Re: irritable evolution syndrome

From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 11:37:25 MDT

  • Next message: Charles Hixson: "Re: greatest threats to survival (was: why believe the truth?)"

    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 - 11:47:22 MDT