|
minasole posted:Human-centered intelligence is not real objective intelligence. It only helps us survive and deal with surroundings.  Intelligence doesn't need to be human centric, but considering every sort of semi-stable state or system to be based in intelligence only looks like a good idea when stoned  . In your weird example, If water got pumped into orbit to remove it from the water cycle permanently, the remaining water would not in any way change its behaviour to prevent that.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 13, 2016 |
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 19:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
Salt Fish posted:A chemical reaction operates only when it can spread out energy. The secret to being happy is to help out this change in entropy. Have a large family, burn stuff, drive your car a lot etc. Basically the more energy you can burn through the better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Moxie posted:The only qualification for life is self replication. On Earth we have chemical based life. We can envision a future where humanity spawns mechanical/electronic life. I'm not sure what other kinds of life there could be. Weather based? Some type of medium dependent energy reaction? Is a 3D printer programmed to make more 3D printers alive?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
speculating about dark matter life is just kinda pointless we'll know it when we see it (or not), and then we can think about how to work it into our framework of life, but before then you're just making very  wild rear end guesses that are slightly less productive than thinking about how to make unicorns exist in real life
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Of course this theory doesn't necessarily contradict the idea that large sagittal crests capped skull capacity. yeah, at some point you just run into physical limits like you literally can't attach enough mammalian muscle for cracking nuts in your jaws to a sufficiently stable skull with an oversize brain without running into problems, and you solve these problems by cutting back on one of the above or by making the entire head larger (which will require other tradeoffs) you can see that we haven't just evolved weaker jaw muscles but also had to make the stability tradeoff beacuse a whack strong enough to shatter a human skull wouldn't do much more than piss off a gorilla suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I'm not saying there is, but at the same time saying there isn't is just as baseless. we might as well act as though there isn't until given reason otherwise though i mean ~dark matter life~ might make for a half-decent doctor who episode but not much more
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Tentatively maybe, but again there is no evidence as to what happened to those sub-species nor is there any real evidence of what their relation to humans actually was. As for religion and the instinct to copulate, there is no connection. Procreation is a universal characteristic of life, and the instinct exists independent of any social structure. Also lmao if you believe that humans seek to compete through procreation. Conflict is a consequence of environmental conditions and base vertabrate nature, not any of this social darwinist nonsence. Everything you say is a blatant expression of the dominant ideology of our age. You're imposing your own meanings on stuff that inherently has none. I mean you would be, if you weren't so tragically mistaken on the basic facts of human history. b-b-but how can I avoid the sadbrains if things just exist instead of having a ~deeper~ (pretty much magical) meaning? Toasticle posted:Neither of you are basing this on anything more than "I don't see how therefore it's a near zero possibility" and all I'm saying is that's foolish. We don't know enough about dark matter to meaningfully think about how hypothetical dark matter life or whatever would work so right now all the idea is good for is making something up for TV.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Pretty much "I don't like having sadbrains" is not a reason for things to actually have meaning though
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I'd have to consult my pastor. Wrong magisterium.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:scientism = bad actually it's good determinism ftw
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Those two aren't the same thing. i know but both are cool
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Anyways, going back to the general point my earlier post dealt with, I'm using biology as an example of the fact that growth - no matter how great - does not in any way imply that we'll be able to solve all the problems we encounter. There may be things we can never do. Obviously we should operate on the assumption that it's worth attempting to do these things, since we aren't blessed with the knowledge of which specific things are impossible. But there's certainly no rule saying that anything is technologically possible given enough time and effort, yet many people seem to have what amounts to faith that "science" will inevitably figure out all this stuff. When people say things like "but we used to think _____ was impossible!" they're forgetting about all the things we used to think were impossible that we still think are impossible; it's a confirmation bias thing where they're cherry-picking examples to prove their point (that something is probably possible even if we presently think it isn't). Yes, some things we used to think were impossible turned out to be possible; this does not mean that it is likely that any given thing we believe to be impossible is actually possible. However, as a corollary, everything that we observe must by definition be possible to achieve, even if doing so may or may not become practical.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
The soma is disposable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:the gently caress are you even on about yes
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
drill baby drill
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
zeal posted:If your god made everything then he's the piece of poo poo that gives kids cancer, and can gently caress off in my opinion. Never asked to be party to his shitshow. god is good, god works in mysterious ways, therefore all weird and unpleasant mysteries of the world are good
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
take more meds
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Like I said- it would be circumstantial - we could pretend the multiverse is a laboratory and we're just one petri dish. Hmmm so goddidit because you like a god that does the same stuff you do. Great logic here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
why is life the special case?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Again, why is 7 or, for that matter, earth life in any way special?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Blurred posted:Well exactly. It's different here because you're specifying in advance what a meaningful result would be. If I give you a 100 digit number on a piece of paper, you hit the random number generator and then get exactly that number, then you'd be justified in thinking there were shenanigans afoot (e.g. either I was loving with you or else I have supernatural powers). The odds of these two events coinciding are as good as zero. On the other hand, if you hit the random generator first and I then copy the number I see onto a piece of paper while exclaiming "what an extraordinary coincidence it is that this number was spat out over the other 10^100 possibilities!", you'd be justified in thinking there was nothing remarkable about this feat. But the important thing to note is that the odds of each of these cases occurring is exactly the same (i.e. basically zero), yet we're justified in thinking that the first event is extraordinary beyond all reckoning, while the second is the most mundane thing imaginable. The only difference in the two cases lies the order in which the result and its potential significance are posited. Same thing goes for our example with life. Because circular logic
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You are a biologist, right? Look at the energy landscape of a protein folding process. Are all paths between two separate points in the landscape equally probable? You just provided an argument for why Life As We Know ItTM is more likely to occur than basic probability would suggest. Good job. quote:You didn't read my posts. And again, you fail to explain why "some life exists, somewhere, anywhere, after ten billion years of throwing around shitloads of energy and matter in an even bigger shitload of space" is supposed to be unlikely in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:What if they mooshed together. I've read that mitochondria and the photosynthesis cell organs may have been "consumed" by the larger cell. Actually, only chloroplasts have likely been "consumed" by some predator that failed to digest its prey. Mitochondria are more closely related to intracellular parasites and most likely found it better to make themselves useful at some point  What do you mean by "formed by the adaptations of the "originals""? That statement is true for all life that exists today by definition, as all life that exists today evolved from some earlier form of life.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA. We've even identified their closest free-living relatives. If you like endosymbionts and organelles, Paulinella chromatophora is really cool. It turns out that chloroplast-like things have evolved at least twice, with the second instance we know of having happened, drum roll, in an amoeba genus that eats cyanobacteria. Paulinella'schromatophores have already started the process of sending most of their genome to the host nucleus, so are arguably already organelles.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Ribosomes are also probably RNA world molecular replicating machines that got gobbled up by bacteria and all the weird archaea. NADH, FADH2, too
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Welp, I really hoped we could do this without stupid car, coin and horse analogies. But whatever ... You are making poo poo up without justifying why your probabilities are not completely imaginary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Personally, I think it's very likely for life to pop up under the conditions of early Earth. gg So... it's likely that life pops up on earthlike planets according to what you just said. Mind pointing out where the thing about life being very special and surprising comes in?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:They are completely imaginary. gg Then what is your point exactly? "Hmmm if reality were different from what I think reality is then that would be weird"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
RODNEY THE RACEHOR posted:This Is A Stupid Debate & Discussion; no attempt is under way to address the Religious Perspective; Religion is ignored; there are only Probability Arguments; Mathematical Squabbling; Mild Insults; Dice Analogies; the Fortune required for a One In One Billion Possibility to occur is Incomprehensible to a Human Brain; the Requisite Fortune makes the Possibility so unlikely that G-d becomes More Likely; Excuses are made by Pointlessly Mathematical Rat Finks to deny the Existence of G-d; but the Existence of G-d is the Only Sensible Option. Do Not Talk About Dice Any More. god
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Allahu snAckbar 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
McDowell posted:The last big 'payouts' were in the 80's with the neutron bomb and a million sidetracks that came from SDI. Eventually knowing the nature of matter and gravity could get some crazy practical breakthrough (like a gravity bomb that can destroy the earth the 80s coincidentally being the last decade before soviet russia imploded and everyone scrambled to extend the frontier of capitalism instead of building bigger physics experiments at a higher rate. what i mean to say is give me my fusion powered jetpack also the military has funded studies into the control of invasive plants etc so directly biological stuff
