Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • whenever stevef posts a thread, i imagine a big sled pulled by a cheerfully trotting mammoth bouncing into town. the mammoth shakes off the snow from his back and says "we-e-e-e-ll helloooo thar, folks! have a gander at this!" and his trunk pulls back the tarp from over the sled and reveals a big haul of science, publications and fossil samples and strange liquids in vials, all freshly carved from the knowledge mines.

Topic: Intelligent Evolution (Read 742 times) previous topic - next topic

BenTheBiased and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #25
Humans and some other animals, sure, although maybe not all humans in every sense the term.
And plants as well. See the videos and the studies that they are presenting in those videos.
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it.  

* for example an intelligent, purposeful Nature

Humans have the additional gift of being able to become conscious of this "overruling intelligence" because we can become conscious of that intelligence in ourselves.

  • nesb
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #26
What if, the universe is too grand in scope, for mere intelligence to grasp, much less govern.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #27
What if, the universe is too grand in scope, for mere intelligence to grasp, much less govern.
Can you grasp your own intelligence? Become conscious of yourself as having the capacity of an intelligent, purposeful being?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #28
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it.  
It's a lot like inviting Jesus into your heart!
Or inviting Cthulhu into your heart.

So he'll take you first and you won't have to experience the horror, terror and agony of your loved ones.

Of course, the flip side of that is you don't get to experience the horror, terror and agony of those you despite.
Are we there yet?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #29
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
To save people time, it's worth noting that the linked video is part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

The Discovery Institute - for those that missed the debacle that culminated in the 2005 Dover trial - is an organization founded by right-wing politicians, and is all about right-wing politics and religion.

Since the Dover trial - 12 years ago now - Intelligent Design, and the Disco 'Tute,  has been more of a punchline than a Movement.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #30
Humans and some other animals, sure, although maybe not all humans in every sense the term.
And plants as well. See the videos and the studies that they are presenting in those videos.
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it. 

* for example an intelligent, purposeful Nature

Humans have the additional gift of being able to become conscious of this "overruling intelligence" because we can become conscious of that intelligence in ourselves.
If we are not conscious of that intelligence in ourselves, how can we expect to be able to recognize it anywhere else?

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #31
http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace advocated what is best described as a theory of "intelligent evolution."

Intelligent Evolution Defined
Intelligent evolution is a theory of common descent based upon natural selection strictly bounded by the principle of utility (i.e. the idea that no organ or attribute of an organism will be developed and retained unless it affords it a survival advantage). Where utility cannot be found in a known organ or attribute, some other cause--an intelligent cause--must be called upon.

In sum, intelligent evolution is directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent.

Wallace's Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution
Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace's intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection's operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of "survival of the fittest" and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin's own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace's view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin's science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).
For those interested:
https://youtu.be/hxvAVln6HLI
It takes a certain kind of mental effort to perceive (intuit) even the merest glimmer of the "Overruling intelligence*" that Wallace talks about. Without that kind of mental effort there is no possibility of perceiving it.  

* for example an intelligent, purposeful Nature
Nonsense. Attributing agency and intent where there is none comes naturally to the primitive mind. It requires no effort. It is why conspiracy theories are so plentiful.
  • Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 10:55:58 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #32

I see "Light" has arrived.   :awgee:

Saddle up everyone, it's gonna be a long ride into woo-ville.

Leave your critical thinking skills and rational arguments behind and load up your saddle bags with lots of "awareness" and "intuition".

Evidence free bullshit and equivocation are abundant on the trail ahead so wear your tall boots.
"I'm over 70 and have never seen such , arrogance, incompetence and Ill -intentions as this President and his aids."    The Dotard     (posted 12 days after his 68th birthday)

  • nesb
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #33
What if, the universe is too grand in scope, for mere intelligence to grasp, much less govern.
Can you grasp your own intelligence? Become conscious of yourself as having the capacity of an intelligent, purposeful being?

I guess? I wouldn't use those words, but I know I'm an "intelligent" animal, in some sense of that term, at least. I have not "become conscious" of a higher power, though, and in fact, don't even think I've ever had whatever intuition some people have to make them think that. When I was Christian as a young child, it was because I thought literally everyone was, and so I had never really thought about it.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #34
What if, the universe is too grand in scope, for mere intelligence to grasp, much less govern.
Can you grasp your own intelligence? Become conscious of yourself as having the capacity of an intelligent, purposeful being?

