I've always been interested in the idea that evolution is a directional process, not because it's guided by a creator, but due to a natural property of emergent behavior in complex systems. The history of life on earth seems to show certain trends:

1)The maximum degree of encephalization present on the planet has increased over time.
2)The maximum degree of complexity has increased over time.
3)The depth of mutualistic symbiotic relationships has increased over time in some species.

Now, I get the idea that if life here had a beginning and that life doesn't evolve into unlife, that due to the 'drunken walk' there is a tendency towards order, but I see a bit more than that. Part of this is from studying Dual Inheritance Theory. If this theory is correct, then the species in which is happens (humans, whales, a few others) have evolved the capacity to evolve on an entirely different scale that isn't dependent on DNA or random mutations. However, when I try to talk about this, it always comes back to the idea of 'humans are special', which seems to be anathema to the scientific atheist crown, because it's associated with xtian ideas. But that's not why see intelligence as being special - it's the large brain's ability to evolve culturally and potentially to use cultural evolution to directly guide genetic evolution.

Thoughts?

1) The big brain is a means to an end, and it's not certain that the big brain is the only route to achieving those means or that end. So while we may say "brains have gotten bigger" we might also say "so what - weeds are still better chemist than we are, some big brain".

2)This one is a bit slippery, over what span of time, and how are we measuring complexity?

3)Another slippery one, how have you determined this, by what metrics?

There's no "tendency towards order" that I can see, there is only the tenacity of life. In any case, a selective force by any name would smell as sweet. We could call it "cultural evolution" if we liked, but if cultural evolution is equivalent to biological evlolution, it's usage turns into a wedge awfully quick. Give me some example of one, which is not the other (the examples in the wiki are troubling...would we call lactose tolerance "cultural evolution" in any other species, or would we chalk that up to adaptation to available food sources)?

End of the day though, I also see the brain as special - but I can;t really think of any way to determine that it is special, while the photosynthetic apparatus is not (or which is more or less so). If I removed one....the other would cease to be (and that relationship doesn't favor us in the least). So...meh? As you said..the notion seems so convenient and self serving...even the metrics are likely to be convenient and self serving.

What the fuck is scientific atheism?

(January 21, 2015 at 4:58 pm)LastPoet Wrote: What the fuck is scientific atheism?

The secret phrase to make me immediately stop reading any OP.

(January 21, 2015 at 4:58 pm)LastPoet Wrote: What the fuck is scientific atheism?

Science that eats babies.

Boru

(January 21, 2015 at 3:42 pm)tantric Wrote: I've always been interested in the idea that evolution is a directional process, not because it's guided by a creator, but due to a natural property of emergent behavior in complex systems. The history of life on earth seems to show certain trends:

1)The maximum degree of encephalization present on the planet has increased over time.
2)The maximum degree of complexity has increased over time.
3)The depth of mutualistic symbiotic relationships has increased over time in some species.

Now, I get the idea that if life here had a beginning and that life doesn't evolve into unlife, that due to the 'drunken walk' there is a tendency towards order, but I see a bit more than that. Part of this is from studying Dual Inheritance Theory. If this theory is correct, then the species in which is happens (humans, whales, a few others) have evolved the capacity to evolve on an entirely different scale that isn't dependent on DNA or random mutations. However, when I try to talk about this, it always comes back to the idea of 'humans are special', which seems to be anathema to the scientific atheist crown, because it's associated with xtian ideas. But that's not why see intelligence as being special - it's the large brain's ability to evolve culturally and potentially to use cultural evolution to directly guide genetic evolution.

Thoughts?

The bolded statement is not controversial. Homo sapiens is the only species that understands evolution and can counter it and/or guide it.

There are species which seem to have guided evolution without having any understanding (at least, nothing we'd call "understanding"..despite not actually knowing what our own "understanding" -is-.). Did the bee domesticate the flower, or did the flower domesticate the bee? For that matter, did we domesticate our crops, or did our crops domesticate us?

I like big brains too, and - while I'd wonder if we could counter evolution, we can certainly guide it......but I don't think that this takes a brain to accomplish, big or small. Seems more to me like we put alot stock into stuff when -we- do it, with -our- big brains (while simultaneously deriding the same effect in other creatures as something different). We use terminology that we reserve for ourselves (despite it fitting a wide range of other creatures equally well)....... that might be just a little bit of an issue of fandom, and not so much a deep or insightful observation on our parts.

1 & 2) Starting from no brains, it isn't surprising that the slope of the brain size vs time function is positive. As the width of the distribution of brain sizes increases, you pretty much have to have some big brains in the upper tail. There are enough examples (parasites who have given up not only their neural complexity, but their digestive systems) to show that brains don't only increase in size and complexity.
3) Again the increase in complex interactions could just be the spread of individuals to fill niches within a limited solution space.

Evolution solves problems of survival and reproduction using the tools it has at hand and only to the degree required. It isn't goal directed to, for instance, make bigger brains for their own sakes. Even if bigger brains are a competitive advantage, they may be restrained by other factors like pelvis size in live bearing mammals.

But with respect to culture:
We are special.
Our big brains have moved the information transfer between individuals and generations in a whole new way. No longer is it only via chemical sequences in DNA/RNA or behaviors like spoken language. Now we have writing. We started with clay tablets and now have tech stable over centuries like xerography or graving on laquer disks (audio).
Oral or behavioral (e.g. teaching your friends to clean yams by washing away the dirt link) transmission is limited to direct contact between individuals. Writing transfers information laterally and longitudinally.
It remains to be seen if the increased speed of evolutionary changes we've added to culture will be its undoing. The rocket is flying, but is showing signs that it might explode at any time.

(January 21, 2015 at 9:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Did the bee domesticate the flower, or did the flower domesticate the bee?

What would be the difference?

I don't agree that humans can change evolution, humans are just part of evolution. Evolution is "what happens". If you want to say we are changing it, you have to redefine it to mean "what happens without someone fucking around with it too much". May be semantics, but I think it's important.