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:To clarify, I don't mean that life began and then continued to evolve from multiple starting points. I mean that there could have been multiple "false starts." Usually, last common ancestor etc refers to populations or species rather than individuals. However, unless you argue (without evidence) that all new life must be exactly the same, it is so unlikely as to be impossible (and depending on how pedantic you are about evolutionary biology, by definition impossible) for the same species to evolve twice independently. quote:But environments change over time. I definitely don't see any reason, given what we currently know at least, to think that the very first instance of life would have definitely survived and not gone extinct. poo poo happens; some abrupt weather change could easily wipe out some organism that hasn't yet spread over a large enough area. This is more likely. Some self-replicating whatevers could easily have died out on early earth before self-replicating whatever #35 lucked into not dying out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Yes but all these investments have some purpose of domination and power - either over other humans or over the environment. quote:Today, now more than ever- we can afford a more patient, ecological outlook. quote:As for genetic codons - we can't get that information from Cambrian fossils - so competing codon systems at one time are a possibility - but one that cannot seem to be proven/disproven from our vantage in spacetime. Today we know everything uses the same codon system. Uh... there are slightly different codons in prokaryotes/mitochondria/eukaryotes (we still don't think they represent independently originating lineages of life).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Humans can consciously choose to emphasize reciprocity and communality instead of domination - these are the 'better angels of our nature' that require that every individual has a broader outlook than their own desire to live forever. Otherwise we'll keep trying to outbreed / compete with each other and you have the boot stomping on the human face, etc. and a vague notion about ~controlling nature~ is related to this, how? and again, please specify what you mean by ecological approaches
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Zodium posted:ecology has well defined scientific meanings you dingus. here's a lot of stuff on one i'm extensively familiar with from ~goon scientist~ adwkiwi but there are lots more, hope this helps Yes, it does. British Ecological Society posted:Ecology is the scientific study of the distribution, abundance and dynamics of organisms, their interactions with other organisms and with their physical environment. I'm not a psychologist by training so I might not be qualified to evaluate if your link contains good psychology, but I am sufficiently qualified in ecology to say that cherry-picking some detail of ecological study and saying you're now doing something ~ecological~ because you cargo cult-copied the most convenient aspects is a horrible abuse of the term that increases the risk of bullshit. Thank you very much for providing an example where the term "ecological" is abused as badly as by McDowell  Basically, what you guys have brought up is to ecology what this  is to geophysics. Please consider a career in marketing or management, where mental contortions that allow you to overstretch every analogy to the breaking point and beyond are actually a desirable skill and impress clueless people in board meetings. ps: mcdowell please change your avatar back to caligula, it fit better
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Oh, drat, my mistake, for some reason I didn't pick up that you wanted to insert mechanical valves into the sperm ducts of young men (who, presumably, cannot control them)  but irl
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Zodium posted:what does this even mean? I have no idea, maybe publish your argument if you take issue with the example I posted I guess, but I'm pretty sure "sufficiently qualified in ecology" actually means you read a book or took a class one time quote:anyway, mcdowell's proposal is obviously ecological. it's a stupid proposal, but it is ecological. it's not ecological in any way unless you consider anything that ever refers (correctly or by making a meaningless comparison) to the result of any ecological research to be ecological, at which point your definition is so broad as to be useless McDowell posted:Right now we have an educational system that is about training people to stay in place for x hours a day, do paper work, etc. The economy isn't going to work like that anymore. quote:A newborn is like a stem-cell - we can nurture everyone and they can differentiate into socially-useful autonomous individuals. quote:The cost for this better social environment is controls on reproduction. humans have behaviour and there is a field called behavioural ecology, but unless you very specifically want to put human behaviour in the context of adaptive responses (as in, lets you maximise offspring or improve survival) to environmental factors and then go back to somehow fit this framework over the social environment, this part still doesn't require ecology. even if in your particular case you do this specific thing, it is still only a case of "we found that human behaviour involved in [type of social interaction] can be better explained by taking into account [behavioural ecology research X] in addition to the current standard literature" and not some revolutionary paradigm shift that completely rebuilds your whole field and makes it an ecological one quote:I'm planning to write a whole OP about this. Murray Bookchin helped crystallize this for me with writing about social evolution as something that is the same but separate from biological evolution.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
on second thought, Zodium posted:maybe publish your argument if you take issue with the example I posted I guess might actually be a good idea because clueless people calling their stuff ecological because of some tenuous link to ecology often limited to "acknowledges ecology is a field that exists and produces results" (or, even worse, because ecology is a hip buzzword that sounds good in the age of climate change and conservation problems) is really dumb
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
Zodium posted:stop. you're embarrassing the both of us. Can you please provide a useful response that explains in what way you think i am wrong and in what way that part is supposed to be ecological?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
Zodium posted:I think I'm going to wait until I have a chance to read your article. at this point, it would be presumptuous of me to judge your argument for theoretical purity by risk of BS before hearing it on its merits. nice, you concede Meanwhile, a researcher studies how birds migrate and realises that magnetic field lines contribute to their navigation. By using the results of studies on the earth's magnetic field to understand bird migration, his research is geophysical 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 09:11
|
|