Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By zinjanthropos

Thread: What is the purpose of intelligence?

  1. #1 What is the purpose of intelligence? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    Why does man question, solve, and try to solve things that are irrelevant to their survival and thriving on earth?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    intelligence is much more than man trying to solve irrelevant things. intelligence is everywhere.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,041
    I think the last thing intelligence is irrelevant to is survival.
    Ascended likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    Why does man question, solve, and try to solve things that are irrelevant to their survival and thriving on earth?
    For me, intelligence is not just about man but, the fact that the universe develops, creates, intelligence in the first place. The fact that some matter in the universe forms in a manner and way that is intelligent, that is governed by laws yet manipulates some of those only to look back on itself, recognizes itself, attempts to understands itself, is amazing to me.

    I have no doubt in my mind that intelligence, just as anything else in the universe, is important and has its place/reason/purpose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    Why does man question, solve, and try to solve things that are irrelevant to their survival and thriving on earth?
    Nothing man does is irrelevent. We are part and parcel products of this earth and universe. All we are and all we do derives therefrom.
    Sometimes, those deriding "basic research" see no value in anything not directly related to engeneering or construction, but they are short sighted.
    We few who have studied the sciences know better than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    For me, intelligence is not just about man but, the fact that the universe develops, creates, intelligence in the first place. The fact that some matter in the universe forms in a manner and way that is intelligent, that is governed by laws yet manipulates some of those only to look back on itself, recognizes itself, attempts to understands itself, is amazing to me.
    I too am amazed by the origin and creation of intelligence, but I am seeking to know its purpose. This leads me to another question which I may pose on a different thread, but why isn't life a constant? Why does every organism seek to improve itself through its offspring? I guess a better way to ask is, what's the purpose of evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    For me, intelligence is not just about man but, the fact that the universe develops, creates, intelligence in the first place. The fact that some matter in the universe forms in a manner and way that is intelligent, that is governed by laws yet manipulates some of those only to look back on itself, recognizes itself, attempts to understands itself, is amazing to me.
    I too am amazed by the origin and creation of intelligence, but I am seeking to know its purpose. This leads me to another question which I may pose on a different thread, but why isn't life a constant? Why does every organism seek to improve itself through its offspring? I guess a better way to ask is, what's the purpose of evolution?

    I am not sure the universe, or anything in the universe, is, ultimately, constant. Life is not the only thing that evolves/changes, right? If life on earth did not change/evolve with its surroundings then life on earth would fail, correct?

    As far as purpose goes, there is one or multiple ones, I just do not know what it is or what they are. There are many possibilities, perhaps even endless ones. It is a fair and cool question IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    For me, intelligence is not just about man but, the fact that the universe develops, creates, intelligence in the first place. The fact that some matter in the universe forms in a manner and way that is intelligent, that is governed by laws yet manipulates some of those only to look back on itself, recognizes itself, attempts to understands itself, is amazing to me.
    I too am amazed by the origin and creation of intelligence, but I am seeking to know its purpose. This leads me to another question which I may pose on a different thread, but why isn't life a constant? Why does every organism seek to improve itself through its offspring? I guess a better way to ask is, what's the purpose of evolution?
    Haaa! who can say? we won't know until we get there.

    It's just how everything is isn't it... constant change.

    Not everything seeks to improove itself, thats probably a human trait born from a conscious realisation that we can. most things adapt without being conscious of it. The desire to be able to do something, like reach the fruit on the tree more easily, can cause an adaption and produce taller children... without the person realising that they are effecting the evolution of there own strain. Maybe the genes can respond to wants and needs on a subconscious level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Maybe the genes can respond to wants and needs on a subconscious level.
    No. The driving force in evolution is death.

    Organisms that do less well in whatever environment they find themselves in will die sooner and reproduce less successfully than other organisms in that environment that live well and reproduce successfully. The 'failures' must either move to a more suitable environment where they can succeed .... or die out.

    We can look at the results afterwards and say Aha! That's why that particular plant or critter died out. But not one of the plants or critters in question - either the winners or the losers - had any purpose or made any special effort to get that result.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Maybe the genes can respond to wants and needs on a subconscious level.
    No. The driving force in evolution is death.

