Blam: I hope you can realize for yourself that your statement was false based upon the reference you provided.

(December 22, 2011 at 4:01 pm)Darwinning Wrote:

(December 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Assuming evolution is true, is there an end goal to evolution? Does it conceivably have a purpose or reason? If the answer is no then does that simply mean that evolution is and that the process of natural selection will never end even as 'perfection' is reached?

Evolution is a process that emerges from a set of simple rules (children take after their parent, but they are not the same, those differences can influence survival, those that survive better have more children, goto step 1). I do not see room for a purpose.

I do not know exactly what you mean by "evolution is", but I think evolution happens. It is not a thing, it emerges from rules on a lower plane.

Evolution will not stop on it's own accord (there is no perfection, circumstances change), but if one of the rules no longer applies the evolutionary process will come to a halt. This could be because there is no more life, no more mutation, no more death or no more children; take your pick.

Interesting, thank you for your answer. We meant the same thing about evolution (being and happens).

I suppose my thought process is inclining me to think in terms of biological evolution. The perfection of senses and consciousness would then mean both omniscience and omnipotence. To end evolution there would also have to be no more conflict - meaning that only one being exists. The one I couldn't think of yet is omnipresent but I think it would stem from only one being existing.

But as you can see from my thought process, the end of evolution would essentially mean a 'God' like being. Then from this God like being there could stem new life as that being creates it using omnipotence. Essentially going until that creation becomes God like as well, but here is the flaw of my logic (one of many I'm sure). Evolution wouldn't allow for two 'perfect' beings, at least not as we understand it. One is always better because no two things are exactly the same. Thus, this is where I'm stuck in my thoughts.

Once again, I understand that I'm applying teleology to something which could possibly never have an end. I also understand that I am making a lot of assumptions (some of which may be flawed logic). This is why I would like criticism and lots of it.

(December 22, 2011 at 3:48 pm)Perhaps Wrote:

(December 22, 2011 at 3:46 pm)Epimethean Wrote: But wait, if god is the first cause, wouldn't gravity be an effect of its mighty wind?

I'm interested, what purpose did that comment serve?

Since you've been on a quest for repetitious verbosity, I thought I'd throw in a few bits. Lighten up, Francis: This thread is a degenerative anti-philosophical joke on its teleological path to perfect oblivion.

E.g.:


'But as you can see from my thought process, the end of evolution would essentially mean a 'God' like being. Then from this God like being there could stem new life as that being creates it using omnipotence. Essentially going until that creation becomes God like as well, but here is the flaw of my logic (one of many I'm sure). Evolution wouldn't allow for two 'perfect' beings, at least not as we understand it.'

Your thoughts on divine evolution are evolving into divine comedy.

(December 22, 2011 at 4:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Sure, you can have a copy of my birth certificate. Or maybe my credit report. Or maybe a list of things I own. You can also have my words as typed, as proof of me.

If you try and be clever and say "that does not prove you are the person you claim to be!", well 1) it fucking does, 2) if I was conning you over my identity, I would still be a being engaging you no matter who I was, and still proving that I, whomever I am, exists

If you still need further proof that I exist - maybe I can threaten to kick you in the face, you can send me your address, and I can turn up at your address (you can pay travelling expenses) and I'll kick you in the fucking face.

Just to rule out co-incidence, we can pre arrange a code word only known to you and I, that I can repeat as I'm kicking you in the fucking face. Over and over, you annoyingly smug little bastard.

If that does not prove my existence to you, then it is not MY problem that the evidence isn't good enough for you, it is not reality's problem that the evidence is not good enough for you - it is YOUR problem, and YOUR fault for being WRONG.

I'm not sure what I've ever done to you, but every time we post in the same thread you're upset at anything I have to say.

Thanks for the kind words though: "you annoyingly smug little bastard.". Much appreciated.

We think of different levels. Not that either of us is correct, it's just a difference. Don't get so mad about it.

"The perfection of senses and consciousness would then mean both omniscience and omnipotence."

Or perhaps in the end, survival favors complete ignorance and inability, selecting speed and fool-proofing of reproduction over all else (quite a few very successful organisms that fit this category). Our ideas of what perfection is or would mean hold no power over evolution. There are many more successful "dumb" creatures than smart ones. And a great many of the forms of life on this planet have no "power" whatsoever, let alone anything approaching "all-power" (which obviously nothing has). Just something to chew on. That anthropic bias I'm always talking about is pervasive....There was once the idea of evolution as a steady path of simple life becoming closer and closer to the "goal" of life which resembled, surprise..western scholars.

(December 22, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I suppose my thought process is inclining me to think in terms of biological evolution. The perfection of senses and consciousness would then mean both omniscience and omnipotence. To end evolution there would also have to be no more conflict - meaning that only one being exists. The one I couldn't think of yet is omnipresent but I think it would stem from only one being existing.

I think you need to study evolution some more. Evolution does not 'perfect senses'. Evolution does only what I described: favor things that procreate. It has no 'objective' sense of what is 'better'.

One being in existence would be one way to end evolution, yes. There would be no conflict, but more importantly, no procreation.

---

(December 22, 2011 at 4:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Or perhaps in the end, survival favors complete ignorance and inability, selecting speed and fool-proofing of reproduction over all else.

