Re: irritable evolution syndrome

From: Kevin Freels (megaquark@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 12:21:21 MDT

  • Next message: Harvey Newstrom: "RE: Why believe the truth?"

    On a side note, it's always possible that intelligence arose in a reptilian
    form prior to extinction of the dinosaurs. If there were intelligence, even
    to the point of our development in egyptian times, it is likely we would
    never discover it......Maybe intelligence is likely to arise no matter what
    form it takes!

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
    To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:37 PM
    Subject: Re: irritable evolution syndrome

    > Kevin Freels wrote:
    >
    > >lol! Thanks for saying what I was going to say. Now I don't have to type
    it!
    > >----- Original Message -----
    > >From: "Damien Broderick" <damienb@unimelb.edu.au>
    > >To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    > >Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:49 PM
    > >Subject: irritable evolution syndrome
    > >
    > >...
    > >
    > >>The analogy should surely be: `if the evolutionary "program" of life on
    > >>earth were re-run using different starting conditions, or with
    additional
    > >>factors introduced and other deleted, X might not evolve again.' But I
    > >>suppose most people don't grok `program' even in this simple sense, and
    > >>somehow *do* grasp what's meant, even though the analogy makes no sense
    at
    > >>all. Weird, the human mind. Why, if the tape were replayed, I bet we'd
    end
    > >>up with a mind that--
    > >>
    > >>Damien Broderick
    > >>
    > I believe that Gould was actually asserting that the program couldn't be
    > expected to produce intelligent life even if the initial starting
    > conditions were the same. This has always seemed a narrow viewpoint to
    > me. It wouldn't produce Homo Sapiens, or even Mamalia, but this doesn't
    > imply that it wouldn't produce intelligence, as he always seems to infer.
    >
    > Other than that, I rather agree with his conclusions. History is
    > contingent. And evolution is history writ large.
    >
    > Still, one must admit that the jury is still out. We don't know what
    > caused multi-cellular life to suddenly appear, e.g., and without knowing
    > that, how can we predict the sequela.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 12:26:27 MDT