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

[exchemist]

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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. :)

This is hopeless. I'm out. 

[A-wal]

The strongest evidence against the natural selection of intelligence was that the superior intelligence of our hominim brethren did not allow them to survive as well as the less intelligent primates that they evolved from.

Yea because they had to try to compete with us with our accelerating at an ever increasing rate level of intellect and they couldn't.

[Super Polymath]

Yea because they had to try to compete with us with our accelerating at an ever increasing rate level of intellect and they couldn't.

Evidence suggests only cooperation for brief amount of times they ever had any contact with homo sapiens.

[A-wal]

You mean they died out without having to compete with early humans? Maybe it looks like they weren't competing with us when we look at the fossil records because they knew they couldn't compete with us so they had to go somewhere else less hospitable and then they gradually died out due to being forced into those less fertile and/or safe areas.

[Super Polymath]

You mean they died out without having to compete with early humans? Maybe it looks like they weren't competing with us when we look at the fossil records because they knew they couldn't compete with us so they had to go somewhere else less hospitable and then they gradually died out due to being forced into those less fertile and/or safe areas.

homo sapiens did the most moving.

[A-wal]

Which would make perfect sense if we were becoming more and more successful because of our accelerated intellectual development because we would have been expanding our population and using our resources faster than they could replenish and this would put other competing species under increasing pressure and forcing them into less and less hospitable environments until they died out.

[Super Polymath]

We never started sendentarily populating until long after they died out.

[A-wal]

Don't know then. There's a lot of interacting factors that make it difficult to work out exactly how it happened, I'm just making up a story that makes sense.

 

My point is really just that maybe we there doesn't need to be any special reason for how it happened other than our intelligence reaching a level where it became so important to compete with other humans that it accelerated at an ever increasing rate because it became more and more essential the smarter we got.

[Moontanman]

Ok, I waited to see where this was going, I wasn't disappointed... Super Polymath... Dude... I do see what you are saying, my own thoughts have drifted in that direction before but all you end up with is an argument from ignorance, "I can't see how it evolved" So ID... 

 

I have given some consideration to Intelligent Design and at this point I think it is a viable alternative but not quite the way you asserting. 

 

Sexual Selection by female homosapiens has, in my estimation, had a far greater influence on our individual behavior and our social behavior than most other drivers. 

 

Women through selecting those men whom had a better social behavior and were as individuals less aggressive and took better care of the family unit were selected by women as mates. This selection by an intelligent being resulted, quite literally I think, many of our behaviors that raised us up over our hominid competition.

 

Sexual selection as a driver for evolution is quite well known in other animals but difficult to see from the inside of our own species. It didn't happen over night but once a certain level of "domestication"  was attained the evolution of our behavior toward larger social structures was accelerated by the positive feed back of larger social structures.

 

These more social beings means more cooperation which means more complex societies more complex led to bigger and a more sedentary life style which in turn led to men building structures to protect their mates and to make life easier. For a very long time we held onto our roaming lifestyle but paradoxically a higher level of social cooperation made even the mobile tribal life style better. This in turn allowed more and better trade of objects and resources over larger distances.

 

Our hominid competition just couldn't complete once they were removed from the exchange of genes they dropped out of the general population. The positive feed back loop of this finally exploded, from our point of view, into civilization around 12,000 years ago.

 

It's quite possible that smaller version of this sprang up before 12,000 years ago but it had to reach a tipping point or critical mass before it became tenable to spread out and engulf the world...   

[Super Polymath]

Those rationalizations, or the basis of them in that women are selecting men after social engineering comes about (I.e. Man in religion and all MALE affluents throughout human history, Gengis Khan having 20,000 children, staged marriage by the familially affluent) and even before it hunter gatherers were selected for their ability to be innotaive in creating progress traps that led to long term problems like herding mammoth packs off cliffs which may be innovative, but stupid because now you're making a large food source extinct, women nurture, but these stupid men were who they picked because they brought the most bacon for a time...anyway I don't want to get into this madhouse of random sexual selection that in no way accounts for the selection of smarter people that we are witnessing....

 

"The strongest evidence against the natural selection of intelligence was that the superior intelligence of our hominid brethren did not allow them to survive as well as the less intelligent primates that they evolved from"

 

Basically proving that scientifically there is no common denominator, you assume our survival a miracle, or you assume something else...

 

This is my strongest argument for information panspermia, which also tackles fermi's paradox, but this is what we need to focus on, especially you moontanman. I won't further this argument on the mystery of social engineering until anyone can (and they can't) tackle this, which I call Darwin's dilemma. ;)

Edited August 7, 2016 by Super Polymath

[Moontanman]

"The strongest evidence against the natural selection of intelligence was that the superior intelligence of our hominim brethren did not allow them to survive as well as the less intelligent primates that they evolved from"

 

This is my strongest argument for information panspermia, which also tackles fermi's paradox, but this is what we need to focus, especially you moontanman. I won't further argument on the M of social engineering until anyone can (and they can't) tackle this, which I call Darwin's dilemma. ;)

 

 

I think you need to demonstrate that it is a delima!  You keep making grandiose claims about things that all add up to nothing but arguments from ignorance and arguments from authority. 

