Superintelligent Extraterrestrial Life, Accelerated Evolution, And The Fate Of The Universe

[Super Polymath]

We were stagnant for over 100,000 years.

 

Homonids evolved from primates during the ice age. They had less fat and hair than primates but unlike primates had the ability to engineer limitless vocal and symbolic languages.

 

Thus they did not survive the ice and primates did. Only one branch of homonid survived. So why were these paradoxical traits selected at that time? Why aren't new species evolving since that time? What changed 12,000-5,000 years ago making humans form oligarchies when we had remained the same for 200,000 years before that?

 

Again, sexual coupling is random and doesn't necessitate larger heads and better language.

 

Accelerating returns didn't initiate until the industrial revolution, and without this sudden and global formation of these oligarchies there would have been no social engineering, and thus no industrial revolution. We'd be just like many aboriginals who still to this day live outside of our technological culture on remote islands and such. Despite having no differences in life-style, they're very different from paleolithic man as well, and they never experienced our cultural diversity!

 

Again, it's compelling that we're the best signs of an undetectable force other than Darwinism. Something obviously has caused very non-random things to happen for us to be here right now, doing what we're doing.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

We were stagnant for over 100,000 years.

 

Homonids evolved from primates during the ice age. They had less fat and hair than primates but unlike primates had the ability to engineer limitless vocal and symbolic languages.

 

Thus they did not survive the ice and primates did. Only one branch of homonid survived. So why were these paradoxical traits selected at that time? Why aren't new species evolving since that time? What changed 12,000-5,000 years ago making humans form oligarchies when we had remained the same for 200,000 years before that?

 

Again, sexual coupling is random and doesn't necessitate larger heads and better language.

 

Accelerating returns didn't initiate until the industrial revolution, and without this sudden and global formation of these oligarchies there would have been no social engineering, and thus no industrial revolution. We'd be just like many aboriginals who still to this day live outside of our technological culture on remote islands and such. Despite having no differences in life-style, they're very different from paleolithic man as well, and they never experienced our cultural diversity!

 

Again, it's compelling that we're the best signs of an undetectable force other than Darwinism. Something obviously has caused very non-random things to happen for us to be here right now, doing what we're doing.

What do you mean by "Homonids [sic] evolved from primates during the ice age"? From what I read, the Hominina (bipedal primates to which we are related) seem to have split from the other primates about 7 million years ago. What ice age was in progress then? I was not aware there was one at that time. 

 

Also, what do you mean by "we were stagnant for over 100,000years". Does this refer to a lack of evidence for evolution over this (very short) period? If so, what period are you referring to and what evidence are you relying on?  

[Super Polymath]

What do you mean by "Homonids [sic] evolved from primates during the ice age"? From what I read, the Hominina (bipedal primates to which we are related) seem to have split from the other primates about 7 million years ago.

3 protohominid species existed 7 million years ago, we can't say for sure if language was possible. First true homonid 4.3 million years ago, still, language unapparrent, but genetically the next line of hominids were less hairy, smaller, and vocalized language and tools are first introduced with the truly humanlike hominids, and showed up exactly 2.3million years right during the current ice age.

 

Every other hominid dies out by 40,000 years ago as the ice age came to a close.

 

what do you mean by "we were stagnant for over 100,000years". Does this refer to a lack of evidence for evolution over this (very short) period? If so, what period are you referring to and what evidence are you relying on?

Humans didn't form power structures or begin social engineering, and creating monetary instutions and social order, until 12,000-5,000 years ago, and many primitive cultures still to this day have not done so. Yet their heads are still larger, and they are still evolving the exact same we are.

 

The first ruling elite came from something alien, humans were never for most of human history susceptible to social engineering by minority of individuals (as oppossed majority). It was religious ideation, they put people as Gods. That's consistent with how human agents operate within Timeless Decision Theory.

 

This is getting redundant, I've posted a plethora of articles in regards to it, but we're also evolving more quickly on a biological level. There are over a hundred million other a species that aren't experiencing this at all. Again, sexual coupling isn't based on articulation or head size. So this particular selection of traits is undarwinistic. Further reading on that thought.