    Organisms that do less well in whatever environment they find themselves in will die sooner and reproduce less successfully than other organisms in that environment that live well and reproduce successfully. The 'failures' must either move to a more suitable environment where they can succeed .... or die out.

    We can look at the results afterwards and say Aha! That's why that particular plant or critter died out. But not one of the plants or critters in question - either the winners or the losers - had any purpose or made any special effort to get that result.
    I see what you mean.

    I would argue that death cannot be the driving force as if everything died, evolution would end. it is natural selection which is the driving mechanism behind evolution according to darwin.

    your obviously of the opinion that adaption and evolution is 'fluke' and nothing to do with mental effort, or will power or determination.

    I'm of a different opinion. I think the will can effect evolutionairy directions. I'll try to explain: people can decide they want to improove at a sport beuase they love it and also becuase it will give them a better chance of earning money and give them more choice in the mating game. So a person can willfully improove their own ability at a given sport... in their own lifetime they will become stronger, better suited to that sport (say running). I also beleive they will pass on some of the improovements they have made in there own lifetime to there own offspring. their offspring will have a slight advantage over the offspring of the person's siblings, as the person strived so hard to improove in this feild. To really illustrate the point, imagine the athletes siblings waste there whole lives being lazy, taking drugs and living unhealthily... then we really start to see a mark difference between the two sets of offspring and that difference is down to the will power applied by the athletic individual.

    Thats my opinion, it makes sense to me. If you have some evidence that this is not true, i'd be interested in hecking it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I would argue that death cannot be the driving force as if everything died, evolution would end. it is natural selection which is the driving mechanism behind evolution according to darwin.
    Natural selection 'works' by the balance of death and survival. Too much death results in too little survival. If nothing intervenes, like a new food source or the removal of a disease or predator or a more suitable climate, too much death leads to total death.

    "If everything died....." The most important thing about death is that every living thing that dies is food for some other thing in that ecosystem. In bad circumstances, like a flood or some other large scale catastrophe, the things that feed on those dead organisms might just be fungi and bacteria, but life does go on.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I would argue that death cannot be the driving force as if everything died, evolution would end. it is natural selection which is the driving mechanism behind evolution according to darwin.
    Natural selection 'works' by the balance of death and survival. Too much death results in too little survival. If nothing intervenes, like a new food source or the removal of a disease or predator or a more suitable climate, too much death leads to total death.

    "If everything died....." The most important thing about death is that every living thing that dies is food for some other thing in that ecosystem. In bad circumstances, like a flood or some other large scale catastrophe, the things that feed on those dead organisms might just be fungi and bacteria, but life does go on.
    Ofcourse ofcourse.

    Except "if everything died" that would include Everything!

    Do you agree with my other comment then adelady?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    That we evolve and how we evolve (through living or dying, natural selection) has been discussed, but the why of evolution is still out there. What was the natural selective process that led to self awareness, questions about the universe (or multiverse, I just watched NOVA), or inventing new modes of transportation. How did intelligence evolve and how does natural selection account for this phenomenon? Are we on a destination when it comes to evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    That we evolve and how we evolve (through living or dying, natural selection) has been discussed, but the why of evolution is still out there. What was the natural selective process that led to self awareness, questions about the universe (or multiverse, I just watched NOVA), or inventing new modes of transportation. How did intelligence evolve and how does natural selection account for this phenomenon? Are we on a destination when it comes to evolution?
    I have know idea dude. It's a mystery isn't it.

    Questions like this led to the conceptualisation of the soul... At what point does a simple subconscious organism become a conscious organism? at what point does it become self conscious? This is why people beleive in a higher intelligence creating life. Science cannot explain yet as far as I know.


    At what point does one organism merge with another? at what point do we become super organisms made from many smaller organisms? The human super organism relys on a variety of simbiotic relationships with other organisms.

    great question, let me know if you get any answers please.

    heres a link on super organisms and evolution if you fancy taking a look:
    http://eebb.msu.edu/_documents/GardnerGrafen2010-2.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Except "if everything died" that would include Everything!
    Sorry, my pedestrian mind won't go there. Even under "Snowball Earth" conditions which lasted tens of millions of years, it might have looked as though 'everything' died, but it didn't. There were a few small organisms which managed to survive. And, wonder of wonders, here we are today. Evolution got us here. Lots of changes, mostly failures, but we and the biological environment that supports us hit the narrow, rocky path that led to the evolutionary jackpot.

    For everything to die in the way you're suggesting would require something like an asteroid impact blowing the earth to smithereens so there was nothing left of any biological organism. At which point evolution is totally irrelevant.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    25
    Intelligence is very essential to the prospects of survival, especially to organism like us and the apes who are very much physically handicapped compared to many organisms on Earth.
    For had there been no intelligence, Humans could never have become the most powerful beings on Earth.We literally dominate the Animal knigdom, and all of these is due to our high IQ levels. Intelligence allows us to overpower creatures much larger than us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore jgoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    199
    We were already smart enough to practically own the environment when we had about 60% of our current brain size (back in the day; Homo erectus and his friends) so it didn't make sense growing bigger and more expensive brains when we didn't really need them.

    I don't think the purpose of intelligence is survival, as someone noted previously. Intelligence might be just a runaway effect. Perhaps even a very uncommon one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by jgoti View Post
    We were already smart enough to practically own the environment when we had about 60% of our current brain size (back in the day; Homo erectus and his friends) so it didn't make sense growing bigger and more expensive brains when we didn't really need them.

    I don't think the purpose of intelligence is survival, as someone noted previously. Intelligence might be just a runaway effect. Perhaps even a very uncommon one.
    To own the environment which contains other human intelligences, one must be clever enough to out smart others, so one must continue to develop intellegence. As the environment grows more intelligent, so to must you in order to maintain the ownership that you desire. Thats why people smarter than you and me run the world, we give our intelligence (what little we have) away for free on forums like this. Some people spend there time owning the environment instead.

    I don't mind, I wouldn't want this polluted environment all to myself anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I would argue that death cannot be the driving force as if everything died, evolution would end. it is natural selection which is the driving mechanism behind evolution according to darwin.
    What gave Darwin the insight to explain evolution by means of natural selection was an essay On the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus, an English cleric. In this he observed

    "Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence only increases in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power compared to the second".

    Darwin later commented
    "I happened to read for amusement Malthus on 'Population', and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work."

    I think you can see from this that death does indeed have a crucial role to play in evolution.

    So a person can willfully improove their own ability at a given sport... in their own lifetime they will become stronger, better suited to that sport (say running).
    But that is not evolution. That is merely maximising the realisation of ones genetic potential. No matter how much training I might have done as a young man I would never have been able to compete with Usain bolt because I lack the necessary genetics.

    I also beleive they will pass on some of the improovements they have made in there own lifetime to there own offspring. their offspring will have a slight advantage over the offspring of the person's siblings, as the person strived so hard to improove in this feild.
    This is basically the idea promoted by Lamarck. It has been wholly discredited on both theoretical and practical grounds. From a theory point of view there is no way in which improvements in the somatic cells can be transferred to the germ cells through which inheritance is transmitted. From a practical standpoint there has been zero evidence to support the idea and mountains of contrary evidence.

    Lamarksim was rejected everywhere a century ago, except in the Soviet Union where a variant promoted by Lysenko led to agricultural disaster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I would argue that death cannot be the driving force as if everything died, evolution would end. it is natural selection which is the driving mechanism behind evolution according to darwin.
    What gave Darwin the insight to explain evolution by means of natural selection was an essay On the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus, an English cleric. In this he observed

    "Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence only increases in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power compared to the second".

    Darwin later commented
    "I happened to read for amusement Malthus on 'Population', and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work."

    I think you can see from this that death does indeed have a crucial role to play in evolution.

    So a person can willfully improove their own ability at a given sport... in their own lifetime they will become stronger, better suited to that sport (say running).
    But that is not evolution. That is merely maximising the realisation of ones genetic potential. No matter how much training I might have done as a young man I would never have been able to compete with Usain bolt because I lack the necessary genetics.

    I also beleive they will pass on some of the improovements they have made in there own lifetime to there own offspring. their offspring will have a slight advantage over the offspring of the person's siblings, as the person strived so hard to improove in this feild.
    This is basically the idea promoted by Lamarck. It has been wholly discredited on both theoretical and practical grounds. From a theory point of view there is no way in which improvements in the somatic cells can be transferred to the germ cells through which inheritance is transmitted. From a practical standpoint there has been zero evidence to support the idea and mountains of contrary evidence.

    Lamarksim was rejected everywhere a century ago, except in the Soviet Union where a variant promoted by Lysenko led to agricultural disaster.
    I do agree death plays it's part. You could argue that without death nothing would live. I still stand by what I said ofcourse, death isn't the driving force. I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

    I have heard the name Lamark in connection to darwin but I honestly don't know what any of his theories were. I cannot beleive that what I said has been disproved... you're kidding me? what evidence is there for that? How do we know there is no way that info of the body and mind cannot affect info within the sperm and egg? It's like genes or DNA adapting, new info being added to the genetic code somehow... hardly sounds like something from the 18th century to me. I'd rather if my idea was not associated with this lamark character as I don't know anything about him, his theories or why they were discredited. Would have apreciated it if you pasted my whole sentance, if you'll remember I felt it really illustrated the point I was trying to make.

    I don't know about lamark but we do have genetic inheretance i'm pretty sure. deaseas, proness to deseas, genetic 'weakness'' are passed down from generation to generation, why can't improvements be passed down also?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    why can't improvements be passed down also?
    Well, they are. My father managed to pass on a genetic disorder to me. But none of my father's grandchildren or great-grandchildren show any sign of the disorder. So the statistical randomness of most of these disorders means that some families can get rid of the condition. I'd call that an improvement.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore jgoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jgoti View Post
    We were already smart enough to practically own the environment when we had about 60% of our current brain size (back in the day; Homo erectus and his friends) so it didn't make sense growing bigger and more expensive brains when we didn't really need them.

    I don't think the purpose of intelligence is survival, as someone noted previously. Intelligence might be just a runaway effect. Perhaps even a very uncommon one.
    To own the environment which contains other human intelligences, one must be clever enough to out smart others, so one must continue to develop intellegence. As the environment grows more intelligent, so to must you in order to maintain the ownership that you desire. Thats why people smarter than you and me run the world, we give our intelligence (what little we have) away for free on forums like this. Some people spend there time owning the environment instead.

    I don't mind, I wouldn't want this polluted environment all to myself anyway.
    Competition among hominid species... Never thought of that. Good point; we out-smarted predators tenfold but not our direct cousins.
    But I think the tendency towards more and more intelligence, which was doubled due to that competition among hominid species, might have been a fluke, given the cumbersome nature of a big hungry brain; it's cheaper to be a bit more agile than to be a bit smarter. And mothers would have appreciated it too during childbirth.

    Once it got started though it became our extravagant peacock's tail, even though we already had enough IQ a long time ago. At least I believe we did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    why can't improvements be passed down also?
    Well, they are. My father managed to pass on a genetic disorder to me. But none of my father's grandchildren or great-grandchildren show any sign of the disorder. So the statistical randomness of most of these disorders means that some families can get rid of the condition. I'd call that an improvement.
    Thats one way of looking at it, i'd tend to agree with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by jgoti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jgoti View Post
    We were already smart enough to practically own the environment when we had about 60% of our current brain size (back in the day; Homo erectus and his friends) so it didn't make sense growing bigger and more expensive brains when we didn't really need them.

    I don't think the purpose of intelligence is survival, as someone noted previously. Intelligence might be just a runaway effect. Perhaps even a very uncommon one.
    To own the environment which contains other human intelligences, one must be clever enough to out smart others, so one must continue to develop intellegence. As the environment grows more intelligent, so to must you in order to maintain the ownership that you desire. Thats why people smarter than you and me run the world, we give our intelligence (what little we have) away for free on forums like this. Some people spend there time owning the environment instead.

    I don't mind, I wouldn't want this polluted environment all to myself anyway.
    Competition among hominid species... Never thought of that. Good point; we out-smarted predators tenfold but not our direct cousins.
    But I think the tendency towards more and more intelligence, which was doubled due to that competition among hominid species, might have been a fluke, given the cumbersome nature of a big hungry brain; it's cheaper to be a bit more agile than to be a bit smarter. And mothers would have appreciated it too during childbirth.

    Once it got started though it became our extravagant peacock's tail, even though we already had enough IQ a long time ago. At least I believe we did.
    I would geuss it down to our insecurity, that's the motive for everything we do for ourselves IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    why can't improvements be passed down also?
    Well, they are. My father managed to pass on a genetic disorder to me. But none of my father's grandchildren or great-grandchildren show any sign of the disorder. So the statistical randomness of most of these disorders means that some families can get rid of the condition. I'd call that an improvement.
    i think you're looking in the wrong scale... evolution takes place over 100,000's of years.. not by what your uncle Frank passed to your cousin!!!

    Good and bad can prevail as a consequance of Evolution.... it's about the ability to pass your genes on....

    My point is that evolution as a concept for humans has ended... we have reached a point where we now override the principles of evolution. In animals, the biggest balled lion shags the most females, but in humans, we have a set of rules (called law) that says societie's worst can copulate and have offspring....and the strongest one's don't need to hunt bulls, they can just pop into Tesco !!! And imperfections can be put right by medicine !!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by imamartian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    why can't improvements be passed down also?
    Well, they are. My father managed to pass on a genetic disorder to me. But none of my father's grandchildren or great-grandchildren show any sign of the disorder. So the statistical randomness of most of these disorders means that some families can get rid of the condition. I'd call that an improvement.
    i think you're looking in the wrong scale... evolution takes place over 100,000's of years.. not by what your uncle Frank passed to your cousin!!!

    Good and bad can prevail as a consequance of Evolution.... it's about the ability to pass your genes on....

    My point is that evolution as a concept for humans has ended... we have reached a point where we now override the principles of evolution. In animals, the biggest balled lion shags the most females, but in humans, we have a set of rules (called law) that says societie's worst can copulate and have offspring....and the strongest one's don't need to hunt bulls, they can just pop into Tesco !!! And imperfections can be put right by medicine !!!
    But we still evolve... in an unatural way. Maybe it's devolution in some cases?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10
    We evolve in a different way.... maybe a socialogical or a political way, but not really in a Darwinian way !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by imamartian View Post
    We evolve in a different way.... maybe a socialogical or a political way, but not really in a Darwinian way !!
    Hence over population, desease, war and greater pathology IMO. It's ironic that society trumpets darwin when it is his theory which teaches us our way of society produces a load of domesticated people who are not fit enough to survive in nature.

    If anything happens to ruin civilisation... then the tribes in the amazon etc will probably be mankinds best hope for survival.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I also beleive they will pass on some of the improovements they have made in there own lifetime to there own offspring. their offspring will have a slight advantage over the offspring of the person's siblings, as the person strived so hard to improove in this feild.
    This is basically the idea promoted by Lamarck. It has been wholly discredited on both theoretical and practical grounds. From a theory point of view there is no way in which improvements in the somatic cells can be transferred to the germ cells through which inheritance is transmitted. From a practical standpoint there has been zero evidence to support the idea and mountains of contrary evidence.


    I have heard the name Lamark in connection to darwin but I honestly don't know what any of his theories were. I cannot beleive that what I said has been disproved... you're kidding me? what evidence is there for that? How do we know there is no way that info of the body and mind cannot affect info within the sperm and egg? It's like genes or DNA adapting, new info being added to the genetic code somehow... hardly sounds like something from the 18th century to me. I'd rather if my idea was not associated with this lamark character as I don't know anything about him, his theories or why they were discredited. Would have apreciated it if you pasted my whole sentance, if you'll remember I felt it really illustrated the point I was trying to make.

    I don't know about lamark but we do have genetic inheretance i'm pretty sure. deaseas, proness to deseas, genetic 'weakness'' are passed down from generation to generation, why can't improvements be passed down also?
    Bateson subsumes under this heading the changes in the learning structure, that is, a change of the genetical adaptation. In Bateson’s times this was only attributed to the evolutionary selection. Therefore it was expected to take many generations. Recent research on epigenetics shows, however, that this type of learning plays an important role not only from one generation to the next, but might even be important during one lifetime. Genes have memory (Bird 2007). Accordingly, learning IV is closely interwoven with the other levels of learning and cannot be separated decisively.
    Higher Orders of Learning - From Autism to Humanism - Systems Theory in Medicine
    and
    http://www.narberthpa.com/Bale/lsbal...gbtom_patp.pdf

    When we looked into this, (long ago and far away)it was assumed that the genetic code was passed down from a mother to daughter intact,(basically a woman carries her mothers eggs), while sperm are manufactured anew daily. So epigenetic learning was assumed to be fastest through the fathers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I also beleive they will pass on some of the improovements they have made in there own lifetime to there own offspring. their offspring will have a slight advantage over the offspring of the person's siblings, as the person strived so hard to improove in this feild.
    This is basically the idea promoted by Lamarck. It has been wholly discredited on both theoretical and practical grounds. From a theory point of view there is no way in which improvements in the somatic cells can be transferred to the germ cells through which inheritance is transmitted. From a practical standpoint there has been zero evidence to support the idea and mountains of contrary evidence.


    I have heard the name Lamark in connection to darwin but I honestly don't know what any of his theories were. I cannot beleive that what I said has been disproved... you're kidding me? what evidence is there for that? How do we know there is no way that info of the body and mind cannot affect info within the sperm and egg? It's like genes or DNA adapting, new info being added to the genetic code somehow... hardly sounds like something from the 18th century to me. I'd rather if my idea was not associated with this lamark character as I don't know anything about him, his theories or why they were discredited. Would have apreciated it if you pasted my whole sentance, if you'll remember I felt it really illustrated the point I was trying to make.

    I don't know about lamark but we do have genetic inheretance i'm pretty sure. deaseas, proness to deseas, genetic 'weakness'' are passed down from generation to generation, why can't improvements be passed down also?
    Bateson subsumes under this heading the changes in the learning structure, that is, a change of the genetical adaptation. In Bateson’s times this was only attributed to the evolutionary selection. Therefore it was expected to take many generations. Recent research on epigenetics shows, however, that this type of learning plays an important role not only from one generation to the next, but might even be important during one lifetime. Genes have memory (Bird 2007). Accordingly, learning IV is closely interwoven with the other levels of learning and cannot be separated decisively.
    Higher Orders of Learning - From Autism to Humanism - Systems Theory in Medicine
    and
    http://www.narberthpa.com/Bale/lsbal...gbtom_patp.pdf

    When we looked into this, (long ago and far away)it was assumed that the genetic code was passed down from a mother to daughter intact,(basically a woman carries her mothers eggs), while sperm are manufactured anew daily. So epigenetic learning was assumed to be fastest through the fathers.
    Thank you sculptor!
    I beleive this implies my comment or geuss was right?

    interesting that a man epigenetic apabilities are greater... So if the family name passed through women then the intellegence levels/character would not change so much throughout the generations within that family?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    We evolve in a different way.... maybe a socialogical or a political way, but not really in a Darwinian way !!
    Nonsense. Our 'sociological' evolution is a natural, emergent quality of our intelligence. We have to be social animals to raise our offspring who are the most helpless and dependent of any animal - because to fully develop our brain/skull size and the associated intelligence we must do a lot of that brain and skull growth after birth.

    The reason we don't see any large-scale 'Darwinian' evolution in ourselves - or our most closely related primate species as well as several other long-lived species - is that such evolution takes place over many thousands of generations. But we are still evolving in the ordinary, run-of-the-mill biological manner. We will keep on evolving. I'm pretty confident that I can accurately imagine how my descendants might look 10 or so generations from now. I'm also pretty confident that neither I nor anyone else can reasonably imagine what our descendants might be like 10 million years from now.

    As for not surviving a collapse of our civilisations - that would depend on the reason for the collapse.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    We evolve in a different way.... maybe a socialogical or a political way, but not really in a Darwinian way !!
    Nonsense. Our 'sociological' evolution is a natural, emergent quality of our intelligence. We have to be social animals to raise our offspring who are the most helpless and dependent of any animal - because to fully develop our brain/skull size and the associated intelligence we must do a lot of that brain and skull growth after birth.

    The reason we don't see any large-scale 'Darwinian' evolution in ourselves - or our most closely related primate species as well as several other long-lived species - is that such evolution takes place over many thousands of generations. But we are still evolving in the ordinary, run-of-the-mill biological manner. We will keep on evolving. I'm pretty confident that I can accurately imagine how my descendants might look 10 or so generations from now. I'm also pretty confident that neither I nor anyone else can reasonably imagine what our descendants might be like 10 million years from now.

    As for not surviving a collapse of our civilisations - that would depend on the reason for the collapse.
    I thought by 'not in a darwinian way', he meant... not in a natural survival of the fittest way. Which is true, we are domesticated... you wouldn't expect a domestic cow to survive with wilderbeast or buffolo, or a poodle to survive with wolves.

    I know what you mean about 'socialogical' evolution being natural... but taking vaccinations isn't natural. Becoming used to warm radiators and rich diets isn't natural (except everything is arguably natural). you know what i mean though... if this natural artificial environment we build for ourselves fails, then will we still be adapted to roughing it? most of us wouldn't even know what to eat from the 'natural' environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    not in a natural survival of the fittest way
    Tell that to people who trudge for days or weeks across barren plains to get away from famine or violence ridden areas. The ones who do eventually make it to feeding or refugee camps have left behind them hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people who weren't 'fit' enough to do the same.

    And the same thing would happen to us if the same events happened where we live.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    not in a natural survival of the fittest way
    Tell that to people who trudge for days or weeks across barren plains to get away from famine or violence ridden areas. The ones who do eventually make it to feeding or refugee camps have left behind them hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people who weren't 'fit' enough to do the same.

    And the same thing would happen to us if the same events happened where we live.
    Yeah, I was thinking more of our society... western civilisation. capitolism. Survival of the fittest still goes on... but fittness is defined by different parameters than it used to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10
    I did mean the 'developed world' as opposed to poorer or native societies.... for me, what Darwin means is that the best equiped will be able to eat, reproduce and survive more effectively that their competitors.
    Now i think this happens completely randomly, based on a defect, or different in a newborn.
    As for the developed world, we've removed the need to 'dominate' in order to eat, reproduce and survive, so in the true sense, i believe we have stopped evolving. However, that said, we will change, but now based on desire, and other factors, so i supposes the idea of evolution itself has evolved..?!!

    As for what humans will look like in 10million years... i don't think we'll make it anywhere near that far.... we'll be all over the universe, but gradually over time kill each other... !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I agree evolution must evolve, it's in it's nature. So to does the theory of evolution. So to does the definition of the word evolution. I heard this on the grape vine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I have heard the name Lamark in connection to darwin but I honestly don't know what any of his theories were. I cannot beleive that what I said has been disproved... you're kidding me?
    Fortunately science takes no account of your beliefs when arriving at its assessments. I recommend that you not use the Argument from Incredulity fallacy here. It will do you a disservice.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    what evidence is there for that?
    The complete absence of evidence for it occuring. People have tried to demonstrate a connection and failed, repeatedly.

    How do we know there is no way that info of the body and mind cannot affect info within the sperm and egg?
    We do not know that. We only know that, despite many efforts to discover such a connection and influence none has ever been found. There is no evidence that such a possibility exists. In the absence of anything to suggest it may be true why would one wish to continue considering it?

    It's like genes or DNA adapting, new info being added to the genetic code somehow... hardly sounds like something from the 18th century to me.
    You are right. An undefined mechanism producing undetectable results is from a much earlier superstition laden era.

    I'd rather if my idea was not associated with this lamark character as I don't know anything about him, his theories or why they were discredited.
    Lamark was a serious scientist who produced many good results and offered his hypothesis as an attempt to explain the mechanism of evolution. It just turned out he was wrong.

