have they found anything?

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, saying "it took 4 billion years to evolve human intelligence" makes as much sense as saying it took 4 billion years to evolve a certain type of virus or parasitic worm.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Also, saying it took 4 billion years to get humans would imply some sort of linear progression. Evolution does NOT have any particular goal in mind to follow any sort of linear path. There are fits and starts, dead ends and mistakes that are made along the way. The most linear path to us probably only started 30 million years ago.

 

[arthwollipot]

Intelligence in any species is for the survival of that species. Mankind seems to have an overkill of the trait. We don't need to be so smart for survival purposes.

Personally I think our intelligence is the result of a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

Have you read The Blind Watchmaker? That's the one where Dawkins goes on about arms races and positive feedback loops, I think.

 

[amb]

Also, saying it took 4 billion years to get humans would imply some sort of linear progression. Evolution does NOT have any particular goal in mind to follow any sort of linear path. There are fits and starts, dead ends and mistakes that are made along the way. The most linear path to us probably only started 30 million years ago.

But that's my argument. Our intelligence could well be a random accident of evolution.
If the Earth's history was replayed from day one. What are the chances we would exist exactly as we are? None is my argument.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But that's my argument. Our intelligence could well be a random accident of evolution.

Is there any organism whose evolution is not a "random accident"? Can you at least say what you mean by "accident" since you deny it has any theological underpinnings?

Nothing in evolution is "intentional" or "on purpose".

If the Earth's history was replayed from day one. What are the chances we would exist exactly as we are? None is my argument.

And that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not intelligence is common or rare. That's the problem with the backwards thinking of the Rare Earth Theory.

It's exactly like the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Fire an unaimed bullet into the side of a barn and then draw a tiny circle around that bullet hole and ask "What are the chances of hitting exactly that spot?"

 

[LarianLeQuella]

But that's my argument. Our intelligence could well be a random accident of evolution.
If the Earth's history was replayed from day one. What are the chances we would exist exactly as we are? None is my argument.

And your argument is flawed as has been pointed out numerous times. FURTHERMORE, there are probably an uncountable number of "solutions" to "intelligence". Given your gambit; sure, Homo Sapiens wouldn't be here, but given what we do know, something else would probably be here.

 

[amb]

Something else? What exactly? An intelligent dolphin capable of building a satellite?
Perhaps a chimp building a skyscraper?
My thoughts are thus: We are a complete random event that is only repeated once every trillion or so times. That does not rule out that there are other Earths out there somewhere. But I think they're very rare.
If on the other hand intelligence is widely spread throughout the cosmos, then the theist/ deists may well be right.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

You are thinking too lineraly.... Why does it have to be a chimp or dolphin? Those are things that we have NOW. If you restarted the earth from abiogenesis and let it go, for all we know it could be a 4 legged 4 armed reptilian creature occuping the highest order. Or maybe some form of life we have no frame of reference to at all. I don't think there is anything special at all about intelligence, it's just a human centric notion that needs a "great demotion" as Sagan would say.

Why would a large number of intelligences make theists right? I suppose if they all had some similar mythologies as ours, perhaps, but if anything it would weaken their stance, especially if their mythologies bore zero resemblance too ours. Or better yet, they have outgrown mythologies?

So what do you have to back up your thought that "We are a complete random event that is only repeated once every trillion or so times." I think that's what Joe and I have been hammering you on. BACK IT UP! PROVIDE EVIDENCE. The BEST we can say is we have no frikkin idea, but the current evidence would indicate that there is nothing special about us really.

 

[amb]

Some theist sometimes use the argument that the laws of physics are responsible for intelligence existing in the cosmos, and then explain that these laws have been there since before the B/B. In other words they, after many words they inevitabily place their god in the gap just before the B/B as been the source of these laws.
A cop out of natural processes that instead rule out any god.
If the laws of physics are the same everywhere, and the evidence shows that they are, then it will be natural that wherever conditions suit, life will evolve.
But are these laws also responsible for consciousness? That is where the random accident of consciousness or intelligence may be extremely rare.
How can anyone back that up with evidence? No one can until we discover other intelligence that has evolved completely separate from homo sapiens.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is the reason I keep saying you think like a creationist:

But are these laws also responsible for consciousness? That is where the random accident of consciousness or intelligence may be extremely rare.

Of course the laws of nature are also responsible for consciousness. If not, then consciousness is the result of the supernatural.

Please answer this: if you're not talking about an "accident" in terms of theism ("accidental" as opposed to "on purpose" or "by intention" or "by design")--what do you mean by "accident"? Is there any non-theistic approach where just some events are accidents and others are not?

