I believe our history starts from the moment we're being fucked to existence. — Yozhura

:rofl: No comment! That way funny! Will get back to you. Later, alligator!

Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘ — Wayfarer

:up: Will get back to you. Thanks

First off, I don't get the analogy of a mirror unless you're trying to understand yourself, by which I mean both consciousness itself and its uniqueness as you, through physics.

Second, physics, all of science in fact, is not in the business of answering why questions of the kind that seeks a reason for the way things are. Why questions in science stop at descriptions of the way things are.

It seems the question why? comes in at least two varieties. One is of the type "why things are the way they are?" and the other is of the type "how things are?". As far as I can tell, science answers the second type of why questions and, for better or worse, like it or not, knowing "how things are?" serves as a jumping board to answering "why things are the way they are?" that are downstream as in subsequent to "how things are?".

It appears that I've made a boo-boo. It's actually like this: science's raison d'etre is to describe how things are but knowing that gives us a platform of sorts to answer why things are the way they are?, questions that assume a definitive form downstream from how things are.

However, if one asks why? of the scientific descriptions of how things are themselves, we're met with a wall of silence.

To illustrate, physics has a very good description of gravity in Newtonian terms i.e. physicists have knowledge of how things are in re gravity but ask physicists the question "why gravity exists in the first place?" and they have no ready answer.

If it's all the same to you or anyone else for that matter, I'd like some feedback on what I just said. Anyone?

They define you as you are today in the Present. — Yozhura

Something just crossed my mind when I read the above; perhaps you might want to know...

You say the past defines us and, prima facie, almost everyone will give you the nod of approval on that score and with good reason - it's a convention so to speak that people's identities are based on their past.

However, there's the small matter of selfhood before we begin accumlating a history that's unique to us. If the past/our history defines us, does it mean that everyone is identical at the moment we're born and a few moments after? After all not enough time elapses in that short period to develop a unique history that'll go toward giving one an identity? It appears that history/past as a defining feature of a person is not the complete truth about who/what that person is.

I like to look at it as if it's a journey. You start some place, wherever that is, and hop from one location to the another. The received opinion is that these various locales shape a particular identity for you but notice there's a "You" at the beginning of the second sentence in this paragraph. Who is that "You" who is, at the very beginning of the journey, without a past or a history? :chin:

What does reason have to do with it? Reason can hope to mediate, but that is against how almost all of us are made - the appeal to reason being, then, not very reasonable. — tim wood

In my humble opinion, our passions are well-known causes of much misery - the emotional stress of aborting a baby being just one. They need a chaperone to keep us out of trouble and reason, allegedly, is the right person for the job.

Sarcasm? — Aleph Numbers

No! Genuine appreciation of a point well made.

But if one buys into the idea that it is always wrong to deprive potential beings of potential good lives, one is obligated to populate the earth with happy cows or some such easily pleased creature — Aleph Numbers

:up: Good one!

I've always thought of the abortion issue as abjectly moronic. We have, as we speak, a wide variety of highly effective contraceptives, from rubbers to IUDs to pills. Use them wisely and abortion is no longer something we have to worry about. If putting out a fire is going to be a problem, the easiest, most reasonable, thing to do is not start one. Right!?

Yeah, I need to clarify that. What I should have typed was, "An argument motivated for an emotional outcome". Such things only need rationalizations to support. Certain feelings, like social ties, may cause us to do "irrational" things. Take family for instance. Lets imagine an adult person you know has a severely abusive mother that utterly devastates them emotionally whenever this person visits their parent.

Telling a person in such a situation that they should never speak to them again, might be "rational" from an outside perspective. After all, you would do the same with a stranger. But most people will not respond positively to this if they are looking to justify their emotional bond with their mother. You could give every reason in the world why the person is wrong in seeking to have a relationship with their mother, if you do not address this emotional bond that is the true motivation of a person's actions.

For many people, religion is not a rational belief, but an emotional belief that is built by the bonds of family, friends, ideals, and "God". These are strong motivators that a person will continually seek to rationalize, while ignoring "rational" arguments that destroy them.

Saying to a person, "Faith is not a rational argument" misses the point. Its not the faith in the technical aspects of a God that people often hold. Its faith in the emotional bonds, that are expressed through particular statements and rules. Saying, "Ha, there's a contradiction on page 5 and 10 on the bible!" is worthless. The bible is simply a rationalization tool to support the emotional framework. It doesn't need to be air tight. People didn't start believing in God because of page 5 or 10. They believed due to the emotional feelings and social bonds it gave them.

This applies in more than just religion. Sports, politics, and even beliefs in "ideologies and frameworks". Many people hold to their philosophical beliefs to satisfy emotional needs rather than rational needs. Its just the way people work. The adage of "People being rationalizing beings first, rational beings second" has been said in many forms and many ways over the centuries. Its a well worn hat. =) — Philosophim

I see. A plausible theory you have there. It makes me wonder though whether there are any categories of people who are exceptions to this pattern of behavior? Philosophers, for instance, would immediately cease to be philosophers with such an attitude, no? I was tempted to cite the ever present phenomenon of back and forth between philosophers as a counterexample to your claims but then debates involve two people at a minimum; individual philosophers stick to a certain worldview that may suffer from the malady you described as rationalization.

Nonetheless, there's an attempt to reason, no matter how contrived or affected, even in rationalization, right? Commendable in spirit then, if not in letter.

By the way, was Socrates committing the cardinal sin of rationalization?

But I don't think there is a "discontinuity" between animal and human intelligence. The evolution of intelligence seems to be a continuum, with no Gap to be filled with divine intervention. — Gnomon

Really? Which other animal has a language as sophisticated like ours, language that has been pressed into service to achieve what to our closest cousins, the chimps, is an unfathomable mystery? Music, math, art, philosophy, science, etc. are nothing more than occasions for utter befuddlement to other animals including but not limited to chimpanzees and chimps are the next most intelligent animal in the list. :chin:

That "distinction" can be described in several ways, but I think it comes down to what IQ researchers call "General Intelligence" or "the G factor". Most animals are specialists, and their brains are well adapted to their narrow species niche in the eco-system. But humans have been able to adapt to every niche in this world, and is on the verge of attempting to inhabit exotic worlds, such as the Moon and Mars. So, highly-evolved space-faring aliens might recognize their kinship with the dominant animals on this blue ball — Gnomon

Which other animal can "adapt to every available niche in this world"? The "discontinuity" in the IQ graph of all animals I was referring to? I don't know if there's a better descriptor than "discontinuity". With that word I'm referring to a large spike in IQ which represents humans in a graph that plots animals on the x-axis to IQ on the y-axis of a normal line graph. I suppose "outlier" is a better word.

It does seem to me that reasoning backwards from my being intelligent to intelligence being an evolutionary advantage is a bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. — tim wood

Really? Then it wouldn't matter to your future as a successful member of society if you undergo a lobotomy now?

Given the primordial soup that is the parent of us all, it seems to me that if intelligence (undefined term) were such an advantage, more species would have successfully evolved to and into it — tim wood

I've considered that particularly vexing question but look around, read the papers, switch on the TV or radio. Do you think one intellgent species will tolerate, accept mutual coexistence, with another? Even as one species, we've barely managed to escape annihilation in two full-scale, global-level, wars and the third seems to be just a matter of time.

Of course, maybe we're not as smart as we think we are - a species wide Dunning-Kruger effect - but instead are just smart enough to be a hazard to all and everything. . — tim wood

That too must be factored into the equation. Are we really smart or is it a bad case of a dwarf among Lilliputians. It actually doesn't matter because what counts is relative intelligence and on that score, we come out on top.

no one really believes in Pyrrhonism — David Mo

I do but, sure, I'm a no one.

Pyrrho is a character of philosophical joke or a way of putting sticks in the wheel of absolute rationalism. It should not affect anyone with common sense (even if they are rationalists). — David Mo

Are you absolutely certain? Between 0% and 100%, what is the level of your certainty in the statement you just made?