    I don't know about lamark but we do have genetic inheretance
    Of course we have genetic inheritance. But the genes are not influenced in the way you think they are. However, knowing how you value uninformed ideas please feel free to waste your time being incredulous when presented with facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I have heard the name Lamark in connection to darwin but I honestly don't know what any of his theories were. I cannot beleive that what I said has been disproved... you're kidding me?
    Fortunately science takes no account of your beliefs when arriving at its assessments. I recommend that you not use the Argument from Incredulity fallacy here. It will do you a disservice.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    what evidence is there for that?
    The complete absence of evidence for it occuring. People have tried to demonstrate a connection and failed, repeatedly.

    How do we know there is no way that info of the body and mind cannot affect info within the sperm and egg?
    We do not know that. We only know that, despite many efforts to discover such a connection and influence none has ever been found. There is no evidence that such a possibility exists. In the absence of anything to suggest it may be true why would one wish to continue considering it?

    It's like genes or DNA adapting, new info being added to the genetic code somehow... hardly sounds like something from the 18th century to me.
    You are right. An undefined mechanism producing undetectable results is from a much earlier superstition laden era.

    I'd rather if my idea was not associated with this lamark character as I don't know anything about him, his theories or why they were discredited.
    Lamark was a serious scientist who produced many good results and offered his hypothesis as an attempt to explain the mechanism of evolution. It just turned out he was wrong.

    I don't know about lamark but we do have genetic inheretance
    Of course we have genetic inheritance. But the genes are not influenced in the way you think they are. However, knowing how you value uninformed ideas please feel free to waste your time being incredulous when presented with facts.
    Wow john, you really dug into the past here didn't you... I have no idea what the comments you have quoted me as saying were in response to, that's a lie, I do have a vague idea.
    You sound a little bitchy, are you ok?
    I have no idea what you said about 'using the argument from incredulity fallacy'... was that some kind of theory or what? anyway, whatever it is, i have no intention of using it.
    I as a normal regular human being, consider many things that I have no evidence for, I have no evidence that the earth is not the centre of the universe, yet I continue to consider it a reality. You'll just have to learn to forgive me for considering things I have no evidence for. fortunately many intelligent people of the past, including every great scientist I would think, did not refuse to consider something purely because they had no evidence, yet.
    If lamark was wrong... then I geuss I don't need to consider him, not matter how good a scientist he was. thanks for the heads up.
    Tell you what big man... you present some facts, and I promise I will try to waste my time being incredulous... how about that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    Why does man question, solve, and try to solve things that are irrelevant to their survival and thriving on earth?
    A reductionist answer: A neuron that does not get stimulated (by another neuron) will atrophy and die. So you can view this as a struggle for survival, where impulses are the "food" all these individual cells strive to acquire. Cooperation for the "resource" is essential, but the system is contrived such that simple feedback loops don't work; the feedback reward of impulses a neuron gains must be derived more abstractly through a long chain, even looping out into the real world and back.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    How do we know there is no way that info of the body and mind cannot affect info within the sperm and egg?
    We do not know that. We only know that, despite many efforts to discover such a connection and influence none has ever been found. There is no evidence that such a possibility exists. In the absence of anything to suggest it may be true why would one wish to continue considering it?
    There is a relatively new realm of scientific study referred to as the "Hyper Genome" which studies the effect of factors beyond genomics that effect genomic outcomes. There is a fantastic episode of "NOVA" that explores this phenomenon and cell memory, and thus genomic memory, is discussed. If I remember correctly they associated a person who over ate with an ancestor a few generations back who survived famine. Please do not critique my over simplified description of an episode viewed years ago, just look it up and view for yourself as they do a much better job explaining. Also they discussed twin studies where one twin was autistic and the other was not although they were genetically identical. More than genetics effects our genes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The purpose of of...
    By Raziell in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 20th, 2011, 03:36 PM
  2. The purpose of my questions…
    By rrw4rusty in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 24th, 2009, 03:19 AM
  3. Law of Purpose
    By newnothing in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 14th, 2009, 11:34 AM
  4. Purpose
    By Schizo in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: August 13th, 2008, 11:53 PM
  5. Meaning, Purpose
    By Obviously in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 03:32 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •