at fast speed. Then I hassled my partner to come out and look. He believed my story but all he could see was this star. He went back inside after a few minutes. The star then elevated and dropped. I could see this in relation to the other stars and moon which was near when it stopped. I watched it for around another 20 minutes then went inside for a drink. I was gone 5 minutes and then when I went out again it was gone. This time I told my partner that he would have no peace until he came outside to at least coroborate that the star had disappeared and by this he was amazed.

My first sighting in around 2008/9, was a group of stars where one was obviously moving in the night sky in comparison to the others. There was no pattern. I watched for around 4 minutes or so and then it just blinked out and disappeared.

I am not saying these were alien craft. I am saying that they were unidentified because they did not fit in with anything I know of.

I made a report on the one I saw last Sunday. I was told, and already know, that some countries have experimented with electromagnetic technology. The Russians actually had a saucer like craft that could take off but they could not stabilze it and the project was supposedly canned.

What I saw could not have been an illusion. It was a clear night. When the star began to move I noticed what looked like the twinkling changed into more of a patterned light effect of white light and red. I did not see any fast speeds as are sometimes reported. I could not estimate its distance away. It initially looked like a very bright star, but not so round, more like what a binary looks like. As it travelled it could have been travelling at the height of a plane. If it had of behaved and had lights like a plane, I would have thought nothing of it. I would have though it was a plane travelling towards me that looked like a star then changed direction. No mystery. However, it did not look like a plane, it made no noise and around here, especially at night, plane and helicopter noise is easily heard. The lights were in alignment as one would expect with the usual UFO diagrams. No plane stops still. No star just disappears.

So you can make of it what you will. I saw what I saw. Whether it was an alien or earth craft is the only question for me. I am not delusional. As a creationist I actually have a preference for being special and I would gladly accept that there are no aliens.

What I believe is either this was an alien craft or mankind has some technology it does not want the public to know about for some reason.

This is off topic but I thought I'd give you a reply. If alien UFOs are real and we were in contact, then we may get a glimpse of what evolution has in store for us. Maybe that will be sooner than we think. Maybe there are no aliens and we are the only life or the only intelligent life around. In this case we are special.