That said, even if we admit that the basis of all knowledge is in some kind of belief, not all beliefs have the same kind or degree of justification. Belief in the flat Earth is less justified than belief in the law of gravity. This is due to a unanimously accepted criterion: that empirical evidence carries weight in justifying a belief. — David Mo

Agreed but is there a kind of justification that guarantees with absolute certainty the truth of anything, anything at all?

The problem with justifying a belief lies in the ability to rely on beliefs that meet certain requirements. We call these beliefs 'knowledge'. I do not believe that belief in God is counted among them. In any case, not if it is based on "faith" . — David Mo

You lost me there. My fault, not yours. Anyway, the problem is no justificatory scheme is rigorous enough to ensure complete certainty. That's Pyrrhonism for me.

emotional argument — Philosophim

What on earth is an "emotional argument"? :chin:

we are inherently beings that rationalize our desires, and rarely use rationality to create our desires. — Philosophim

Does this have something to do with Hume or someone else, I forget? Reason is slave to the passions kinda belief?

No problem. It's nothing substantive. Just a thought I had. I was hoping for some feedback, that's all. Thanks for the discussion and the links. Good day!

I mean, you already defined dominance so as to make humans come out on top, so what more do you need? — jamalrob

Yes, I realized that but then what's the alternative? The word "dominance" comes with its own connotational baggage so to speak.

This in particular is mind-bogglingly crazy. Seriously, unless someone can point out my own prejudices, this has gotta be one of the craziest thoughts I've ever seen written down on this forum — jamalrob

Why is it crazy? There are two widely-held beliefs:

1. Humans are an exceptionally successful species

2. Population is a marker of success

However, 2 contradicts 1 [ref: (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27] but both make sense, intuitively at least.

This is the "paradox" I want to bring to a satisfactory resolution.

And for God's sake drop the "pyramid of life", and "game of evolution" phrases. I'm out :razz: — jamalrob

I have a very limited vocabulary, so the clichés. So, yeah!

Thanks again.

What, then, is your next step? — jamalrob

I' sure you must've already figured out where I want to take this but if I must be explicit then...

Once we're in agreement that humans are at the top of the pyramid of life by any and all standards, we now need a metric that reflects that fact.

There is an indicator of success in evolution and it's, as far as I can see, an intuitive one based on the simple fact that extinction can't be interpreted in any other way but as a failure. After all extinction for a species is defined as a population = 0. We just put two and two together from that intuitive notion of what evolutionary success is and we're led to the inevitable conclusion that population size is an index of success. Are you with me so far?

However, you mentioned that there's a microbe with a population of (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27, a mind-boggling number that make humans look like they're on the verge of extinction. What this means is population, by itself, won't do the job in ensuring that humans retain their position at the top of the pyramid of life. Something's not right.

There are many options for a good metric for evolutionary success I'm sure and you've been kind enough to offer some of your own. Thanks for that.

However, I don't wish to discard population because it makes intuitive sense but because it alone gives us the wrong picture, it needs to be modified - I'm thinking a ratio with another measurable quantity - in such a way that it doesn't do violence to the pyramid we constructed with humans at the apex.

Quite a simple idea, no?

Please think about it some more, and read at least some of the paper I quoted. And please name a fact that I have denied, as you claim.

What you've pointed out can be explained by saying that for humans, in the environment in which they evolved, intelligence was an advantage and increased at an unprecedented rate. You've made no argument for, and have given no evidence of, a general advantage across the tree of life. — jamalrob

The underlined bit resonates with the gist of my post. Don't you agree that technology, a product of intelligence, has made it possible for humans to expand their reach into different, even extreme habitats from the hot equatorial deserts to the cold arctic, at rates orders of magnitude greater than the much much slower process of evolution? I mean, if we had to depend on evolution to make the arctic landscape our home then it would take millions of years but we've, with technology, accomplished that in a fraction of that time.

Kindly factor the above in your next post.

I'm going to speculate as to why an intelligent person like you might think that the apparent dominance of human beings on Earth is evidence that intelligence is a general advantage.

I think you have a conception of evolution as a game with a winner, and from your point of view, humans have won the gold medal. Since humans have succeeded owing largely to our intelligence (this is fair), then intelligence must be an advantage in evolution.

But notice that this conclusion simply doesn't follow, just in terms of basic logic. All that follows is that intelligence was an advantage for us. Imagine: some cyanobacteria wipes out human beings (it's possible) and becomes, in your terms, the dominant organisms on Earth. In its case, it had nothing to do with intelligence.

In any case, what is dominance, exactly? What makes humans dominant over cyanobacteria? — jamalrob

Intelligence, in my humble opinion, is an ability that any organism, with sufficient complexity, can acquire. Humans don't have copyright over intelligence and if it has served us well then, what prevents another organism from reaping similar benefits?

Allow me to define dominance: it occurs when a single species multiplies with little to no hindrance from predation and begins to expand their territory into all available ecological niches, sustains it to such a level that other organisms are outcompeted and driven to extinction.

Are humans not the dominant species on the planet?

Again, thanks for engaging with me. It must be tiresome.
:up:

This coming from the person who says that intelligence is a general evolutionary advantage, for which there is no evidence, for which there has been no argument (aside from pointing at the development of human civilization), and which doesn't even have any clear meaning in evolutionary biology (what is intelligence?). — jamalrob

You're kidding, right? The evidence for my claim that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage can be found in the humble bathroom mirror, if you know what I mean. Humans dominate the world and you know it. It doesn't help at all if you keep negating the truth.

Aside from the basic meaninglessness of this question, as I've been saying, it depends. Look around at the species on Earth. The evidence is that intelligence is not required, certainly not always required, for success. On top of that, there are many ways in which intelligence could be a hindrance. My guess is that it would be a hindrance in most environments and for most organisms. I don't see how it could help bacteria or spiders. One problem: big brains are very costly to maintain. — jamalrob

I'm afraid we're not going to make any progress if you keep denying facts, the relevant one being, humans dominate the world. What does that tell you?

This is plain wrong, and you need to think about evolution and biodiversity very differently to correct your misconceptions. I've tried telling you politely. — jamalrob

Again, you're in denial.

In order to settle the matter once and for all, I'll pose 3 questions to you:

1. How come humans are at the top of the food chain at present?

2. Was there any change in our position in the food chain in the last million years or so?

3. What's the explanation for this change?

I'm not saying intelligence has to evolve, I'm saying once it emerges in an organism, doesn't matter how, it'll instantly, in geological terms, dominate the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms.

Thanks for your valuable comments.

I suppose if one factors in Pyrrhonism, every belief is faith-based in way or another. The only difference then between faith-based beliefs and justified beliefs is in spirit and not in letter, if that makes any sense.

Point 2 makes different claims. The first and last sentence are wrong, as I've been saying since my very first contribution to the discussion. What we can say is that intelligence has been an important part of human evolution and of the evolution of some other successful species. And if you want to talk about "our scale", (body size?), then sure, there's an argument for saying we're the most successful species of our approximate size. — jamalrob

Are you saying that if there were two organisms, one intelligent and the other not, they would both fare about the same in the game of survival? :chin:

Surely, at least to my knowledge, intelligence at any and all scales of existence is a clear advantage. An intelligent organism wil be able to pick the best spots and the right time to do whatever it is they want to do unlike one that isn't intelligent, giving it an edge in the competition.

There is no paradox here. Brains are not "the ultimate weapon". — jamalrob

Read above. I don't get why you think differently. Why would you say intelligence doesn't make an organism a superpower? The evidence is in plain sight - machines, cities, medicine, computers, and so on. You need to put more on the table than flat assertions.

Population does fail to capture the success of human beings. You can measure success in different ways, and it has no strict definition in evolutionary biology, because evolution has no aims. You have not explained why you're troubled by the fact that population size doesn't reflect human success — jamalrob

Is extinction failure or not? It is, right? What would be the definition of extinction? Population = 0! In other words, if we let the pendulum swing the other way, greater the population, the more successful an organism is, no?

Last I heard reproduction is an evolutionary goal and reproduction leads to increase in population. The point of evolution is to multiply and maximize the membership for a given species.