I guess? I wouldn't use those words, but I know I'm an "intelligent" animal, in some sense of that term, at least. I have not "become conscious" of a higher power, though, and in fact, don't even think I've ever had whatever intuition some people have to make them think that. When I was Christian as a young child, it was because I thought literally everyone was, and so I had never really thought about it.
I do not mean a higher power. Just becoming conscious of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.

  • nesb
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #35
I mean, I do think people are wired to find meaning in things. Without that, there would be no way to make even largely trivial and basic everyday choices, since trying to pure logic your way through e.g. deciding what bushel of bananas to buy, will just lead you down some crazy road of infinite regress.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #36
I mean, I do think people are wired to find meaning in things. Without that, there would be no way to make even largely trivial and basic everyday choices, since trying to pure logic your way through e.g. deciding what bushel of bananas to buy, will just lead you down some crazy road of infinite regress.
I am not talking about finding meaning in things.
Just becoming conscious of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.

  • nesb
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #37
I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious" here. Aware?

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #38
I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious" here. Aware?
Do you have some idea of what "conscious" means?

  • nesb
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #39
The meaning depends on context. Usually, if a person asks someone if they're conscious of something, they mean the same thing as asking if that person is aware of something.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #40
The meaning depends on context. Usually, if a person asks someone if they're conscious of something, they mean the same thing as asking if that person is aware of something.
Why not begin with it meaning "aware" and sees where that leads.
I am not talking about finding meaning in things.
Just becoming conscious (aware) of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.
  • Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 07:05:58 PM by socrates1

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #41
The meaning depends on context. Usually, if a person asks someone if they're conscious of something, they mean the same thing as asking if that person is aware of something.
Why not begin with it meaning "aware" and sees where that leads.
I am not talking about finding meaning in things.
Just becoming conscious (aware) of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.
Most people will be aware of this. If not, something is wrong. It is not something remarkable.

Re: Intelligent Evolutio
Reply #42
I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious" here. Aware?
Do you have some idea of what "conscious" means?
Perhaps you are confused. Everybody already knows what "conscious" can mean in various contexts. The question was what you mean. Why not just say so? Why evade the answer with a question? Do you want people to doubt that you know yourself? Or do you wish to remain maximally ambiguous to make your equivocation work?
  • Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 10:49:18 PM by Saunt Taunga

Re: Intelligent Evolutio
Reply #43
I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious" here. Aware?
Do you have some idea of what "conscious" means?
Perhaps you are confused. Everybody already knows what "conscious" can mean in various contexts. The question was what you mean. Why not just say so? Why evade the answer with a question? Do you want people to doubt that you know yourself? Or do you wish to remain maximally ambiguous to make your equivocation work?
Do you know what "equivocation" means? Do you realize that to have a useful discussion people need to believe you know what it is and try to avoid it?

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #44
The meaning depends on context. Usually, if a person asks someone if they're conscious of something, they mean the same thing as asking if that person is aware of something.
Why not begin with it meaning "aware" and sees where that leads.
I am not talking about finding meaning in things.
Just becoming conscious (aware) of your ordinary intelligence, purposefulness.
Here is a question:
Is there a difference between knowing that you have intelligence and purposefulness on the one hand and being conscious (aware) of it on the other hand?
  • Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 07:05:15 AM by socrates1


  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #46
So there is a difference between knowing and being conscious of.
So for example you could know that you have intelligence and purposefulness but not be conscious (aware) of it.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #47
Depends on which definition you're using. For example, definition 2 of know at that link suggests that knowing something is being aware of it. However, definition 3 suggests that knowing something is having sexual intercourse with it. That's why it's always good to be clear what you mean when you use words.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #48
So there is a difference between knowing and being conscious of.
So for example you could know that you have intelligence and purposefulness but not be conscious (aware) of it.
If anyone can work with this, please feel free to do so.
(If no one can work with it, that is fine also).
  • Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 07:24:09 AM by socrates1

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #49
So there is a difference between knowing and being conscious of.
So for example you could know that you have intelligence and purposefulness but not be conscious (aware) of it.
If anyone can work with this, please feel free to do so.
(If no one can work with it, that is fine also).
work
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/work
Quote
to practice trickery or cajolery on for some end