 

Do you have any evidence to support your argument from design? You do know that particular argument has been dismissed so many times, even in actual court, that it's really puzzling why you seem to think you can assert it with out coming up with some support for it except you can't believe evolution can produce us with out outside help... This has never been shown to be the case either for humans, other animals, or even for life it's self.. 

 

Can you support this assertion in any way other than simply asserting it? 

 

"The strongest evidence against the natural selection of intelligence was that the superior intelligence of our "hominid" brethren did not allow them to survive as well as the less intelligent primates that they evolved from"

 

 

How can you possibly know this? 

[Super Polymath]

I think you need to demonstrate that it is a delima! You keep making grandiose claims about things that all add up to nothing but arguments from ignorance and arguments from authority.

 

Do you have any evidence to support your argument from design? You do know that particular argument has been dismissed so many times, even in actual court, that it's really puzzling why you seem to think you can assert it with out coming up with some support for it except you can't believe evolution can produce us with out outside help... This has never been shown to be the case either for humans, other animals, or even for life it's self..

 

Can you support this assertion in any way other than simply asserting it?

 

 

How can you possibly know this?

Okay, where are the other homini? Oh that's right, despite all that language and tool building, they're extinct. Intelligence has to be instinctual for Darwinism to work. Homini are the sole life on earth whose capacity for reason trancends instinct: and that doesn't make a case for the natural selection of reason, it did not help them survive, does not help a species survive, as well as good ole fashioned basal instinct, like a cat employing stealth to pounce on prey. That's a more reliable form of intelligence in a world like ours than pondering the stars.

 

Basically demonstrating that, scientifically there is no common denominator, you can assume our survival a miracle, or you can assume something else...you're being less ignorant because you're not making any assumptions. Convenient.

 

There are no courts in science, just panels. And speculative theories are still theories. You're simply stating that, like string theory, it hasn't been proven. And that's perfectly fine.

 

Because in science fact or proof is just a consensus among flawed humans and isn't necessarily the truth.

 

The only real progress is advancement, I.e. transhumanist movement, going up on the Kardashev scale. Which is the premise of this topic. How do we move up? Could God just be something that has moved up? Is religion a scientific speculation? Should science, authority, love, or religion really determine truth? Or is truth for us to discern by ourselves?

Edited August 7, 2016 by Super Polymath

[Moontanman]

Okay, where are the other homini? Oh that's right, despite all that language and tool building, they're extinct. Intelligence has to be instinctual for Darwinism to work.

 

I do not know what happened to the other hominids and neither do you! Intelligence is instinctual, our ability to learn and understand is indeed part of our instinctive behavior, other animals teach their young how to live, even how to make tools, chimps make tools, as do sea otters, crows, the list is not short.   

 

 

 

Homini are the sole life on earth whose capacity for reason trancends instinct: and that doesn't make a case for the natural selection of reason, it did not help them survive, does not help a species survive, as well as good ole fashioned basal instinct, like a cat employing stealth to pounce on prey. That's a more reliable form of intelligence in a world like ours than pondering the stars.

 

Hell man spiders reason, cats reason, dolphins, apes, dogs, I'm not sure what you are trying to say but humans are not the only creatures on this world who's behaviors include the ability to reason....

 

 

Basically demonstrating that, scientifically there is no common denominator, you can assume our survival a miracle, or you can assume something else...you're being less ignorant because you're not making any assumptions. Convenient.

 

This makes no sense, please elaborate, it reads nonsensical... 

 

 

 

There are no courts in science, just panels. And speculative theories are still theories. You're simply stating that, like string theory, it hasn't been proven. And that's perfectly fine.

 

No, actually Intelligent Design has been on trail and it was dismissed as religion at best and baseless assertions any way you cut it. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

 

 

 

Because in science fact or proof is just a consensus among flawed humans and isn't necessarily the truth.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the truth, in science things are investigated not proven, the scientific consensus is what the best evidence we have supports. It can be changed but simply saying you can't see how something happened doesn't dismiss science it simply means you are using an argument from ignorance...  

 

The only real progress is advancement, I.e. transhumanist movement, going up on the Kardashev scale. Which is the premise of this topic. How do we move up? Could God just be something that has moved up? Is religion a scientific speculation? Should science, authority, love, or religion really determine truth? Or is truth for us to discern by ourselves?

 

We move up by amassing knowledge and a better understanding of the universe via methodological naturalism, evidence is what determines the truth, religion is mythology, super beings is a baseless assertion, the rest is just your attempt to obfuscate the issue. Besides "truth" being a very loaded term, truth is very subjective, science tries to be as accurate as possible but never claims proof or truth. All we have is the best explanation that is supported by the evidence, in other words a consensus...

 

To baselessly assert things as true is not honest, to try and denigrate the knowledge we do have by suggesting other unsupported claims as being as good if not better than science as you are doing is ultimately is dishonest... 

[Super Polymath]

I do not know what happened to the other hominids and neither do you!

We know that there is little evidence to suggest we played any part in their demise. We know that they were very much like us and were more intelligent than the common ancestor that outlived them...from this is it not fair to at least suppose that the natural selection of intelligence was more unlikely than likely for the evolution of primates? Especially given that we were one of twenty-one different hominid species?

 

Intelligence is instinctual, our ability to learn and understand is indeed part of our instinctive behavior, other animals teach their young how to live, even how to make tools, chimps make tools, as do sea otters, crows, the list is not short.

 

 

 

Hell man spiders reason, cats reason, dolphins, apes, dogs, I'm not sure what you are trying to say but humans are not the only creatures on this world who's behaviors include the ability to reason....

You have instinct, and then you have reason. With reason, one can override their instincts. Only humans are truly capable of reason, sometimes.

 

No, actually Intelligent Design has been on trail and it was dismissed as religion at best and baseless assertions any way you cut it.

Intelligent design wasn't accepted by the scientific community, is what you're saying.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the truth, in science things are investigated not proven, the scientific consensus is what the best evidence we have supports. It can be changed but simply saying you can't see how something happened doesn't dismiss science it simply means you are using an argument from ignorance...

We look at the evidence, we speculate on what it suggests and then we come to a conclusion, and we test to see how that conclusion holds up to determine validity. If this conclusion seems valid enough, we publish our findings for our peers to see, upon further scrutinization, the suppossed validity of our findings is either accepted or rejected by the consensus.....

 

I'm speculatively drawing out conclusions yes. Scientists do this often, but they test to see if these conclusions hold up. That's their method. But you know, sometimes the scientific method won't get you anywhere! I.e., string theory.

 

But when it does, the scientific method is unquestionably reliable, scientific literacy, how we investigate a phenomenon, dictates that for a conclusion to be credible, we can't just stop at speculation, but in this topic I can cover so much ground all beginning with a speculation.

 

But for you, the evidence I've cited has been deemed inconclusive, so you don't buy ID. And that's okay, I'm not asking you to. I'd like for you to attack the validity of my conclusion with an assortment of citation backing said attack, ideally. But mostly the reasoning behind this ID conclusion has been danced around.

 

We move up by amassing knowledge and a better understanding of the universe via methodological naturalism,

Or by altering our nature using what we've built or learned. Nature can be designed by nothing, or redesigned by that which can reason and interact with it. Drawing beyond the lines of reason, the boundaries around us, crossing the line thinking outside the box, epiphenomena, etc. and then what happens is that the unconventional thinker resolves to pushing the envelope just to see what happens, watching it bend, that's science.

 

An intractable problem often isn't solved until one steps outside of conventional solutions.

 

evidence is what determines the truth,

A truth is what one chooses to accept. An absolute truth requires omniscience, and I don't believe omniscience could ever be acquired, so nothing is absolute in my mind. And that's a good way to perviece the world around us.

 

religion is mythology

Religion is faith in the unknown. Mythology is a designation for a particular religion that a community no longer acknowledges.

 

super beings is a baseless assertion

Super-intelligences are common abstracts used as examples in religion and science. The Dyson sphere is one such example of this. TDT, a scentific theory, uses an unknown super-intellect as a central theme.

 

the rest is just your attempt to obfuscate the issue. Besides "truth" being a very loaded term, truth is very subjective, science tries to be as accurate as possible but never claims proof or truth. All we have is the best explanation that is supported by the evidence, in other words a consensus...

 

To baselessly assert things as true is not honest, to try and denigrate the knowledge we do have by suggesting other unsupported claims as being as good if not better than science as you are doing is ultimately is dishonest...

That's definitely not what I've done. I'm simply stating that we should think twice about what may be shaping our version of the truth. I want people to question everything, to think skeptically about what others have to say, even if it's the scientific consensus. To not judge someone's thinking just because he's a Christian or something. Just because you perceive someone as wrong, or look down on him, or judge him, doesn't mean he's incapable of challenging your intellect. We have to challenge ourselves to look deeper than the apparent. Edited August 8, 2016 by Super Polymath

[sanctus]

 

You have instinct, and then you have reason. With reason, one can override their instincts. Only humans are truly capable of reason, sometimes.

 

 

So this dolphin had an instict to go to a human diver for help???

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/23/16663801-diver-who-saved-dolphin-he-swam-right-up-to-me?lite

[Super Polymath]

So this dolphin had an instict to go to a human diver for help???http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/23/16663801-diver-who-saved-dolphin-he-swam-right-up-to-me?lite

That's instinctual behavior.

 

Remember when they shot the ape for doing something similar when a kid fell in his cage?

 

If he'd had reason he would have just let the kid lay out in the open. Mammals often help other mammals. Dolphins have also killed humans, and animal instinct in general is completely emotional. Reason surpasses emotion.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Super Polymath

[Moontanman]

That's instinctual behavior.

 

Remember when they shot the ape for doing something similar when a kid fell in his cage?

 

If he'd had reason he would have just let the kid lay out in the open. Mammals often help other mammals. Dolphins have also killed humans, and animal instinct in general is completely emotional. Reason surpasses emotion.

 

But that is so off topic.

 

 

Let me make sure I have this straight, a wild animal going against every instinctual emotion/behavior it has is still instinctual?