If you look at the evolution of evolution, doesn't it seem like it was all for the rise of man...?

[Neogaia777]

If you look at the evolution of evolution, doesn't it seem like it was all (in preparation for) the rise of mankind (humankind)...?

Or not...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

If you look at the evolution of evolution, doesn't it seem like it was all (in preparation for) the rise of mankind (humankind)...?

Or not...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

That perhaps it was all manipulated for the rise, or appearance, or the coming about of, man(kind)...?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you look at the evolution of evolution, doesn't it seem like it was all (in preparation for) the rise of mankind (humankind)...?

Or not...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

It wold seem like that for us, since we are, in fact, humankind.

 

[Shemjaza]

If you look at the evolution of evolution, doesn't it seem like it was all (in preparation for) the rise of mankind (humankind)...?

Or not...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

There's an awful lot of diversity of beetles and deep sea fish for a biosphere with human's as the goal.

 

[Landon Caeli]

If you look at the evolution of evolution, doesn't it seem like it was all (in preparation for) the rise of mankind (humankind)...?

Or not...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

Man is the most refined form of life. We're like the diamonds of the universe.

 

[Landon Caeli]

There's an awful lot of diversity of beetles and deep sea fish for a biosphere with human's as the goal.

Unless consciousness is the goal, and the ability to think in abstracts, rather than 'diversity'.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Our imagination is our greatness.

 

[Shemjaza]

Unless consciousness is the goal, and the ability to think in abstracts, rather than 'diversity'.

Then it's much worse.

I'm not sure how you define consciousness, but the vast, vast, vast majority of life, by diversity, time, mass and population is not conscious.

 

[quatona]

If you look at the evolution of evolution, doesn't it seem like it was all (in preparation for) the rise of mankind (humankind)...?

Or not...?

The latter.

 

[Neogaia777]

Then it's much worse.

I'm not sure how you define consciousness, but the vast, vast, vast majority of life, by diversity, time, mass and population is not conscious.

How do you define consciousness...?

 

[Neogaia777]

Our imagination is our greatness.

It is great indeed, and from God, I believe...

To think in abstracts, or, to have the ability to "liken" things to other things, that often are not literal, but are in some way true... Real in what we might say, in the kingdom of God kind of reality maybe...?

God Bless!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Unless consciousness is the goal, and the ability to think in abstracts, rather than 'diversity'.

Is that the goal?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then it's much worse.

I'm not sure how you define consciousness, but the vast, vast, vast majority of life, by diversity, time, mass and population is not conscious.

I came across an interesting explanation/definition of consciousness recently, on Aeon - describing it as an inferential process with an attractor of 'least surprise'; with the key feature of being able to model the world and itself with temporal depth (i.e. forward and backward in time, so it can model what might have been and what might be to come): 'Consciousness is not a thing, but a process of inference'.

 

[pitabread]

Man is the most refined form of life.

I dunno, the Tardigrade may have us beat:

Tardigrades are one of the most resilient animals known. Individual species of tardigrades can survive extreme conditions that would be rapidly fatal to nearly all other known life forms, including complete global mass extinction events due to astrophysical events, such as supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, large asteroid impacts, or passing-by stars. Some tardigrades can withstand temperatures down to 1 K (−458 °F; −272 °C) (close to absolute zero) while others can withstand 420 K (300 °F; 150 °C) for several minutes, pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for more than 30 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce.

Tardigrade - Wikipedia

 

[Landon Caeli]

I dunno, the Tardigrade may have us beat:

Tardigrade - Wikipedia

No doubt water bears are really cool.

 

[Shemjaza]

How do you define consciousness...?

Awareness of its surroundings and decision making that extends beyond immediate stimuli.

So plants and single celled critters won't make it and insects and some fish and reptiles are doubtful.

 

[Tanj]

I dunno, the Tardigrade may have us beat:

Tardigrade - Wikipedia

We should shoot these critters onto Mars, Tardigrade-o-form it.

ETA:

In November 2011, they were among the organisms to be sent by the U.S.-based Planetary Society on the Russian Fobos-Grunt mission's Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment to Phobos; however, the launch failed. It remains unknown whether tardigrade specimens survived the failed launch.

lol

 

[Tolworth John]

If you look at the evolution of evolution, doesn't it seem like it was all (in preparation for) the rise of mankind (humankind)...?

Or not...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

The evolution of evolution is to try and cover the failings of evolution to explain how something came out of nothing.
eg How did a creature with no information on how to make feathers, suddenly aquire all the information how to make feathers?
( feathers are composed of a hollow shaft, branches with a hook arrangement to link the branches, these are of different lengths and are coloured. where did the instructions come from? )

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I came across an interesting explanation/definition of consciousness recently, on Aeon - describing it as an inferential process with an attractor of 'least surprise'; with the key feature of being able to model the world and itself with temporal depth (i.e. forward and backward in time, so it can model what might have been and what might be to come): 'Consciousness is not a thing, but a process of inference'.

Interesting article. I think it flawed by equating consciousness with accrueing self-referential evidence and thus drawing inference from it. Consciousness is far more than this, as you would have to determine the utility of quite a lot of human activity, like sense of aesthetic beauty, daydreaming, etc. that one would be hard pressed to do.
Further, he argues that it is flawed to think that consciousness must have a cause/purpose, by asking does evolution have purpose/cause and answering in the negative. Is not the final cause of Evolution the survival of the species? It is profoundly weird to see such New Philosophy Bacon-esque thinking in our modern world, which has resuscitated Aristotlean searches for Teleological causes, while at the same time appealling to the opposite thereof in complex systems to validate the construct he is trying to support.

Again, interesting, but the sophistry is so palpable it can be cut with a knife.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Interesting article. I think it flawed by equating consciousness with accrueing self-referential evidence and thus drawing inference from it. Consciousness is far more than this, as you would have to determine the utility of quite a lot of human activity, like sense of aesthetic beauty, daydreaming, etc. that one would be hard pressed to do.

He was describing what he thinks is necessary and sufficient for consciousness in general, not just human consciousness. The elements you mention are enabled by consciousness, but not required for it and are features of the interaction between a rich consciousness and preconscious cognitive elements.

Further, he argues that it is flawed to think that consciousness must have a cause/purpose, by asking does evolution have purpose/cause and answering in the negative. Is not the final cause of Evolution the survival of the species?

We have a strong tendency to ascribe teleological agency, but evolution isn't teleological, although it produces the kind of results we often associate with teleological processes. There's no purpose; evolution is what happens when natural selection filters populations that reproduce with heritable variation. The cause of evolution is the filtering effect of natural selection on populations that reproduce with heritable variation.

There's a subtle but crucial difference between saying, 'a trait evolved because it aids survival' and 'a trait evolved in order to aid survival'. Viewing the results of evolution, it's tempting - but wrong - to express them in terms of the latter rather than the former. It's like seeing a tall guy playing basketball and saying "he's tall because it makes him good at basketball", rather than, "he's good at basketball because he's tall".

It is profoundly weird to see such New Philosophy Bacon-esque thinking in our modern world, which has resuscitated Aristotlean searches for Teleological causes, while at the same time appealling to the opposite thereof in complex systems to validate the construct he is trying to support.

Again, interesting, but the sophistry is so palpable it can be cut with a knife.

I didn't see it that way because I don't see how natural selection is teleological - can you explain?