So you want another measure of success, perhaps in combination with population, so as to prove what you already think is obvious, that humans are the most successful species on Earth? Why? Is it because you think this is lacking in evolutionary biology? — jamalrob

I'm fairly confident that intelligence makes an organism nigh omnipotent and, as I said, the evidence is right under our noses.

coverage of the planet — jamalrob

To me, this merits serious consideration. I mean yes some microbes have an estimated population of (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27 but how much space do they occupy as a whole? Humans, numbering 7 billion only, occupy huge tracts of land which, for sure, is disproportionate by any standard.

Thank you for that suggestion.

I'm honestly not sure if you're being honest, but...

To answer your questions, for the sake of argument let's say that evolutionary success can be measured by the number of individuals in a species, and let's call that number the population. It's not such a bad measure. Now make your argument or point. — jamalrob

The facts:

1. Extinction is failure, no two ways about it. Extinction means a population of zero. Ergo, greater the population the more successful. Population is a good measure of evolutionary success.

2. Intelligence is, for certain, a plus point in survival. Humans are a success story measured by how we outnumber other species that exist at our scale. Intelligence is an asset in the game of survival.

3. The population of certain microbes exceeds by a factor of, sometimes, several millions the human population. They are, most assuredly, successes too. But, they lack intelligence.

The paradox:

Population indicates brainless organisms are more successful than organisms with brains but we know, for certain, brains are the ultimate weapon - the thermonuclear warhead if you will - in the evolutionary race. In other words, population simplicter fails to capture the intelligence factor in the clear and obvious success of the human race.

The proposed resolution:

Introduce another parameter which, together with population, will reflect the actual truth - the truth that

1. Humans are the most successful lifeforms on the planet

2. This success is wholly attributable to our intelligence

Joshu's Zen

Joshu began the study of Zen when he was sixty years old and continued until he was eighty, when he realized Zen.

He taught from the age of eighty until he was one hundred and twenty.

A student once asked him: “If I haven’t anything in my mind, what shall I do?”

Joshu replied: “Throw it out.”

“But if I haven’t anything, how can I throw it out?” continued the questioner.

“Well,” said Joshu, “then carry it out.”

//ps// I don't think that is an official Ko-an. It's one of the anecdotes in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones that I particularly liked.// — Wayfarer

:lol: Good one!

If you want nothing, are you still experiencing the feeling of wanting? — Pinprick

Point made, point taken. Thanks. It seems that statements D and N imply each other. If everything is in the category of things I don't want then nothing is in the category of things I want. Right?

Likewise, if nothing is in the category of things I want, where is everything? In the category of things I don't want right?

D implies and is implied by N. D <-> N. In other words D = N.

However, as you said, when it comes to the actual experience of desire/want, it fails to make sense because, no, it's not true that I want nothing when I assert that that I don't want anything.

The problem, however, is that logic, no less, dictates that D = N. What this means is that if one is to be logical, and that is a primary goal in philosophy and in life in general, I have no choice but to accept that if I don't want anything then that entails I want nothing.

I guess in this particular case logic doesn’t really matter since what you’re talking about is human emotion, which is by definition irrational. If you’re describing something irrational, your description wouldn’t be accurate if it was rational itself. Right? — Pinprick

I beg to differ. For one, I don't think desire is an emotion. It's intimately connected to emotions and that's why you've come to the erroneous conclusion that desire is an emotion. Generally speaking, we like (want) things that make us happy and dislike (don't want) those that make us sad. However, it seems possible to go against this pattern. You can make yourself want things that make you sad and not want things that make you happy. I haven't tried it myself but my drive-by suggests it's possible. This, in my opinion, indicates wanting/not wanting can operate at a meta-emotional level, making it, at the very least, not completely an emotion.

The stuff you wrote before this is garbage, by the way. But here is where you make your point. So, if humans are to be considered as dominant on Earth, you'd expect them to be as abundant as, say, Prochlorococcus? That is crazy. Nothing you're saying hangs together or makes sense. — jamalrob

You must've glossed over some of my posts. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. What is success in evolutionary terms?

2. If a species goes extinct is it success/failure?

3. Is population the correct metric to measure success?

Let's begin there.

Intelligence is a spectrum — Gnomon

There's a clear discontinuity in the intelligence spectrum separating humans from the rest of the the animal kingdom.

I wasn't casting doubt on your interpretation of the hard problem.

I'm simply saying that there is no way in practice or in principle to determine if any entity, other than oneself, animate or inanimate, actually experiences 'qualia'. Therefore the claim that a robot cannot/does not experience qualia is an unwarranted assumption — ChrisH

Right! That's for certain, uncertain. I seem to have misinterpreted your point, a good one at that. Anyway...it looks like you're not denying the existence of qualia per se, you only wish to inform me that that robots lack qualia is an unfounded assumption.

:ok:

Since you don't deny that humans have qualia, my question is this: can it be explained with physicalism?

In evolutionary terms, yes: it was an important part of our evolution. So what? — jamalrob

A brainteaser I'm going to keep at a safe distance (for my sake).

Yes they did gain, in the environment they evolved in and with the genetic endowment they had. Again, so what? — jamalrob

Another brainteaser.

I did not say that "population" is not part of biological terminology. Are you pretending that's what I said, or did you simply not read what I wrote? Either way, it won't do. — jamalrob

I made a request for the technically accurate term.

What numbers? What point? — jamalrob

This number: (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27

Ok, so your point is that intelligence is an asset in evolution? As I say, it can be, for some organisms, in some environments. What reason do you have to go further? — jamalrob

Yes, intelligence is a plus point if you want to survive what nature throws at you. This results, ceteris paribus, in an increase in the population of intelligent creatures.

Forgive me if this gets tedious but my point is that while intraspecies population proves intelligence is an advantage, interspecies population, as I said earlier, tells a different story. That's all.

Why is this a problem? — jamalrob

Why not? What do you regard as success in evolution? — jamalrob

To reiterate (hopefully not ad nauseum), population size indicates that intelligence is not a deciding factor insofar as evolutionary success defined as numerical strength is concerned. I'm just puzzled by the fact though people continually speak of how humans, because of their intelligence, have come to dominate the planet, the actual numbers lead us to a different conclusion.

Mind you, I still think population size is a useful metric for determining which organisms are successful and which not and that intelligence does confer an advantage but, as you've so kindly pointed out, "(2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27", looking at the actual figures we get a different picture. By way of a resolution I'm seeking some modification to the metric - keeping population size as it makes intuitive sense but doing something to it to match facts. A ratio perhaps? Any ideas on that front?

For some, population size. And why not? But it seems to me the question's meaning arises out of a casual use of language and presuppositions that are not clear.

It's like asking what success is in football, the given answer being winning the superball or world cup, depending on your "football." But only a little reflection shows that many answers are possible, depending on meanings supposed but not clarified.

But I'd like a little more clarity in the question, what exactly do you say evolution is, and what do you mean by success? I suspect that in answering, you may decide (discover?) what success in evolution is. But then a corollary question might arise: is only one answer possible, necessarily the case? — tim wood

Hats off to you for the most pertinent queries. All I can say is that population size is an intuitively sound measure of evolutionary success for the simple reason that a population of nought is just another way of saying extinction. If an organism becomes extinct, it's failure, right? At the other extreme is huge populations which bespeak, among other things, reproductive health and general wellbeing.

Welcome to the hard problem. — ChrisH

Since you've raised doubts regarding my interpretation of the hard problem, I'd like to hear yours if that's alright with you. Thanks.

The left one? It's a diagram of space and time, not just space. That's what spacetime curvature looks like. — Kenosha Kid

Curves! I can see curves! I think I'm being childish. Ignore me.

You could have just asked: "If intelligence endows evolutionary success, why is there only one intelligent species?" — jamalrob

Forgive the circumlocution. I'm the kind of person who scratches faer right ear with the left hand. :grin:

Firstly--and without worrying too much about definitions--intelligence is a spectrum or a continuum, and it can be observed in many animals, especially among mammals and birds — jamalrob

To that my reply is simple: intelligence-wise, a dog is closer to a bird than either to humans. There's a gigantic discontinuity in the intelligence graph with only humans on one side and the rest of life on the other. This must count for something, right?

Bacteria are very successful and they don't need intelligence for it. So "the belief that intelligence is a [generally] favorable evolutionary development in organisms" is not one that is held by biologists. — jamalrob

I'll take your word for it but anyone who claimed humans didn't gain from their more powerful brains would be lying to himself/herself as the case may be. Right?

Thirdly, why have you invented terms and concepts like "interspecies population" when, in this case, you just mean the number of extant species? The term "population" is not used in evolutionary biology in the way that you're using it. — jamalrob

I feel more comfortable using fewer words which wouldn't have been possible if I didn't define these concepts.

I didn't know that the term "population" was not part of the biological terminology. What's the correct term then? Does it mean the same thing as "population"? :chin:

And if you think humans are successful ... according to wiki, the average yearly worldwide number of individuals of the cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus is (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27. — jamalrob

Thanks for the GK but I'm afraid my memory isn't good enough to make use of this tidbit in a conversation. Back to the main issue...these numbers prove my point rather than anything to the contrary, no?

Perhaps there's nothing odd in all of this, nothing amiss with believing intelligence is an asset in the evolutionary game of survival for the simple reason that it did help humans in a very big way.

This may contradict what I've been saying all along, I'm not sure, but the heart of the issue is the metric used in deciding evolutionary success. To my reckoning, as is evident from the OP and my other posts, success in evolution is measured by population size. This conforms with our intuitions of course; after all a population of zero means extinction which is just another word for failure, right? But, if we use population size, the problem is intelligence is no longer an attribute that's a deciding factor in evolution for the simple reason that humans don't make it to the top 10 or, quite possibly even to the top 100, list by population size.

Basically, if we as humans really evolved here along with everything else in the same time period, side by side, why don't we see birds, dolphins, or other animals with (semi) advanced civilizations as well? Or something mildly representative of the evolutionary process. It goes from barely recognizing oneself in the mirror (reflection test) and simple tools/puzzle solving (birds and some mammals) to full blown metropolis, thermonuclear fusion, circuit boards, and space travel with NO link or reasonable midway point in between. It's just bizarre. To say the least. Is that similar or a part of what you're asking? It's a fair question. Mighty fair indeed. — Outlander

Firstly, I'm bowled over by your eloquence - I couldn't have expressed it better.

To answer your question, I'm not quite sure what exactly I meant to get across to the readers but what I'm quite certain about is that population size simpliciter doesn't cut it for measuring evolutionary success, especially if one is of the opinion that intelligence is some kind of "ultimate weapon" in the game of survival. In fact, pardon me if I offend anyone, to tell you the truth, I'm suddenly reminded of the father of Western philosophy, Socrates, specifically that he was :chin: executed for corrupting the youth and impeity...of course, of course.

Do you have a favorite koan?

The only one I can remember is this:

What is the sound of one hand clapping? — Zen

I want to run something by you if it's not too much of a bother.

If memory serves, Ch'an is Zen in Japanese Buddhism, right? I remember my early encounters with Zen mainly involving Koans. Koans, again if memory serves, are generally intended to be paradoxes or, if not, extremely (allow me to exaggerate a bit) difficult puzzles constructed by those who've seen the light so to speak and aimed at the novice with the specific purpose of enlightening faer.

To my knowledge, koans, at their core, are about two aspects of life and living, well, actually thinking but humans are defined as sapient, so, viz. 1) language and 2) logic. These two qualities if you'll allow me to label them as such define us for they constitute the essence of sapience - thought, thinking, rumination, cogitation, etc.

Koans put into their service both language and logic but the resulting products, the koans themselves, defy both in the sense that their solutions, assuming koans have solutions, can't, or are supposed not to, be expressible with words in a logical manner. In different words, the "solutions" to koans can't be, or are not intended to be, found in either language or logic or both.

A penny for your thoughts...

There is an aspect of the needle-prick - what it feels like (qualia) - that is present in you but absent in the robot.

How can we be sure of this? — ChrisH

Not sure. Just stating the official position on the matter. Why do you ask? Did you, by any chance, happen to see anything that contradicts me?

In my experience a lie can also avoid disaster and give peace of mind to troubled folks. Refusing to be comforted and erring on the side of caution in my experience tends to pan out poorly. — Darkneos

Give me an instance of it and I'll switch sides.

Pyrrhonism — Darkneos

:up:

I mean if a belief or idea brings someone comfort and help and it doesn't impact anyone else then why is accusing them of wanting to be comfortable a counterpoint in an argument? — Darkneos

The problem is that an "argument" is the opposite of something that "doesn't impact anyone else".

This is the way I understand the hard problem of consciousness:

Imagine an experiment in which a robot with a pressure sensor and yourself are seated next to each other. A person then proceeds to prick both the robot and you with a sharp needle. The robot's sensors pick up the needle-prick and your nerves do the same.

Is there a difference between the robot and you in this experiment?

There is an aspect of the needle-prick - what it feels like (qualia) - that is present in you but absent in the robot.

Another way to look at it is imagine you've built an exact replica of the human body, call it X, complete with biological organs, except that instead of a brain, you're at the controls. X comes with sensors in precisely the same configuration as a normal human nerves. Now if someone pricks X with a needle, a red light turns on in the control center where you're located. Someone does prick X with a needle, the red light turns on. At the same moment, a small accident occurs in the control center and a needle pricks you too. Is there a difference between the red light turning on when X was pricked by a needle and the pain you felt when the same thing happened to you? :chin:

Patterns are real, but they don't meet our definition of existence. Thus, they can't really die, because they never actually existed in the first place. — Hippyhead

Describe the life history of a pattern. Imagine I drop a pebble into a calm pond. Describe the wave pattern.

Lies can be comforting and the problem is lies can lead to disastrous consequences. The problem is what comforts someone could spell faers doom. I suppose a wise person would take the trouble to separate the harmless comforting lies from the harmful yet comforting lies. Who has the time and the energy though? Why not just refuse to be comforted and err on the side of caution?

My two cents:

Regarding thoughts, here understood to mean propositions and the method by which their truths are established [logic], there are two things to consider:

1. The assumptions: The so-called starting positions [of belief systems]

2. The logic: The rules of logic that have been applied to the assumptions [of belief systems]

If either of the these two are different, the belief systems that evolve from them will diverge i.e."not all (will) have the same thought conclusions"

At the other extreme, when people do share the same thoughts then these are the possibilities:

1. All those who share the same thoughts have made the same assumptions and are using the same rules of logic. Thus the concurrence

2. Both the initial assumptions are different and the rules of logic being applied are different.

But I can see curves in the diagram?!

I don't know. I suppose nobody does. In fact, given solipsism, forget consciousness, even the very existential reality of anything not-self is in doubt.

Nonetheless, I can, despite my serious misgivings, comment something regarding animal minds with regard to chickens.

There was a case, reported in Wikipedia, about Mike, the headless chicken. The story goes that a poorly aimed butcher's knife severed the head off a hapless chicken but, most intriguingly, the chicken didn't die. While with a head, it was completely unremarkable, headless, it achieved fame which, no doubt, the owner would've relished more than the meat.

Anyway...

What I find interesting is this equation:

Mike + head = Mike - head...behaviorally speaking

There was no discernible difference in the behavior of Mike with a head and Mike without a head.

This may mean many things of course but the lesson I drew from this small chapter in life's history on the planet is that even with a head, animals, actually just chickens, seem to be behaving reflexively...like...dare I say it, automatons.

NB: A small section of Mike's brain had remained intact.

This however doesn't mean we can do whatever we want to animals because that matter turns on the ability to feel pain and suffer, something animals, for certain, do.

Take this where you want to take it...

Have you spoken to someone during these trance-like state? I'm wondering if your mind makes you think that they're nonsense, because if you don't have other peoples opinion, your mind easily plays tricks on you. — Yozhura

This is a waste of your time...I'll say no more. Thanks for your comments though.