Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2015, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 11:52 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 11:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  It seems to me that intelligence at the level of human intelligence is rather likely to evolve in a challenging environment.

And what, other animals lacked a similar "challenging" environment to converge on a similar level of intelligence independently, like the wings of bats and birds?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 11:55 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
"All it takes to argue for the inevitability of humanoids, then, is to claim that there was a “humanoid niche”–a way of life that required high intelligence and sophisticated self-consciousness–and that this niche remained unfilled until inevitably invaded by human ancestors. But was its occupation really inevitable?....

... there are good reasons for thinking that the evolution of humanoids was not only not inevitable, but was a priori improbable. Although convergences are striking features of evolution, there are at least as many failures of convergence. These failures are less striking because they involve species that are missing. Consider Australia again. Many types of mammals that evolved elsewhere have no equivalents among marsupials. There is no marsupial counterpart to a bat (that is, a flying mammal), or to giraffes and elephants (large mammals with long necks or noses that can browse on the leaves of trees). Most tellingly, Australia evolved no counterpart to primates, or any creature with primate-like intelligence. In fact, Australia has many unfilled niches–and hence many unfulfilled convergences, including that prized “humanoid” niche. If high intelligence was such a predictable result of evolution, why did it not evolve in Australia? Why did it arise only once, in Africa??" -Jerry Coyne
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 12:10 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 12:15 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 11:42 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  My argument is that the law of identity is the foundation of logic and that the concept of God violates this axiom because it affirms the primacy of consciousness.

Can you unpack this a little bit, and try and keep it simple, the less jargon the better. What do you mean by primacy of consciousness, and how does God violate the law of identity?

Quote:So, does logic rest on the law of identity or doesn't it?

As far as I can tell, the law of identify is a matter of making distinctions between one thing and the other, such as color and sound. So if the question is, is logic dependent on our abilities to draw distinctions? If so, I guess the answer would be yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You mean another species that already exists? Or another species would have came into existence, that would have had our same rational, and conscious abilities, to be aware of itself, with our creative and intellectual capacities, to decipher truth?


News Flash: The other Great Apes already poses the capacity to be aware of themselves. They can see their reflection in a mirror and come to realize that what they are seeing is in fact themselves. Chimpanzees share about 98% of our DNA, within their genome most probably lies the capabilities to match our intellect, given the proper selective pressures and genetic mutations. But it would be hard for chimpanzees to fill a evolutionary niche that we already currently fill.


(19-05-2015 08:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If our human conscious capacities, and ability to reason are product of selection pressures in the environment, those particular pressures would likely have been a fluke, unlikely to ever be repeated. If they weren't a fluke, we'd likely see some form of convergent evolution occurring, like the flying capacities, of insects, birds, and bats, but we don't.


They weren't a fluke. Intelligence is hardly a unique feature, just one that we most excel at. Just because not every creature is as massive as a blue whale or has the eyes of a hawk, doesn't mean that other animals are not capable of massive size or keen vision.

See Also: The Great Apes, Dolphins, Ravens, etc.


(19-05-2015 08:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The chances that if we were to find life on another planet, that has existed for at least as long as we have, to have developed creatures like ourselves, with our capacities to reason, is slim to none. This development as even Jerry Coyne points out, would be one-off, not inevitable in anyway.


And yet the universe is old and massive, and rare statistically improbable occurrences happen all the fucking time. Our chances of finding similarly intelligent life are almost non existent, but there almost certainly exists more intelligent life out in the galaxy, let alone the universe.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 11:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 11:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  It seems to me that intelligence at the level of human intelligence is rather likely to evolve in a challenging environment.

And what, other animals lacked a similar "challenging" environment to converge on a similar level of intelligence independently, like the wings of bats and birds?

Why do you think this means that every species would have to develop intelligence or consciousness? Consider

No, other animals have developed various levels of intelligence, as was pointed out.

Just as the wings of bats and birds are very different, so are the minds of different species. If humans disappeared or had never happened, some other species might develop intelligence. It is the luck of the draw.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 11:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 11:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  It seems to me that intelligence at the level of human intelligence is rather likely to evolve in a challenging environment.

