Zone1 What is a person?

[alang1216]

How can it be hard to say life hasn't been building to intelligence when life literally complexified to produce intelligence?

But life complexified to produce everything, eyes, wings, etc. I just don't see intelligence as any different, it is just another path to survival.

Intelligence did arise through the laws of nature.

Agreed.

 

[ding]

Evolution leads to filling niches but that can be through either complexification or simplification. Viruses are examples of the later.

Yes, nature does fill voids. Walk me through a species that simplified. Try making it something other than a virus.

 

[ding]

But life complexified to produce everything, eyes, wings, etc. I just don't see intelligence as any different, it is just another path to survival.

Which according to you survival is an artifact of evolution and not life, right? So each species would have to weed out all the other ones in their species that had no instinct to survive, right?

At some point you will realize that life was building towards intelligence and that there were steps which had to occur in a sequential order because that's logical. Just like building a house. And that the instinct to survive is critical to intelligence arising because without it complexification would be impossible because the chain of life would be broken.

 

[alang1216]

My point is that life evolved to intelligence because the source or matrix is intelligence. This is a life breeding intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

I know that is what you want to believe but I don't see that intelligence is special to the universe.

 

[ding]

I know that is what you want to believe but I don't see that intelligence is special to the universe.

Want has nothing to do with it. That's what the evidence shows. The universe is an intelligence creating machine so to speak.

And just like a brand new species, you can't tell what it is by how it starts out, you can only tell what it is once it becomes it.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, nature does fill voids. Walk me through a species that simplified. Try making it something other than a virus.

Cave dwellers eventually lose their eyes. Many birds on isolated islands lose their ability to fly.

 

[alang1216]

Want has nothing to do with it. That's what the evidence shows. The universe is an intelligence creating machine so to speak.

What is the evidence that nature treats intelligence differently from any other adaptation?

And just like a brand new species, you can't tell what it is by how it starts out, you can only tell what it is once it becomes it.

There is no line or sudden event that makes a new species. We can watch the process as it unfolds.

 

[there4eyeM]

The magic of humans; "believing it makes it so".

 

[alang1216]

And yet you keep dismissing intelligence as the source of existence. Yes, we are beings that know and create. Yes we are more than just matter. But it is the DNA which proves we are each a unique creation. DNA doesn't define who we are. DNA is the physical evidence of our uniqueness.

You equate uniqueness with value. I don't. Every snowflake is unique, so what?

 

[alang1216]

Which according to you survival is an artifact of evolution and not life, right? So each species would have to weed out all the other ones in their species that had no instinct to survive, right?

I think your understanding of evolution is flawed. In a cave, having eyes is not a survival asset so after a number of generations they generally disappear.

At some point you will realize that life was building towards intelligence and that there were steps which had to occur in a sequential order because that's logical. Just like building a house. And that the instinct to survive is critical to intelligence arising because without it complexification would be impossible because the chain of life would be broken.

You build a house once you have goal. Life has no goal beyond survival. It never builds toward anything.

 

[ding]

Cave dwellers eventually lose their eyes. Many birds on isolated islands lose their ability to fly.

I don't think either of those qualify. If you had said the central nervous system of every mammal species got smaller as it evolved, then you would have been on to something. But you can't say that because they got bigger.

That you ignore the overwhelming evidence of complexification makes me think you know complexification works against your beliefs.

 

[ding]

What is the evidence that nature treats intelligence differently from any other adaptation?

It's odd that you don't see intelligence as a functional advantage. One would think technological civilizations, space exploration, and every branch of science and math would qualify as proof that intelligence is a functional advantage. And since functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage are the key components of natural selection my answer to your question is functional advantage is the evidence that nature treats intelligence the same as it does any other adaption that produces a functional advantage which is that it is fruitful and multiplies.

 

[ding]

There is no line or sudden event that makes a new species. We can watch the process as it unfolds.

I think I asked you before and you couldn't answer it so let me ask you again. Walk me through (like I walked you through) how a new species originates. And to make it more interesting, let's use a species that has a different number of chromosomes than the parent species.

But putting that aside, punctuated equilibrium and the fossil record and genetic mutations say otherwise.

 

[ding]

You equate uniqueness with value. I don't. Every snowflake is unique, so what?

I recognize uniqueness for what it is. Diversity. When it comes to evolutionary forces if it weren't for diversity the chain of life would have died out long ago. And when it comes to nature - without diversity - there would be no interconnectedness within nature itself.

Diversity is important. Uniformity is dangerous.

 

[ding]

I think your understanding of evolution is flawed. In a cave, having eyes is not a survival asset so after a number of generations they generally disappear.

I think it is your biased and limited understanding of evolution is flawed. You are trying to steer the ball. I'm trying to let the ball be.

 

[ding]

You build a house once you have goal. Life has no goal beyond survival. It never builds toward anything.

No. A house is built because it provides a functional advantage over no house and the house is built according to a logical sequence. Same thing happened with intelligence.

 

[alang1216]

I don't think either of those qualify. If you had said the central nervous system of every mammal species got smaller as it evolved, then you would have been on to something. But you can't say that because they got bigger.

That you ignore the overwhelming evidence of complexification makes me think you know complexification works against your beliefs.

Sorry but I don't agree. Which has a more complex nervous system a fish with eyes or a fish with no eyes?

 

[ding]

Sorry but I don't agree. Which has a more complex nervous system a fish with eyes or a fish with no eyes?

Which one has functional advantage? Why don't you believe intelligence offers functional advantages?

 

[alang1216]

I recognize uniqueness for what it is. Diversity. When it comes to evolutionary forces if it weren't for diversity the chain of life would have died out long ago. And when it comes to nature - without diversity - there would be no interconnectedness within nature itself.

Diversity is important. Uniformity is dangerous.

True, diversity is important. Fish can lay thousands of unique eggs so what is the value of a single one? If they all hatched and survived, would that be good or bad for the fish?

 

[alang1216]

I think it is your biased and limited understanding of evolution is flawed. You are trying to steer the ball. I'm trying to let the ball be.

Nope. I say the ball is moving randomly, you say it is moving to a destination.