All events obey the laws of nature. The laws of nature are the same everywhere. (That is, either everything is an accident or nothing is an accident.) There is nothing special or unique about the location of the Earth.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Some theist sometimes use the argument that the laws of physics are responsible for intelligence existing in the cosmos, and then explain that these laws have been there since before the B/B. In other words they, after many words they inevitabily place their god in the gap just before the B/B as been the source of these laws.
A cop out of natural processes that instead rule out any god.
If the laws of physics are the same everywhere, and the evidence shows that they are, then it will be natural that wherever conditions suit, life will evolve.
But are these laws also responsible for consciousness? That is where the random accident of consciousness or intelligence may be extremely rare.
How can anyone back that up with evidence? No one can until we discover other intelligence that has evolved completely separate from homo sapiens.

Sounds like the strong anthropic argument (assuming I have my terminology correct). Again, it's BACKWARDS reasoning: Because we're here, then this place is perfectly suited to us. There is no accident what-so-ever involved. It's all a natural process that we did quite well in. Again, since we have no idea beyond our ONE datapoint, we cannot say for sure one way or another if this process has repeated lots of times or not out there, but given what we know of evolution the NATURAL PROCESS would indicate that it's absolutely within the natural order of things.

As for the natural laws being the same, not sure really where you are going with that per se. Are you talking about the possibility that pockets within our universe may have different physical laws?

As far as I am aware, it is generally accepted that everywhere within this universe has the same laws. Multiverses and ponderings on that level are a different story. Although, given an infinite multiverse, then statistically speaking, this universe must exist without the need for any supernatural balancing act. Also, keep in mind that if ALL the laws are on a sliding scale, this universe isn't as fine tuned as people think. The fine tuining of natural laws is another "irriducible complexity" nonsense argument. I have a copy of a paper on my blog about that, but sadly cannot access my blog from this computer in Qatar.

 

[amb]

Doesn't it strike you as strange why we of all the billions of life forms that have ever lived on this planet are the only ones who have ever evolved consciousness?
All other lifeforms have only the intelligence to be able to survive. Why has homo sapiens such an overkill of brain power if it's just to enable us to survive? Could it not just be an accident of evolution that may have only have happened in the cosmos once or at best, a dozen or so times? A universe teeming with intelligent life would have made at least one other be discovered by now. Also a universe teeming with intelligent life seems to me as a fine tuned conclusion to the question of how. As Fred Hoyle once stated: '' The universe looks like a put- up job.'' [Or words to that effect]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Doesn't it strike you as strange why we of all the billions of life forms that have ever lived on this planet are the only ones who have ever evolved consciousness?

The assumption you make in this question is not true. Why do think humans are the only organisms on Earth to have evolved consciousness?

All other lifeforms have only the intelligence to be able to survive.

Not true. Chimpanzees have the ability to learn human languages.

Why has homo sapiens such an overkill of brain power if it's just to enable us to survive?

Who says it's overkill? Humans adapted to live in complex social groups. Stuff like language, face recognition, the ability to infer agency, etc. is hugely adaptive to animals living in such a group. The pay off is that we have radiated to cover most of the Earth. Chimpanzees are on the verge of extinction.

Could it not just be an accident of evolution that may have only have happened in the cosmos once or at best, a dozen or so times?

What do you mean by "accident"? You keep using this word as if it had some meaning--as if something things that occurred were accidental but others were not (intentional?)

A universe teeming with intelligent life would have made at least one other be discovered by now.

Nope. Even we would be undetectable to ourselves beyond our solar system. This argument has been shown over and over to be deeply flawed. Why do you keep asserting it?

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Joe pretty much nailed it. AGAIN you are thinking too human-centric. Just because many "animals" don't do things we do, doesn't discount them from being intelligent or having conciousness. Also, we may have wiped out other species that may have had a chance. Finally, how long have we been around? In the scheme of things, it's just a virtual eyeblink. We may have, through our own evolution/actions, prevented other species from taking up niches that would have led them to intelligence.

So no, it's not at all strange, and stop being such a human-chavenist!

 

[amb]

OK. You guys are more than probably right, and I'm wrong. But we cannot ignore the fact that most biologists think our origins are a complete accident of evolution at work. If the recording of Earth history was replayed, not even the Earth itself could be assured. Also, using Drakes equation, there is either billions of Earths out there, or there could possibly be just one. Until we discover life of some sort that has evolved completely separate from the Earth, we stand at the start of this thread. Completely Ignorant. Even if we find microbial life on Mars, and it has completely different DNA to Earth-life, then that will be proof that life is widespread in the cosmos and intelligence must exist on perhaps millions of other galaxies.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK. You guys are more than probably right, and I'm wrong. But we cannot ignore the fact that most biologists think our origins are a complete accident of evolution at work.

I've never heard a biologist use the word "accident" in the context of evolution. (And yes, I'm around biologists pretty often.) I've told you the problem I have with that word, but you keep ignoring me.

In what way is ANYTHING in evolution either an accident or not an accident?

If everything that happens in evolution is an accident, does the word have any meaning when you talk about human origins or intelligence in particular? (I think it does not.)

If the recording of Earth history was replayed, not even the Earth itself could be assured.

What recording of Earth history? How could "Earth history" be replayed but without the Earth? (Perhaps you mean if our solar system formed again, there's no guarantee that we'd have the planets we now have.)

So?

Also, using Drakes equation, there is either billions of Earths out there, or there could possibly be just one. Until we discover life of some sort that has evolved completely separate from the Earth, we stand at the start of this thread. Completely Ignorant.

I agree that we don't know, but that doesn't mean we're completely ignorant. We know a lot about chemistry and physics. We know that what happened here could happen elsewhere (that is, the same laws apply everywhere and the materials needed for life are among the most abundant in the universe).

We also know that historically, any time we thought there was something special or unique about us, we were wrong.

Even if we find microbial life on Mars, and it has completely different DNA to Earth-life, then that will be proof that life is widespread in the cosmos and intelligence must exist on perhaps millions of other galaxies.

How will it "prove" that? You're again making general conclusions waaaaay beyond the data. If we find life on Mars that's not related to Earth, we'll know that abiogenesis happened at least twice. That's not a big shock, though. I've shown you that chemistry adequately explains how you can go from non-living molecules to very simple living things. Once you've got a self-replicating thing (a molecule perhaps in a membrane), natural selection goes to work.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

OK. You guys are more than probably right, and I'm wrong. But we cannot ignore the fact that most biologists think our origins are a complete accident of evolution at work.

I think you may be confusing "We don't know the details" with the word accident. Most biologists I speak to never use the word accident when refering to abiogenesis, and most certianly never use it regarding evolution.

If the recording of Earth history was replayed, not even the Earth itself could be assured.

Irrelevant and also disingenious. Again, there is the natural chaos of complex systems to deal with, so obviosuly things won't turn out the same, and that's not the point. It DID happen though, so now we're here contemplating it.

Also, using Drakes equation, there is either billions of Earths out there, or there could possibly be just one. Until we discover life of some sort that has evolved completely separate from the Earth, we stand at the start of this thread. Completely Ignorant.

I personally think a lot of people put too much stock in the validity of the Drake equation, when it's really just a bunch of suppositions strung together, made with no concrete data. I agree, we are completely ignorant of the facts, however, we are pretty clever on many of the processes involved (evolution/chemistry), and getting smarter on some of the other processes (planetary formation).

EDIT TO ADD: And why is Completely Ignorant such a horrid thing? Isn't that where we go and look to see if we can find answers?

Even if we find microbial life on Mars, and it has completely different DNA to Earth-life, then that will be proof that life is widespread in the cosmos and intelligence must exist on perhaps millions of other galaxies.

It would still only be a small set of datapoints, although it would lend more support to abundance of abiogenesis. We are at the very dawn of this field of science. It's like expecting the alchemists of yore to know of organic chemistry. We haven't been at this very long, and really don't have the data. I suppose this is really a philisophical discussion where we support our stances with what we do know of science.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, using Drakes equation, there is either billions of Earths out there, or there could possibly be just one.

The Drake Equation says no such thing. It simply says that the number of planets that can sustain life is a factor in calculating how many intelligent civilizations there are.

You've presented a false dichotomy. There's nothing that says there must either be billions of Earth-like planets (depending on how you define it), or just one. There could be 2 or 3 or 4. Or there could be 12, or there could be 500. Or there could be 100 trillion. (You beginning to get the point?)

 

[arthwollipot]

What recording of Earth history? How could "Earth history" be replayed but without the Earth? (Perhaps you mean if our solar system formed again, there's no guarantee that we'd have the planets we now have.)

I think amb is reiterating an argument from Stephen Jay Gould, who said that if time were somehow "rewound" back to life's origin, and allowed to play itself out again, it would be extremely unlikely that we would get the same mix and distribution that we have today. It's about divergence from initial conditions.

Gould, as far as I know, did not postulate that if life replayed like this, intelligence would probably not appear.

 

[MG1962]

I think amb is reiterating an argument from Stephen Jay Gould, who said that if time were somehow "rewound" back to life's origin, and allowed to play itself out again, it would be extremely unlikely that we would get the same mix and distribution that we have today. It's about divergence from initial conditions.

Gould, as far as I know, did not postulate that if life replayed like this, intelligence would probably not appear.

In his book "A Wonderful Lfe" He does sort of imply it though. His basic arguement is that life seems pre-disposed to certain body forms and function. He saw the Cambian Explosion as a sort of chemistry set gone mad, with some rather bizzare creations appearing.

From this he identified something like 8 basic characteristics that seem to hold right through the history of evolution, and intelligence does not seem to be one of them.

For one small branch of hominoids to develope intelligence as an adaptive suvival process, seems quiet extraodinary and point to some event rather unique in their developement. He considered this (unknown) event to be so rare, there was no promise, replaying the story of life on the planet would yield the same result