And what, other animals lacked a similar "challenging" environment to converge on a similar level of intelligence independently, like the wings of bats and birds?


While bats and birds are both capable of flight, they do so in different ways. For that matter, so do various species of insects and extant geniuses such as the pterosaurs.

So not every animal is capable of human intelligence, but intelligence itself is hardly unique. We see the awareness of self and other problem solving capabilities in our Great Ape cousins, and almost all mammals display varying levels of intelligence; some of which are quite impressive (dolphins, pigs, and elephants come to mind).

Notice however that while we lack echo location or sonar as developed in other mammals, we can still process pressure waves as sound.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 11:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "All it takes to argue for the inevitability of humanoids, then, is to claim that there was a “humanoid niche”–a way of life that required high intelligence and sophisticated self-consciousness–and that this niche remained unfilled until inevitably invaded by human ancestors. But was its occupation really inevitable?....

... there are good reasons for thinking that the evolution of humanoids was not only not inevitable, but was a priori improbable. Although convergences are striking features of evolution, there are at least as many failures of convergence. These failures are less striking because they involve species that are missing. Consider Australia again. Many types of mammals that evolved elsewhere have no equivalents among marsupials. There is no marsupial counterpart to a bat (that is, a flying mammal), or to giraffes and elephants (large mammals with long necks or noses that can browse on the leaves of trees). Most tellingly, Australia evolved no counterpart to primates, or any creature with primate-like intelligence. In fact, Australia has many unfilled niches–and hence many unfulfilled convergences, including that prized “humanoid” niche. If high intelligence was such a predictable result of evolution, why did it not evolve in Australia? Why did it arise only once, in Africa??" -Jerry Coyne

I agree with you that it was in no way inevitable and that humans as a species came to exist and that we were an unlikely product of evolution. But any given species is vastly unlikely.

What is your point?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-05-2015, 01:39 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
I would add to this that human intelligence is primarily a development in our ability to communicate, rather than to reason. The new and improved language center of our brains gave us an ability to order -- and more importantly, share, pass on, and debate -- thoughts and concepts that we lacked before. Of course other species do have ways of communication, including the ability to learn vocabulary. (Ask any dog-owner. ... just don't ask a cat-owner.) But as far as we can tell, no other species has a method of communication as robust as human language, or a brain capable of the same level of vocabulary and syntax. This was a major development in our species, but it was an expansion of existing capacity rather than inventing something new from whole cloth.

When we evaluate other species for intelligence, one of the key factors we intuitively use to judge (next to problem-solving) is their ability to understand us and our ability to understand them, or their ability to understand each other. A parrot that's able to, well, parrot us will always seem more intelligent on first blush than a cat who can't, even if the cat's the better problem-solver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 06:34 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 07:02 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 01:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just as the wings of bats and birds are very different, so are the minds of different species. If humans disappeared or had never happened, some other species might develop intelligence.

Why would humans not happening, or disappearing have any real affect of another species developing similar intelligence? Birds developing wings, didn't prevent or hinder bats from developing them independently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 06:43 PM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 06:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 01:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just as the wings of bats and birds are very different, so are the minds of different species. If humans disappeared or had never happened, some other species might develop intelligence.

Why would humans not happening, or disparaging have any real affect of another species developing similar intelligence? Birds developing wings, didn't prevent or hinder bats from developing them independently.

Depends on what you mean by when in the timeline of Humans happening. Like do you think currently, right now, in the world where humans literally have their hands across all ranges of the world and elements of where general species have been living, and it's been that way for a good plenty thousands of years. We are a dominating force that acts as a certain time of evolutionary factor to many species. Due to our wide ranging influence of habitat shuffling, resource altering, and domestication, intentional but sometimes not so intentional done. We take up so much territory and corral it to our manner opposed to having other species to do so. But this is all still just a small timescale of a short hundred thousand years or so.

In a hominids evolving in an African setting area, no nothing there prevented any different species of Americas or Asias landscapes from growing a deeper intelligence, but perhaps they didn't have the direct competing situational factors or physiological makeup to make it... but perhaps they could of and might of done so in another 10 million years but Humans eventually reached out to that area and halted those potential situations.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: