Was life inevitable?

[Chriliman]

Fascinating video on the nature of reality and how life as we know it was probably inevitable.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Fascinating video on the nature of reality and how life as we know it was probably inevitable.

To me that also points to the Creator.

 

[Chriliman]

To me that also points to the Creator.

Oh yes, certainly implies that. The part about how eyes evolved because of light and wings evolved because of air and brains evolved because of the inherent information in reality was kind of mind blowing to me. It’s like we evolved in order to comprehend what reality is.

 

[com7fy8]

I'm not sure that nonliving things and non-conscious material being could give rise to living and conscious beings.

But God is alive and conscious. So, from Him has come living and conscious beings, though we need an upgrade in nature so we become all-loving, and not the competing survival of the fittest types we have been.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Fascinating video on the nature of reality and how life as we know it was probably inevitable.

It covers quite a lot of recent discoveries in a fairly objective way but makes numerous logical errors in promoting a teleological explanation, especially the retrospective fallacy and the 'puddle' fallacy.

The retrospective fallacy involves looking at the probabilities of all the significant events that led to a particular outcome and marvelling at the overall improbability of that particular outcome, while ignoring the self-selecting bias (some chain of events had to occur, and that particular outcome is just one of a vast number of possible outcomes). Evolution by natural selection lends itself to this kind of fallacy, being a hugely wasteful process where the survivors are the tiny tip of an iceberg of failures that is too often ignored.

The puddle fallacy derives from Douglas Adams:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’"
​

He goes on to point out the potential drawbacks of such 'puddlecentric' reasoning:

"This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’"
​

The last part of the video suggests that the evolution of intelligence was somehow a result of selection pressure from Platonic forms, "as brains evolve against and in response to universal truths". But universal truths are not selection pressures; the evidence suggests that intelligence evolves in response to pressures for flexible and creative responses, predictions (especially behaviour), and forward planning. Regardless of Meno's paradox and the theory of recollection, rather than using supposed innate knowledge of Platonic forms to identify their real-world approximations, we can abstract the ideal forms from the real-world examples.

 

[Chriliman]

It covers quite a lot of recent discoveries in a fairly objective way but makes numerous logical errors in promoting a teleological explanation, especially the retrospective fallacy and the 'puddle' fallacy.

The retrospective fallacy involves looking at the probabilities of all the significant events that led to a particular outcome and marvelling at the overall improbability of that particular outcome, while ignoring the self-selecting bias (some chain of events had to occur, and that particular outcome is just one of a vast number of possible outcomes). Evolution by natural selection lends itself to this kind of fallacy, being a hugely wasteful process where the survivors are the tiny tip of an iceberg of failures that is too often ignored.

That's interesting.

The puddle fallacy derives from Douglas Adams:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’"
​

He goes on to point out the potential drawbacks of such 'puddlecentric' reasoning:

"This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

​

This is an interesting analogy, but I can't help but notice it doesn't assume the puddle can still reason/learn even after evaporation. Water is still water, whether as a puddle or evaporated into the air. However, I do get what it's trying to say, but it renders whatever the puddle thinks as irrelevant because of what happens at the end(assuming it vanishes and can no longer experience anything after evaporation).

The last part of the video suggests that the evolution of intelligence was somehow a result of selection pressure from Platonic forms, "as brains evolve against and in response to universal truths". But universal truths are not selection pressures;

Can you define a universal truth so I can understand why you think they're not selection pressures?

the evidence suggests that intelligence evolves in response to pressures for flexible and creative responses, predictions (especially behaviour), and forward planning. Regardless of Meno's paradox and the theory of recollection, rather than using supposed innate knowledge of Platonic forms to identify their real-world approximations, we can abstract the ideal forms from the real-world examples.

You're losing me here. Sorry.

 

[lasthero]

Oh yes, certainly implies that. The part about how eyes evolved because of light and wings evolved because of air and brains evolved because of the inherent information in reality was kind of mind blowing to me. It’s like we evolved in order to comprehend what reality is.

It’d be kind of weird if we evolved in a way that didn’t allow us to comprehend reality.

 

[Chriliman]

It’d be kind of weird if we evolved in a way that didn’t allow us to comprehend reality.

If there really is no intention behind evolution then no, it wouldn't be weird at all if we evolved in a way that didn't allow us to comprehend reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is an interesting analogy, but I can't help but notice it doesn't assume the puddle can still reason/learn even after evaporation. Water is still water, whether as a puddle or evaporated into the air. However, I do get what it's trying to say, but it renders whatever the puddle thinks as irrelevant because of what happens at the end(assuming it vanishes and can no longer experience anything after evaporation).

It's just a story illustrating a common cognitive bias (e.g. the environment is made to suit life rather than life having to fit the environment). The second part is, I imagine, a swipe at those who may be tempted to think that if the world was made especially for us, the same power will look after it and keep us safe whatever we do.

Can you define a universal truth so I can understand why you think they're not selection pressures?
...
You're losing me here. Sorry.

The video introduced them (35:20) in terms of "a-priori truths", using Plato's "curious theory of reincarnation and reminiscence" as an explanation of their source. For Plato, these a-priori or universal truths were what we might call concepts or abstractions; they are invariant both temporally and perspectivally (e.g. the concept of beauty doesn't change although interpretations of what is or isn't beautiful may do).

In 'Meno', Plato has Socrates explain how a basic understanding of geometry (e.g. shapes) must be innate, and how it can be recalled from the subconscious (reminiscence) with suitable prompting.

Meno's paradox is to do with the futility of searching for such conceptual knowledge, or definitions: "...He cannot search for what he knows, for if he knows, he has no need to look for it. And he cannot search for what he does not know, for then he does not know what he's looking for." The innate knowledge of the reincarnated soul was Socrates' proposed solution, i.e. we already subconsciously 'know' the universal truths, so have no need to search for them.

In 'Phaedo', Plato has Socrates (on death row) show how the concepts of universal truths or ideals like equality, justice, etc., must be innate because they are not physically real in the world for us to learn about them, yet we can still identify instances of them in the world - e.g. how can you know an act is just or unjust unless you understand the concept of justice first? He says that if they're innate, they cannot have been learned during life, and so... this must point to the immortality and reincarnation of the soul (note that, for them, the soul was mind and spirit). Appropriate consolation for someone on death row...

These arguments are easy enough to refute, but the point for the video is that these Platonic ideals or universal truths, like geometry, mathematics, beauty, justice, etc., somehow drive the evolution of intelligence. Seems nonsensical to me. Intelligence is what allows us to categorise the world and abstract such ideals from the commonalities of things using a little imagination.

 

[lasthero]

If there really is no intention behind evolution then no, it wouldn't be weird at all if we evolved in a way that didn't allow us to comprehend reality.

Evolution isn’t random, it happens in response to the enviromenent. That things have evolved in a way that allows them to live in their environments isn’t surprising, it’s expected.

 

[pitabread]

To me that also points to the Creator.

Why?

 

[Chriliman]

Evolution isn’t random, it happens in response to the enviromenent. That things have evolved in a way that allows them to live in their environments isn’t surprising, it’s expected.

Well yea, hence the title of the video. There are physical laws in place that guide evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well yea, hence the title of the video. There are physical laws in place that guide evolution.

A more apt word might be constrain rather than guide. "Guide" implies teleology and that is surely begging the question.

 

[Chriliman]

A more apt word might be constrain rather than guide. "Guide" implies teleology and that is surely begging the question.

Sure, but according the evidence presented in the video, it’s as if the physical constraints are in place in order to bring about particulare features in life, since these similar features arise independently of each other. Did you see that part?

 

[Speedwell]

Sure, but according the evidence presented in the video, it’s as if the physical constraints are in place in order to bring about particulare features in life, since these similar features arise independently of each other. Did you see that part?

There are physical constraints--called natural selection. Similar selection criteria result in similar morphologies.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Sure, but according the evidence presented in the video, it’s as if the physical constraints are in place in order to bring about particulare features in life, since these similar features arise independently of each other. Did you see that part?

So, do ships exist for the sake of barnacles?

 

[Chriliman]

There are physical constraints--called natural selection. Similar selection criteria result in similar morphologies.

Is natural selection constrained by anything?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are physical constraints--called natural selection. Similar selection criteria result in similar morphologies.

Also, as the video mentioned, there are highly conserved genetic 'toolkits' that evolution has used many times, which include patterning constructs.

The idea that we might expect aliens to look familiar to us doesn't seem consistent with the variety we see earlier in evolution - the Ediacarans, for example. Just because vertebrates share some ancient developmental and patterning facilities doesn't mean those developmental patterns are inevitable elsewhere.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sure, but according the evidence presented in the video, it’s as if the physical constraints are in place in order to bring about particulare features in life, since these similar features arise independently of each other. Did you see that part?

I have not yet viewed the video (I have an aversion to videos as a serious mode of communicating infortmation. They are, perhaps, better suited to propaganda*). However, I am familiar with the arguments suggesting the Universe was designed for life. I am also familiar with the arguments refuting this notion.

I find the evidence suggestive, but far from convincing. The arguments (for and against) are based upon our understanding of life derived from observation of life on Earth. While it is an interesting mental exercise to contemplate such matters, extrapolating from a single instance and having any degree of confidence in the result is rather silly.

The questions should continue to be asked. The answers should continue to be constructed. And the conclusions should continue to be ignored.

*Comments from both sides of the fence on this video suggest it may be worth watching. That will likely happen tomorrow.

 

[Ophiolite]

So, do ships exist for the sake of barnacle?

And do dead barnacles go to hull instead of heaven?

Note: It's well after midnight here; you can't expect either coherence or political correctness. At least I never mentioned Hull, only hull.