Intelligent Apex Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2013, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2013 10:53 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
In a more on-topic post, it is very likely that we are just blithering idiots stumbling around the universe, whose accomplishments would be dwarfed by another species even slightly more intelligence.





I lose sleep over this, and I've always wanted to be in the company of a leading biologist to get insight into this. We, as an astrophysicists we have seen throughout time the hubris that comes with any discovery that gets made. Or the hubris that prevents the acceptance of a discovery that might demote your sense of self from whatever you previously imagined it to be. Among them is 'where is Earth?' Is it at the center of all things? No, it's not even a significant planet in orbit around an ordinary star in the corner of a ordinary galaxy, one of a hundred billion galaxies in the universe. And so here we are saying 'lets search for life in the universe, intelligent life like us'. Well, who are we to say we're intelligent? I mean I pose that not as a joke question, but as a very serious question. We define ourselves to be intelligent in ways that no other creature can rival. Okay, now what do we credit that intelligence to? So you look at the genome, and let's take the chimp, I guess that's a really close relative of ours; and we have what is it ninety, high nineties percent identical indistinguishable DNA? And the chimp does not build the Hubble telescope, and the chimp does not compose symphonies, so we must then declare that everything we say about us that is intelligent is found in that one and a half percent difference in DNA. First is that a fair statement to make?

Let me invert that question. If the genetic difference between humans and chimps is that small, maybe the difference in our intelligence is also that small. Maybe the difference between stacking boxes and reaching a banana, putting up an umbrella when it rains, whatever are these rudimentary things a chimp does that the Primatologist roll them forward and boast about; which of course our toddlers can do. Maybe the difference between that and the Hubble telescope is as small as that difference in DNA, because I pose the question; suppose there was another life form on Earth or elsewhere that in that same sort of vector, that one and a half percent difference we are to chimps, suppose they were one and a half percent different from us? They would then roll the smartest of us in front of their Humatologist and say 'the Hawking, here's Hawking, oh this one is slightly smarter than the rest of them because he can do astrophysics calculations in his head; like little Timmy over here.' So I wonder if we're just blithering idiots in the presence of even a trivially smarter species than us. So therefore who are we to even assert that, number one, we are intelligent and we're looking for others at least as intelligent as us out there to talk to?
-Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
16-09-2013, 06:03 AM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2013 06:15 AM by absols.)
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
u think being smart hen ???? then u r finite dead shit or gonna eternally mean to kill

it is intelligence that must b rejected, not intelligent is not stupid either

opposites are always about a same absolute thing

like i could see a thing that both are to, being ways to spend less energies since must be or look constant
stupid is a way of being by not making effort, so it is a way of auto management of energy
intelligence is also a way of being by seeing all in a related perspective first, so being by the illusion that u can position urself being according to everything in a way that it stays above constant, so the effect of losing oneself value wont happen before all are lost

by that u can see how stupid is better management

free, freedom true freedom relatively or even still, it is the only right existence ways, the answer, any free sense like true not faking it by leaning on powers

any conscious of else existence, this is the still freedom

and any free self realisation of being, this is the relative freedom, at least being able to move alone for itself being value, not accepting staying as shit

to any free true existence realisations, which kind of unite both previous relative freedom by adding an absolute factor of being free superior, so not leaning on at all
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 06:06 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
(16-09-2013 06:03 AM)absols Wrote:  u think being smart hen ???? then u r finite dead shit or gonna eternally mean to kill

it is intelligence that must b rejected, not intelligent is not stupid either

opposites are always about a same absolute thing

free, freedom true freedom relatively or even still, any free sense like true not faking it by leaning on powers

any conscious of else existence, this is the still freedom

and any free self realisation of being, this is the relative freedom, at least being able to move alone for itself being value, not accepting staying as shit

to any free true existence realisations, which kind of unite both previous relative freedom by adding an absolute factor of being free superior, so not leaning on at all

[Image: 134398057363.gif]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 06:21 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
i guess the real difference between monckeys and humans is what animals are too far possessed to b used for powers life, so they look too inacceptable individuality, with all that ugliness and body barely standing
cant look bc possessed cant look free

individuals were designed to b possibly free, so the brain is happy to identify itself when it looks at the mirror or do smthg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  We are intelligent as a species in relation to other species. Species that make us look smart when we're next to them; animals, insects etc.
Yes. Intelligence is relative.


(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  But some people seem to think, regardless of these creatures, we tip the scales of intellect, that we're somewhat at the higher end of the spectrum. Even to the point where we've taken up the authority to dictate what can and cannot exist (wow).
1. Our ability to measure intelligence in other animals is a bit lacking as of yet, but, we are at the higher end of intelligent animals, yes (on this planet anyway).
2. It has nothing to do with authority. We have "determined" what exists by observing and measuring the interactions of matter and energy, building models (hypotheses) which incorporate observable measurable data, and performing experiments to test our models/hypotheses against reality. If our hypotheses survive rigorous experimental testing, they become theories. There is no data suggesting the existence of an "omniscience" on which to build a hypothesis, much less one that can survive experimental validation. This is why there is no "theory of god" in a scientific sense.

(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  If a scale/spectrum of intelligence exists, then an absolute level of intelligence exists - a point in which intelligence reaches it's peak (some call it - omniscience, personified as the concept of God, ergo, God exists).
Just because a possible position on a scale or spectrum exists quantitatively, does not require that position to be filled qualitatively. That possibility is also in question.
Just like stars, which have minimum thresholds to start the fusion process and maximum sizes before collapsing under their own weight, biological brains have minimum sizes for intelligence patterns to emerge and maximum sizes to perform effectively. Heywood is right. In this universe, a consciousness, biological or not, would have to relay information over cosmological distances. The relay rate is limited by the speed of light. This would make thought processes on such a scale extremely slow. Furthermore, quantum physics states that a system cannot hold more information than be contained on the surface area of it's boundary. In other words, a tennis ball cannot hold more information than can be written on its surface at the plank length cubed for each unit of information. (I hope I got that down correctly Sadcryface ) This would require any intelligence operating within this universe, even if it's operations were enacted from outside the universe, to be enormously huge. Such a being, while possibly aware of your existence, would be unable to communicate, answer prayers, or intercede on your behalf in a timely fashion.

(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  The atheist will have to then take the other option: that this apex does not exist, that intelligence simply goes on forever -
This is false dichotomy fallacy. Either I agree with you or take option B. I could take the position that the apex exists, but, falls short of omniscience. We do not fully understand intelligence. We do understand that it pertains to the perception and processing of information. The transmission of that information is limited by the laws of physics. These limitations have real world implications for the ability of beings to be intelligent. Once again, quantitative position vs qualitative possibility.

(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  which means, theoretically, the human race can be reduced to a species of fumbling retards compared to a species X with insurmountably levels of intellect.
We are demonstrably not at an apex of all possible intelligence. It is quite possible for life to have evolved in other places in the universe whose intelligence is far older and more advanced than our own. It is possible that thousands or millions of these intelligences have risen and fallen long before an energetic wave began to compress a cloud of interstellar gas that would eventually become our sun all of which might have regarded us as "a species of fumbling retards". This still doesn't suggest, support or require the idea that there is a "something" that knows "everything".

(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  The atheist will have to apply this logic to stupidity - so you have a creature X that is infinitely stupid.
No. Such stupidity is quantitatively possible. Such beings would be qualitatively dead on a very short timescale.


P.S. You have ruined my appetite for eggs. Thx.

You can lead a theist to reason, but, you cannot make him think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 06:36 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
(16-09-2013 06:29 AM)NoSkyDaddy Wrote:  
(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  which means, theoretically, the human race can be reduced to a species of fumbling retards compared to a species X with insurmountably levels of intellect.
We are demonstrably not at an apex of all possible intelligence. It is quite possible for life to have evolved in other places in the universe whose intelligence is far older and more advanced than our own. It is possible that thousands or millions of these intelligences have risen and fallen long before an energetic wave began to compress a cloud of interstellar gas that would eventually become our sun all of which might have regarded us as "a species of fumbling retards". This still doesn't suggest, support or require the idea that there is a "something" that knows "everything".


Another thought experiment. What would be the evolutionary driving force in increased intelligence once a species has gained enough intelligence to modify their environment to the point where it no longer imposes selection pressures on the species? I imagine that until a species can learn enough to modify it's own genome (or equivalent) or chooses to go with selective breeding (artificial selection), then I think that the environment simply wouldn't be up to the task of naturally creating an intelligence significantly better than ours.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-09-2013, 06:44 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
(16-09-2013 06:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(16-09-2013 06:03 AM)absols Wrote:  u think being smart hen ???? then u r finite dead shit or gonna eternally mean to kill

it is intelligence that must b rejected, not intelligent is not stupid either

opposites are always about a same absolute thing

free, freedom true freedom relatively or even still, any free sense like true not faking it by leaning on powers

any conscious of else existence, this is the still freedom

and any free self realisation of being, this is the relative freedom, at least being able to move alone for itself being value, not accepting staying as shit

to any free true existence realisations, which kind of unite both previous relative freedom by adding an absolute factor of being free superior, so not leaning on at all

[Image: 134398057363.gif]

[Image: mqdefault.jpg]

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 07:10 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
u r dreaming with this community thinking...tooo funny

u r going down communly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 08:02 AM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2013 08:12 AM by Elesjei.)
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
The human brain, according to an internet search, has an estimated 100 billion neurons connected by trillions of synapses. There is a limited number of possible connections. However many connections there are in the parts of the brain that store memory defines the limit for our capacity for knowledge.

Of course, each cell is made of a huge number of molecules, and the position of each molecule is a fact to be known. A brain is incapable of knowing the position of every molecule in the brain at any point in time because that information requires more connections than a brain knowing that can have. And knowing the position of a molecule creates a physical change in the brain to store the knowledge, meaning other knowledge becomes incorrect in the process. Brains have blind-spots, and that's just with knowledge about the brain itself. It's worse when you go outside because the brain < the universe.

Knowledge is always greater than brain capacity. Therefore, absolute intelligence is impossible.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
bravo u have no problem to say the facts, it seems being the print of virtue

it is not the argument it is the fact everyone know

we are forced to argue bc they bet on justifications weakness especially with lies free possiblities

also for the argument sake, anyone can come and surprise by destroying everything at any moment

destruction of objective things allow to believe being superior, by taking advantage from knowing that anything still is like nothing value objectively, it is not free, so relative like nonexisting
so the act to ruin it gives a sense of being free since able to realize as if smthg alone like free do

doesnt matter when it is subjective conclusion, the fact that true free are positive sources
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: