Intelligent Dinosaurs

[Swank]

Absolutely - and sapiens versus neanderthals demonstrates this concept fantastically well. Avoiding extinction - e.g. by avoiding the trap of specialisation - is indeed a function of evolution, just with respect to each individual species - which doesn't care if enough competitor in or near it's niche goes extinct. Evolution does not seek stability, but instead dynamic equilibrium.

I just think talking about evolution like it is process rather than an effect is anthropomorphism.

 

[wazz]

I just think talking about evolution like it is process rather than an effect is anthropomorphism.

I don't think it's anthropomorphism to look at how petals arrange themselves according to the golden ratio. In general I'm trying to do the opposite - take us out of our human frame that we assume is neutral.

 

[Swank]

I don't think it's anthropomorphism to look at how petals arrange themselves according to the golden ratio. In general I'm trying to do the opposite - take us out of our human frame that we assume is neutral.

We didn't invent the golden ratio. We observed it. Bees didn't invent hexagons, that is just what happens when nature interacts with the geometric rules of the universe.

 

[wazz]

We didn't invent the golden ratio. We observed it. Bees didn't invent hexagons, that is just what happens when nature interacts with the geometric rules of the universe.

Of course. That's my point. 'intelligence' is not a solely human attribute.

 

[Swank]

Of course. That's my point. 'intelligence' is not a solely human attribute.

I'm not sure how that is a response to my post.

 

[wazz]

You contradicted my post. I pointed out that you weren't, in fact, contradicting me, that we agree.

For other examples of things that we think we invented, but actually borrowed and improved from nature: the wheel, fire, and capitalism. Wheel operations were around in nature before we took the idea of an axle. Fire we only invented how to create; mushrooms got to a version of capitalism themselves, fungal networks under forests exchanging nutrients according to supply and demand as if they're..... fungible assets.

 

[Swank]

You contradicted my post. I pointed out that you weren't, in fact, contradicting me, that we agree.

For other examples of things that we think we invented, but actually borrowed and improved from nature: the wheel, fire, and capitalism. Wheel operations were around in nature before we took the idea of an axle. Fire we only invented how to create; mushrooms got to a version of capitalism themselves, fungal networks under forests exchanging nutrients according to supply and demand as if they're..... fungible assets.

You saying that "evolution seeks dynamic equilibrium" is what I called anthropomorphism because there is no mechanism in evolution to favor any sort of outcome. The results of evolution are much closer to the infinite monkeys on typewriters, except that the experiment has already been run and we can view the results.

 

[wazz]

why is dynamic equilibrium anthropomorphic? there are plenty of mechanisms in evolution that favor outcomes. we know about a lot of them. the prime outcome is avoiding extinction. the many experiments that evolution does, like the monkeys at the typewriter, provide novel strategies in order to avoid going extinct. i don't see how any of this is anthropomorphic. when you look at, say, bergmanns rule and allens rule - which states that mammals at the equator have long, thin bodies, in order to dissipate hate, compared to those nearer the poles, which have a more round shape, in order to conserve heat better, this is not to be anthropomorphic at all but instead to observe and understand one of the general rules that is emergent from the logic of evolution and survival.

 

[Swank]

why is dynamic equilibrium anthropomorphic? there are plenty of mechanisms in evolution that favor outcomes. we know about a lot of them. the prime outcome is avoiding extinction. the many experiments that evolution does, like the monkeys at the typewriter, provide novel strategies in order to avoid going extinct. i don't see how any of this is anthropomorphic. when you look at, say, bergmanns rule and allens rule - which states that mammals at the equator have long, thin bodies, in order to dissipate hate, compared to those nearer the poles, which have a more round shape, in order to conserve heat better, this is not to be anthropomorphic at all but instead to observe and understand one of the general rules that is emergent from the logic of evolution and survival.

99% of all species ever are extinct. What mechanism? Evolution is a death machine.

 

[wazz]

99% of all species ever are extinct. What mechanism? Evolution is a death machine.

Again, yes, and I don't see how this contradicts or disproves anything I've said. Not sure why you're so desperate to have me be wrong when we disagree? Just because evolution has the goal of keeping a species alive, doesn't mean that's easy, and, in fact, on an ecosystem level, evolution requires as well as will always result in the continual extinction of species. Nature and life are death machines. On being asked what he thought was the meaning of life, one of my favourite authors, Philip Roth, said 'the meaning of life is that we die'. It's not that death is an unavoidable part of life, it's that you couldn't have life without death. You couldn't have a planet with all those other 99% of dead species all at the same time. Too much competition for too few niches.

 

[Swank]

Again, yes, and I don't see how this contradicts or disproves anything I've said. Not sure why you're so desperate to have me be wrong when we disagree? Just because evolution has the goal of keeping a species alive, doesn't mean that's easy, and, in fact, on an ecosystem level, evolution requires as well as will always result in the continual extinction of species. Nature and life are death machines. On being asked what he thought was the meaning of life, one of my favourite authors, Philip Roth, said 'the meaning of life is that we die'. It's not that death is an unavoidable part of life, it's that you couldn't have life without death. You couldn't have a planet with all those other 99% of dead species all at the same time. Too much competition for too few niches.

If you are going to make it personal, I'm not going to talk science with you.

 

[wazz]

If you are going to make it personal, I'm not going to talk science with you.

If three times in a row you make a post appearing to contradict me, I clarify that no, we're in agreement, and then carry on going, I'm going to question what your motivations are.

 

[Swank]

If three times in a row you make a post appearing to contradict me, I clarify that no, we're in agreement, and then carry on going, I'm going to question what your motivations are.

I don't agree that we are agreeing. You seem to be missing the essential point I am making, and repeatedly claiming you agree while writing something else does not change that situation.

I am contradicting what I see as your error. My motivation is to be understood, and I don't have a way of telling you that you are not appearing to understand me otherwise.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Read this multiple times:

Quintaglio Ascension Trilogy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I am surprised that l hear so little about it.
.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The Thesaurus sounds like it was quite an intelligent dinosaur.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The Thesaurus sounds like it was quite an intelligent dinosaur.

Can dinosaurs groan?

 

[Foxbat]

Read this multiple times:

Quintaglio Ascension Trilogy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I am surprised that l hear so little about it.
.

I've never read these. Book one now bought (the reviews look pretty promising)

 

[grimmrules]

had to be smart to hunt.

 

[Ursa major]

I think yhat dinosaurs developing 'human intelligence' would have seen them go extinct much earlier than they actually did.

There's an assumption being made that, because dinosaurs (of the non-avian variety) were around a long time ago, they might, if they had survived, have become intelligent much earlier than mammals (specifically humans) did. And, of course, avian dinosaurs are still with us, but they lack human-level intelligence.

We ought not to forget that mammals didn't appear after the (non-avian) dinosaurs were wiped out; they already existed when the dinosaurs "ruled the Earth". Even Euretherias (the mammals most closely related to us, so not marsupials) were around at least by the Early Cretaceous (ca. 120 million years ago).

 

[Swank]

There's an assumption being made that, because dinosaurs (of the non-avian variety) were around a long time ago, they might, if they had survived, have become intelligent much earlier than mammals (specifically humans) did. And, of course, avian dinosaurs are still with us, but they lack human-level intelligence.

We ought not to forget that mammals didn't appear after the (non-avian) dinosaurs were wiped out; they already existed when the dinosaurs "ruled the Earth". Even Euretherias (the mammals most closely related to us, so not marsupials) were around at least by the Early Cretaceous (ca. 120 million years ago).

Regardless of how long anyone was on the scene, the evolutionary 'advantage' when it comes to developing new organisms is going to go to whatever types of life already dominate the most ecosystems. Evolution did not favor the small number of mammals hiding from the dinosaurs.