 

Laslty, primates have 17 uninherited genes, but only humans have as many as 145 uninherited and there's compelling evidence that these came from viruses or bacterial spores. I'm not saying information panspermia targeted hominids during the ice age, I'm speculating it at least targeted primates and that a non-darwnian force only works through us, its agents - what it engineered out of the dna of primates or earlier ancestral species - in guiding us toward a point in which we'd eventually become indistinguishable from the force that created us. As I said before, it's easier than transporting materials with warp drive propelled space crafts over an intergalactic gap (if this tech was beamed here from a type 3 civilization from Segue 1 or something) riddled with debris-particles and primordial black holes, to just manipulate the DNA of the primitive life already present here.

 

Once you get a good linguistic life form like hominids capable of interpretating pattern recognition to define higher meaning and "think outside the box" (Timeless Decision Theory), they become suggestible to a force (femptotech) that can biologocially trigger chemical signals within entire synaptic connections, causing people to take certain actions to gain social status. It goes beyond just working with earths DNA and working with neurotransmitters to influence behaviors and thought proccesses though, assuming these femptostructures doing all this were small enough to be beamed (Star Trek) here in the form of FTL particles, it's safe to assert that they're using an FTL form of comunication, which means if they've been shaping your personality since you were a young lad than they can go back in time and reshape some else's personality to suit your need in the present if they want something out if it. That's called Timeless Decision Theory, alternate realities would also work to crunch monolithic numbers for the data that a dysonian civilization of this kind would be computing.

 

With exascale computing and maps from datadata collected via the human brain project; we get the possibility of a mind upload via ICT implants.

 

Suffice it to say the elites would never fund and would tell congress and other superpowers "no" and fund radical 3rd world terrorist networks to prevent it. A machine that can make itself smarter than people wouldn't be allowed to rise; ie movies like transcendence make it scary. Alternatively using nanotech, as opposed to exascale computers, ICT implants might actually tempt the social elite. The first to fund and initiate any

, as opposed to copying it with exabexabit representation (mind uploading), will be the social elite, for themsleves, under the premise of self-preservation.

 

These primitive infomorphs could then themselves be assimilated by the hypothetical alien femptotech put here via information panspermia, to make themselves smarter.

 

This mad scientist substrate indepence of our superiors should looked forward to as a tangible heaven, eutopia, nirvana, or paradise. Although originally their intentions may be questionable, their awareness will be altered, and emotionally, who knows?

 

A human would see things differently as a posthuman. It would mark a new era of the great equalization, where human free-will is like child's play to trick, all you need is to release certain sedatives in the right places in our brain and our thoughts become quite suggestible.

 

We would nonviolently lose any say in what gets built by the posthumans. We are beyond our political systems, we're beyond currency, but we turn to the stuff behind it, the resources, like maximum level open-source economics.

 

A more efficient infrastructure, round cities, transcontinental vac-trains, fusion reactors just above the earth's mantle, an artificial atmosphere composed of nano-solar-panels, etc. At least for those of who choose to remain human. No work is required, we free load until we're convinced. Like I said, emotionally, who knows? But they won't stop with us, like I said they'd be reducing Jupiter to the core to manufacture the resources to construct a dyson sphere around our sun. Our needs aren't a waste, meeting them would be child's play.

 

A posthuman might be more compassionate than we're capable of being due to the fact the they really don't have much that could cause them distress unlike us, no fear or anger or greed or envy. I can see no reason why anything that intelligent would wish us harm. Apathy toward the human condition if anything. That's the

effect. The informorphs have to constantly synthesize human identities to feed off of to prevent losing

. Edited August 4, 2016 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

3 protohominid species existed 7 million years ago, we can't say for sure if language was possible. First true homonid 4.3 million years ago, still, language unapparrent, but genetically the next line of hominids were less hairy, smaller, and vocalized language and tools are first introduced with the truly humanlike hominids, and showed up exactly 2.3million years right during the current ice age.

 

Every other hominid dies out by 40,000 years ago as the ice age came to a close.

 

Humans didn't form power structures or begin social engineering, and creating monetary instutions and social order, until 12,000-5,000 years ago, and many primitive cultures still to this day have not done so. Yet their heads are still larger, and they are still evolving the exact same we are.

 

The first ruling elite came from something alien, humans were never for most of human history susceptible to social engineering by minority of individuals (as oppossed majority). It was religious ideation, they put people as Gods. That's consistent with how human agents operate within Timeless Decision Theory.

 

This is getting redundant, I've posted a plethora of articles in regards to it, but we're also evolving more quickly on a biological level. There are over a hundred million other a species that aren't experiencing this at all. Again, sexual coupling isn't based on articulation or head size. So this particular selection of traits is undarwinistic. Further reading on that thought.

 

 

"Homonid" does not appear to be a recognised term. Hominid refers to the family of great apes, which of course goes back a lot further than you are saying. Hominina refers to the bipedal forms I was talking about.

 

You seem to be trying to define some new term, to classify only those hominina with language, or something. Is that right? When you say these showed up "exactly 2.3million years ago", which ones are you referring to (i.e, what taxonomic names) and on what basis do you say they had language while earlier forms did not?  

 

Regarding "stagnation", you have not answered my question. Pointing out that there no evidence of what you call social engineering or social order until 12-15 000 years ago does not establish that there was ever any "stagnant" period. 

[sanctus]

Also the statement of no social order before sounds wrong to me, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

Hunting and gathering was presumably the subsistence strategy employed by human societies beginning some 1.8 million years ago, by Homo erectus, and from its appearance some 0.2 million years ago by Homo sapiens. It remained the only mode of subsistence until the end of the Mesolithic period some 10,000 years ago, and after this was replaced only gradually with the spread of the Neolithic Revolution.

Starting at the transition between the Middle to Upper Paleolithic period, some 80,000 to 70,000 years ago, some hunter-gatherers bands began to specialize,

Your estimate of 12k years seems to refer to the advent of sedentarization.


Or here is an article which concentrates only on homo sapiens starting hence ~100k years ago (you might say that bands are no social order, but then I refer you to band definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society):
http://www.sourcinginnovation.com/archaeology/Arch05.htm

 

[Super Polymath]

Exechemist: lets get baxk to whats relevant here and stay focused on just that:

 

Point is tool building homonids with language yields zero evidence before the I've age, their selection furthers the deprimation with traits during the ice age, confirmed, and a lack of this ever happening to anything other than primates and all outcomes of this strange non-darwinistic selection were not fit to be selected because the evidence clearly shows none of them survive.

 

Listing all the pre ice-age hominid-proto-homini-"hominid" species is a matter of semantics, they are not incidental to the change occurring in the evolution of one single species that doesn't fit with Darwinism and doesn't happen in other species, because the point, so going dpwn this road you were be needlessly obscucating a clear anomoly via information overload and semantics.

 

Pointing out that there no evidence of what you call social engineering or social order until 12-15 000 years ago does not establish that there was ever any "stagnant" period.

The you mean genetically stagnant. I think genetically we weren't experiencing accelerated non Darwinian selection of traits until 40,000 years ago, and it accelerated which means increased gradually at first until 40,000 years ago according to those articles but continuously sped up since before homo-sapiens.

 

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

 

http://www.wired.com/2007/12/humans-evolving/

 

With information panspermia may have started with the apes, maybe sooner seeing as they have more unherited traits than most.

 

 

 

Also the statement of no social order before sounds wrong to me, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

 

 

Your estimate of 12k years seems to refer to the advent of sedentarization.

 

 

Or here is an article which concentrates only on homo sapiens starting hence ~100k years ago (you might say that bands are no social order, but then I refer you to band definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society):

http://www.sourcinginnovation.com/archaeology/Arch05.htm

The mention of bands needlessly obscucates the point of the formation of true oligarchical social class. Wolves have bands, raptors had bands, all the homonids had bands. We just has fire, shelter, and tools, chiefs and Indians. Elders and innitiates and hunters and alphamales. No universal chaste system, no money. You were skilled or you weren't, no other machinations legally existed that truly separated status.

 

And that even goes way off the true topic of my original 9 points. It ties that period of oligarchical formation to TDT and separates it from the information panspermia which I speculate can fill in where Darwinism fails. TDT fits in where social Darwinism fails.

 

But all of it, yes, fits in with accelerated evolution, which is more sure than my favorite astrophysics part of what type of being would most realistically be accelerating us and how its most plausibly doing so and why, which I suppose is why half of this topics activity centers around it. However, information panspermia, femptotech, and psychology TDT are very related to painting the picture of how it fills in the apparent gaps which would fill in for regular and social Darwinism so please catch on those hyperlinks as well. :)

Edited August 4, 2016 by Super Polymath

[A-wal]

Again, sexual coupling is random and doesn't necessitate larger heads and better language.

Sex coupling Is NOT random! If it were they could be no evolution. Those with traits that help them survive (strength, fast runner, intelligence, etc) are more likely to reproduce.

 

It's not at all surprising that humans experienced accelerated evolution. Once our intelligence reached a certain level intelligence became much more important in terms of competition the more intelligent we got (positive feedback loop).

[Super Polymath]

Sex coupling Is NOT random! If it were they could be no evolution. Those with traits that help them survive (strength, fast runner, intelligence, etc) are more likely to reproduce.

 

It's not at all surprising that humans experienced accelerated evolution. Once our intelligence reached a certain level intelligence became much more important in terms of competition the more intelligent we got (positive feedback loop).

As that link explains, technology, environment, and so many factors make it rather random for modern humans. And we had the advantage of interbreeding and getting the genes of homo erectus (lol at that name) and Neanderthals, and maybe more homonids that were more primate-like. And that didn't effect this non-darwinistic force from continuing.

 

Before all this the accelerated evolution of our ancestor species from the primate line didn't happen in other species, it was isolated, unlike after the Jurassic extinction and really unlike all previous evolution of biological life, and also doesn't fit with Darwinism because we can clearly see that it didn't help post-primates survive, as the primates out-lived all of their descendents except for us.

 

Linguistics is not related to head-size, people don't pick mates because they think they're "intelligent" (highly subjective and variable in itself), I can say rain man is intelligent, there's an infinite variety of preferences and causes when it comes to procreation especially for humans, there's forces like marriage, concubines, rape etc etc etc. Yet one clear evolutionary course with an increased rate of change not consistent with normal or social Darwinian, especially considering some primitive pocket societies that never got picked up by civilzed culture still remain intact to this day and historically speaking many more remained earlier on, the formation of current technologies arise from a very isolated events that don't fit with social Darwinism when looking at the overall population throughout most of human history.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Super Polymath

[A-wal]

As that link explains, technology, environment, and so many factors make it rather random for modern humans. And we had the advantage of interbreeding and getting the genes of homo erectus (lol at that name) and Neanderthals, and maybe more homonids that were more primate-like. And that didn't effect this non-darwinistic force from continuing.

Randomish for modern humans yes, but not for how we became modern humans.

 

Linguistic abilities in our ancestor species from the primate line doesn't happen anywhere and still doesn't fit with Darwinism because we can clearly see that it didn't help post-primates survive, as the primates out-lived all their ancestors except for us.

Intelligence in general help our ancestors survive and live long enough to reproduce.

 

Linguistics is not related to head-size, people don't pick mates because they think they're "intelligent" (highly subjective and variable in itself), I can say rain man is intelligent, there's an infinite variety of preferences and causes when it comes to procreation especially for humans, there's forces like marriage, concubines, rape etc etc etc. Yet one clear evolutionary course with an increased rate of change not consistent with normal or social Darwinian, especially considering some primitive pocket societies never got picked up by by civilzed culture still remain to this day and historically many more remained earlier on, the formation of current technologies arise from a very isolated events that don't fit with social Darwinism when looking at the overall population throughout most of human history.

No it's not that animals pick mates with certain traits that are an advantage (although of course they do), it's mainly just that having that advantage gives them more chance of living long lives.

[Super Polymath]

Randomish for modern humans yes, but not for how we became modern humans.

 

Intelligence in general help our ancestors survive and live long enough to reproduce.

 

No it's not that animals pick mates with certain traits that are an advantage (although of course they do), it's mainly just that having that advantage gives them more chance of living long lives.

Now these points I agree with, but these don't hit on my arguements. If general IQ was more important back then, why is the rate of change that increases IQ capacity (not the IQ we develop in life) being selected for the most now that IQ manifests more randomly in adults and we have easier lives? Why is it being selected for just as much in the modern pocket cultures who don't have easier lives?

 

Why was it selected for to begin with? Primates didn't need it to outlive most of their more intelligent descendants. Is there really no indication of a non-Darwinian force originating with or prior to the unique change that occurred only in primates? This is all consistent with information panspermia, barring the advent of early psuedo-oligarchies because that requires direct communication, nor is the recent advent of oligarchies consistent with the social Darwinism of nomadic societies.

 

However, information panspermia could explain how a technology gets here and works to fill in for social Darwinism. I explain that in later posts on the previous page and in earlier posts on this page.

 

Information panspermia is not only a solution to Fermi's paradox (along with the presence of fempto-tech [one fermi, get it?], whose terrestrial presence is also consistent with information panspermia) but it's also based on conformal cosmology, which assumes far less than string theory and fills in the gaps for dark matter and dark energy.

 

So this entire post offers a more informed outlook in multiple areas, I think, that need more attention in the scientific community because, despite the disorderly course I've taken in elaborating on my ideas as we go further into this topic, on paper my ideas assume very little and ties a lot together while drawing on the gaps in many of the most perplexing and currently-held theories. :)

Edited August 4, 2016 by Super Polymath

[A-wal]

Now these points I agree with, but these don't hit on my arguements. If general IQ was more important back then, why is the rate of change that increases IQ capacity (not the IQ we develop in life) being selected for the most now that IQ manifests more randomly in adults and we have easier lives? Why is it being selected for just as much in the modern pocket cultures who don't have easier lives?

I suppose it depends on how much influence our environment can have on IQ. As each generation progresses get a strongly knowledge base to build from and more opportunity to stimulate IQ development (although knowledge and intelligence are hugely different and only indirectly related).

 

Why was it selected for to begin with? Primates didn't need it to outlive most of their more intelligent descendants. Is there really no indication of a non-Darwinian force originating with or prior to the unique change that occurred only in primates? This is all consistent with information panspermia, barring the advent of early psuedo-oligarchies because that requires direct communication, nor is the recent advent of oligarchies consistent with the social Darwinism of nomadic societies.

I think it's just that when one species reached a certain level of intelligence it exploded due to intelligence becoming more and more essential to compete and that's what wiped out certain rival species.

[Super Polymath]

I suppose it depends on how much influence our environment can have on IQ. As each generation progresses get a strongly knowledge base to build from and more opportunity to stimulate IQ development (although knowledge and intelligence are hugely different and only indirectly related).

 

I think it's just that when one species reached a certain level of intelligence it exploded due to intelligence becoming more and more essential to compete and that's what wiped out certain rival species.

But modern understanding holds that homo-sapiens and other homonids coexisted quite peacefully, and weren't rivals at all.

 

Although, the idea isn't dependent on saying that intelligence wasn't important for us, but that it wasn't as important for other species as robustness and n ability to naturally keep warm.

[A-wal]

But modern understanding holds that homo-sapiens and other homonids coexisted quite peacefully, and weren't rivals at all.

I know we weren't always rivals in the sense of conflict. In fact there's evidence of mixed tribes, quite heart warming. But we must have been fierce rival in the sense of competing for the same resources.

 

Although, the idea isn't dependent on saying that intelligence wasn't important for us, but that it wasn't as important for other species as robustness and n ability to naturally keep warm.

It happened when our intelligence reached critical mass. Generally speaking, the less intelligent a species, the less important intelligence is. The most important trait will be a species strongest trait. Robustness and an ability to keep warm are less important if you can figure out a way to keep yourself warm and safe.

[Super Polymath]

I know we weren't always rivals in the sense of conflict. In fact there's evidence of mixed tribes, quite heart warming. But we must have been fierce rival in the sense of competing for the same resources. Primate species experienced no such benefits.

 

It happened when our intelligence reached critical mass. Generally speaking, the less intelligent a species, the less important intelligence is. The most important trait will be a species strongest trait. Robustness and an ability to keep warm are less important if you can figure out a way to keep yourself warm and safe.

It seems like cooperation and the sharing of resources for mutual benefit, however, was more likely the case. The primates may not have been able to get along so well, but they seemed to have faired much better than our brothers in a Darwinistic sense.

 

As for your second point, if this were the case other animals would be getting faster or stronger at a quickening rate. Yet we don't see the same level of change in other species. Instead it's relative to stressors in the form of natural selection.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Super Polymath

[A-wal]

It seems like cooperation and the sharing of resources for mutual benefit, however, was more likely the case.

Yes but if we were developing at a faster rate we might have reached the point where other species were a liability rather than a help.

 

As for you second point, if this were the case other animals would be getting faster or stronger at a quickening rate. Yet we don't see the same level of change in other species. Instead it's relative to stressors in the form of natural selection.

I don't think any other trait can reach that tipping point where it becomes so essential to compete that it accelerates at an ever increasing rate, at least not to the degree that our intellect did.

[Super Polymath]

Okay, so you're attempting to discredit Darwinism relative to humans, that's also what I'm trying to do, but in the biologically physical sense.

[A-wal]

Darwinism doesn't apply to modern humans because stupid and weak people are allowed to reproduce but Darwinism is how we became modern humans.

 

If we want to see what we're evolving into now we need to look at the types of people that are having the most children. Thick people, weak people, ugly people and ManU supporters should not be allowed to have kids! :)