Someone's gone and done made one a dem moving pictures 'bout dat!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

(December 22, 2011 at 4:40 pm)Darwinning Wrote: I think you need to study evolution some more. Evolution does not 'perfect senses'. Evolution does only what I described: favor things that procreate. It has no 'objective' sense of what is 'better'.

One being in existence would be one way to end evolution, yes. There would be no conflict, but more importantly, no procreation.

Interesting, and you're quite right that I have a lot to read about yet and understand in regards to evolution. I think my assumption was just based on the idea that in order to survive one must be better than the other which it will kill to further sustain life. Thus evolution brings about 'better' things. But the idea of procreation is one which I should address further as well.

Thanks for the thoughts.

---

(December 22, 2011 at 4:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "The perfection of senses and consciousness would then mean both omniscience and omnipotence."

Or perhaps in the end, survival favors complete ignorance and inability, selecting speed and fool-proofing of reproduction over all else (quite a few very successful organisms that fit this category). Our ideas of what perfection is or would mean hold no power over evolution. There are many more successful "dumb" creatures than smart ones. And a great many of the forms of life on this planet have no "power" whatsoever, let alone anything approaching "all-power" (which obviously nothing has). Just something to chew on. That anthropic bias I'm always talking about is pervasive....There was once the idea of evolution as a steady path of simple life becoming closer and closer to the "goal" of life which resembled, surprise..western scholars.

Hmm, that throws a wrench in the thought in the first place. Something I'll definitely have to think about further. Subjectivity as to what is 'good' or 'better' or 'perfect' I think is going to be my downfall in the thought overall.

---

(December 22, 2011 at 4:33 pm)Epimethean Wrote: 'But as you can see from my thought process, the end of evolution would essentially mean a 'God' like being. Then from this God like being there could stem new life as that being creates it using omnipotence. Essentially going until that creation becomes God like as well, but here is the flaw of my logic (one of many I'm sure). Evolution wouldn't allow for two 'perfect' beings, at least not as we understand it.'

Your thoughts on divine evolution are evolving into divine comedy.

I'm glad they're helping somebody feel better

(December 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Interesting, and you're quite right that I have a lot to read about yet and understand in regards to evolution.

Start with Darwin's Origin. It's a good book, readable, understandable, and also happens to be the origin of the theory. Best start one can imagine.

(December 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I think my assumption was just based on the idea that in order to survive one must be better than the other which it will kill to further sustain life. Thus evolution brings about 'better' things. But the idea of procreation is one which I should address further as well.

Also important that there be sufficient variation in the population. Evolution works better in larger numbers, because there is more chance someone hits the jackpot if there are more people playing.

---

(December 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Hmm, that throws a wrench in the thought in the first place. Something I'll definitely have to think about further. Subjectivity as to what is 'good' or 'better' or 'perfect' I think is going to be my downfall in the thought overall.

Yeah. Try drawing a graph that plots "level of edumacation" against "number of children" for the entire human race and I think you'll need to reconsider your original thought.

(December 22, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Blam: I hope you can realize for yourself that your statement was false based upon the reference you provided.

Didn't amkerman ascribe the gravity to the concept of god? Well, if amkerman didn't, I entirely own him an apology.

(December 22, 2011 at 4:36 pm)Perhaps Wrote:

(December 22, 2011 at 4:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Sure, you can have a copy of my birth certificate. Or maybe my credit report. Or maybe a list of things I own. You can also have my words as typed, as proof of me.

If you try and be clever and say "that does not prove you are the person you claim to be!", well 1) it fucking does, 2) if I was conning you over my identity, I would still be a being engaging you no matter who I was, and still proving that I, whomever I am, exists

If you still need further proof that I exist - maybe I can threaten to kick you in the face, you can send me your address, and I can turn up at your address (you can pay travelling expenses) and I'll kick you in the fucking face.

Just to rule out co-incidence, we can pre arrange a code word only known to you and I, that I can repeat as I'm kicking you in the fucking face. Over and over, you annoyingly smug little bastard.

If that does not prove my existence to you, then it is not MY problem that the evidence isn't good enough for you, it is not reality's problem that the evidence is not good enough for you - it is YOUR problem, and YOUR fault for being WRONG.

I'm not sure what I've ever done to you, but every time we post in the same thread you're upset at anything I have to say.

Thanks for the kind words though: "you annoyingly smug little bastard.". Much appreciated.

We think of different levels. Not that either of us is correct, it's just a difference. Don't get so mad about it.

I'm not mad. That was me being a little bit irritated, that's all.

I think where you are getting tripped up Norfolk is the fact that you are of the opinion that physical objects prove their own existence since we observe them as being real in the physical world. The argument then turns on whether or not the self actually exists which you claim is evidenced by the fact that you are able to perceive feelings and physical things.

What my argument is is that in order for any of the physical objects we observe or our feelings to be trusted as actually existing we must have implicit trust in the accuracy and truth of our consciousness.

For that to be the case we must believe that consciousness is inherent to the universe; that consciousness has always existed and observes all things at all times.

If this were not the case then there would be no basis to believe our observations true outside of subjective perception.

Here is where my mind has travelled from this point... I have a more complete argument on another computer but it's out

In order for consciousness to prove it's own existence (at least as far as humans can understand how things can be proven outside of pure thought) it would need to manifest itself physically (the physical universe).