Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The aspies on this board post long posts about being aspie, and the ADHDers can't read to the end of them.

Topic: Intelligent Evolution (Read 743 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Faid
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #50
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.
Yes.

Also, "intelligence" is not the same as "purposefulness".
  • Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 09:20:08 AM by Faid
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #51
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?

Worth repeating.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #52
Quote
It can be difficult to know where to begin. How should you navigate this magical nexus?
Worth repeating.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #53
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?

Worth repeating.
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?

  • Faid
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #54
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
Like you said:
Quote
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.
So, if we can know that we are intelligent ourselves (even though we may not be conscious of our intelligence), why can we not also recognize (=know of the existence of) intelligence elsewhere?

We can. Just not by the methods the DI fantasizes about.

Oh and I fixed your post. Intelligence is not the equivalent of purposefulness. Although one can often be found in the other.
  • Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 12:35:55 PM by Faid
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #55
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.
I'd say that is not possible. As far as I'm concerned "to be aware of X" means exactly the same as "to know X exists".

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #56
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.
I'd say that is not possible. As far as I'm concerned "to be aware of X" means exactly the same as "to know X exists".
Like from the definition previously linked to.
Definition of know
...
2 a :to be aware of the truth or factuality of :be convinced or certain of

Perhaps an example of awareness without knowing or knowing without awareness could help.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #57

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
  • Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 06:19:58 AM by socrates1

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #58



Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #59

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
Maybe if you contributed something yourself?
You are just asking questions.

Any normal human is conscious of their own human level of intelligence/purposefulness.
This allows humans to recognize situations where intelligence/purposefulness would have been required if a human were the one that caused the situation.

That a human requires intelligence/purposefulness to achieve some result does not mean that the same result always requires intelligence/purposefulness if it came about in some other way.

For example, for a human to build a stone arch, the human needs intelligence/purposefulness.
Stone arches can however also come about by unintelligent, purposeless natural processes.
See Natural Arch
  • Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 07:01:08 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #60

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #61

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
Socrates doesn't seem to be interested in understanding that saying something meaningful consists of more than just stringing words together.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #62

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
It is not different.
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong about this.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #63

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
It is not different.
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong about this.
Explaining is not something you do, is it?
You tediously repeat the same silly questions.
Why is that?

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #64

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
It is not different.
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong about this.
Explaining is not something you do, is it?
You tediously repeat the same silly questions.
Why is that?

You are again starting your story in the middle.
to know something is different than being conscious of it.
Has not been established as true.
This needs to happen before
understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
becomes something to be interested in.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #65
Step 1 would be explaining what you mean by "to know" and "being conscious of," respectively, so that any intended difference between them could be understood by the reader.

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #66
Step 1 would be explaining what you mean by "to know" and "being conscious of," respectively, so that any intended difference between them could be understood by the reader.
Yes.
It is probably possible to find at least half sensible meanings for "know" and "conscious" such that "to know something is different than being conscious of it" is true. But until socrates supplies these meanings he is wasting his time.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #67

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
From your posts, it seems that if I do not help you, you are completely unable to make any headway on your own. The thing about this particular topic is that it requires an active effort on your part. I thought that nesb was interested in making an active effort but he seems to have lost interest. 

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #68

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
From your posts, it seems that if I do not help you, you are completely unable to make any headway on your own. The thing about this particular topic is that it requires an active effort on your part. I thought that nesb was interested in making an active effort but he seems to have lost interest.
To make headway people will need to know what you are trying to say. People are not psychic, you need to tell them.
As things stand, what can be guessed from what you post, what you are trying to say is something infantile and stupid, and there is no headway to be made.
I would really like this guess to be wrong because that could potentially be more interesting.
But you refuse to contribute.


  • Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 08:06:55 AM by Saunt Taunga

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #69
The only possibly relevant distinction I can think of between "know" and "be conscious of" would be the distinction between having a piece of knowledge and actively thinking about that knowledge. For example, I "know" that 2+2=4, but most of the time I'm not thinking about that fact, so one might say I'm often not "conscious" of it. I have no idea if that's the distinction Socrates intends or not, nor do I really have any idea what bearing it might have on any ideas about "intelligent evolution," but I can't really think of anything else it would be. If Socrates refuses to explain what he's talking about, then I guess, as he likes to say, so be it.

  • Faid
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #70

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
Like you said:
Quote
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.
So, if we can know that we are intelligent ourselves (even though we may not be conscious of our intelligence), why can we not also recognize (=know of the existence of) intelligence elsewhere?

We can. Just not by the methods the DI fantasizes about.

Oh and I fixed your post. Intelligence is not the equivalent of purposefulness. Although one can often be found in the other.
:raisebrow:
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #71

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
Like you said:
Quote
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.
So, if we can know that we are intelligent ourselves (even though we may not be conscious of our intelligence), why can we not also recognize (=know of the existence of) intelligence elsewhere?

We can. Just not by the methods the DI fantasizes about.

Oh and I fixed your post. Intelligence is not the equivalent of purposefulness. Although one can often be found in the other.
:raisebrow:
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #72

Quote
To clarify:
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
It looks like nobody can contribute on this. So be it.
And nobody seems to be interested in understanding that to know something is different than being conscious of it.
From your posts, it seems that if I do not help you, you are completely unable to make any headway on your own. The thing about this particular topic is that it requires an active effort on your part. I thought that nesb was interested in making an active effort but he seems to have lost interest. 
If we are not conscious of our own human level of intelligence/purposefulness, how can we expect to be able to recognize intelligence/purposefulness anywhere else?
Like you said:
Quote
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.
So, if we can know that we are intelligent ourselves (even though we may not be conscious of our intelligence), why can we not also recognize (=know of the existence of) intelligence elsewhere?

We can. Just not by the methods the DI fantasizes about.

Oh and I fixed your post. Intelligence is not the equivalent of purposefulness. Although one can often be found in the other.
:raisebrow:
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #73
The only possibly relevant distinction I can think of between "know" and "be conscious of" would be the distinction between having a piece of knowledge and actively thinking about that knowledge. For example, I "know" that 2+2=4, but most of the time I'm not thinking about that fact, so one might say I'm often not "conscious" of it. I have no idea if that's the distinction Socrates intends or not, nor do I really have any idea what bearing it might have on any ideas about "intelligent evolution," but I can't really think of anything else it would be. If Socrates refuses to explain what he's talking about, then I guess, as he likes to say, so be it.
That was not so hard. But if you are thinking about something are you conscious of it?

Re: Intelligent Evolution
Reply #74
The only possibly relevant distinction I can think of between "know" and "be conscious of" would be the distinction between having a piece of knowledge and actively thinking about that knowledge. For example, I "know" that 2+2=4, but most of the time I'm not thinking about that fact, so one might say I'm often not "conscious" of it. I have no idea if that's the distinction Socrates intends or not, nor do I really have any idea what bearing it might have on any ideas about "intelligent evolution," but I can't really think of anything else it would be. If Socrates refuses to explain what he's talking about, then I guess, as he likes to say, so be it.
That was not so hard. But if you are thinking about something are you conscious of it?
I am. Isn't everybody?