h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

First I would like to express my appreciation for this dialog. You are forcing me to exercise my brain in ways that I will never enjpy in this intellectual wasteland we call the Texas High plains. When I say that everything I bring out in this article is based on hard science I am talking about the systems sciences, General systems theory and those that have evolved from it.
Everything that exists is made up of something else. If you have a problem with that then I need to hear about it. What it is made up of nececcarily existed before it came into being. In fact whatever it is we are talking about there a time when it did not exist and whatever makes it up did. Then there was an event in time when it came into being. This is true whether we are discussing an atom of Gold or a Shakespear sonnet.
The conditions under which something comes into being are unique to the class of being that it is. If we have a collection of electrons, This is what makes natural selection work. It works on thecellular leveprotons, and other subnuclear particles and we control the energetic conditions under which they exist together there could emerge an atom of Gold or perhaps one of lead. Which occurs will be determine entirely by the energetic conditons and sny competent scientist, given the set of conditions, can tell you which will occur. For non-living substances it is aleways the external conditions which determine the outcome.
In every cell of every living thing we find a set of instructions not only for the replication of the being but for determining the activities of the cell in its re;lationship to its environment. Every cell of every living thing has the capability of determining its position in the being and these programs determine how it will react ot is particular environment. This the area on which natural selection works.
All of the above is simle non-contraversial science. My discussion of man is highly dependent on a theory of mind and knowledge that might not be clear in this article. If you are interested you can read "Complexity and a Pragmatic Theory of Knowledge" on my web site at this URL http://www.n4bz.org/knowledg/know1.htm. Whatever you please continue stimulating my mind. I need it.

A very stimulating read. There are a few points I would have liked to make but most of them have been mentioned already. I'll just register my disagreement with your statement that: "Finally, biologically speaking, Man is not an animal. Man is not determined by biology." Biologically speaking, what else could we be but animals? It looks like an opinion. My opinion is that Man has tried to justify some extremely destructive behaviour in the past by reference to his superior position, above the rest of life-kind and shouldn't be encouraged in such beliefs.

Bower birds don't just perform ritual dances, they make a bower - every one is different. Different bower birds have different tastes, preferences and materials available. Each seems to have in mind its own pattern of perfection. David Attenborough demonstrated this a couple of times by carefully sabotaging a tiny, almost unnoticeable section of a carefully constructed confection of flowers, shells, fruit, feathers, pebbles etc, when the bird were out of the way. When they returned to their bowers, they noticed the difference straight away and immediately set about restoring perfection - just like true artists.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your entry very much and hope it will become part of the edited guide.

Your comments on the Bower bird are interesting. It has been a while since I studied them. There is another point that goes along with what said that leaves a weakness in my argument. If, as I have said, man is not an animal but a step above the animals then looking at the development of man we should see a step change in the kind of art work that was developed as we reached that plateau I would like to be calling man. It would seem that such a step change would occur in the lower paleolithic. I have been reading the "Paleolithic Arts" magazine the last few days. It is an on-line italian magazine with an english section. Needless to say I am still looking. Whether they choose to p;lace this in your system or not this exchange of ideas has ben ver worth my attempt.

In what way, exactly, is man not an animal? Do you have some particular thing in mind here?

If we begin with the evolutionary rule, that states that a system far from equilibrium with an excess of energy will move toward the creation of greater varieties of increasing complexity. This is accomplished through the mechanism of complex hierarchical organization.
This is an observational statement, not a scientific law. It is a conclusion from applying the rules of complex hierarchical organization to the growth of entities in the universe since its beginning. Given an infinite amount of time and energy this would result in everything that is possible to exist having an oportunity to exist. Then examining each level of existence, non-living entities,living entities, and man, we find that the mechanisms at each level provide for increasingly greater amounts of variety to be brought into being. Through the use of mind and immagination man can create a much larger variety of entities than any of the lower levels. Therefore, since man exists in this higher level of existence then man is not an animal.

>>If, as I have said, man is not an animal but a step above the animals then looking at the development of man we should see a step change in the kind of art work that was developed as we reached that plateau I would like to be calling man. It would seem that such a step change would occur in the lower paleolithic.<<

I'm not at all clear why you might be looking for a good place to draw a line between animals and us. It's nothing new for humans to try to make this distinction between our own group and all the rest (though it's usually religious or political) but it doesn't seem very scientific. What would you say we are, if not animals? Gods? It's not made clear in your essay.

I spotted something else that hasn't been addressed:

>>As far as we know, only man experiences the periodicity of time. Everything else experiences only sequentiality.<<

Can you say that with any real certainty? Many, possibly most animals are active by day and sleep at night or are active at night and sleep by day so they must have some sense, at that level at least, of the diurnal cycle. Then there are the seasons and the migrational habits of many species. Who knows what triggers these mass movements - certainly instinct but who's to say what awareness they have beyond basic instinct? Periodic cicadas that normally surface after 17 years can, if conditions (overcrowding below ground) are right, decide to surface after 13 years instead. Who knows why some come up early and others wait another 4 years? I can think of a couple of instances where animals (family pets) have shown definite signs of an awareness of time. I once had a tortoise that trundled down to the back door every day at just after our lunch time for whatever fruit and veg might be on offer. And every dog I've ever had seems to know walk times and feed times. So "as far as we know" is a considerably shorter distance than we could cast a guess on the basis of observation.

Just a bit more clarification needed I think

Man *is* an animal, except that we are sentient animals with a sense of individual identity and we can recognise that trait in others. Whales, gorillas, chimpanzees and, at the last reckoning, elephants also possess this capacity.

We also have very well developed language and tool-making abilities. I don't think we should see our status as being brought about by a single defining change, rather a combination of incredibly beneficial developments during the course of our evolution.

Interesting and all as this discussion is, I don't get the impression, Wally, that you are going to change this article to make it suitable to become an Entry by listening to the points made by reviewers here.

If that's the case, then you should take it to the Forum. Despite the name, Peer Review is not intended for peers to review essays. It is for reviewing of factual descriptions of the universe which are to go into the Edited Guide. The Forum, on the other hand, is the place for serious discussion of any topic.

I would like to suggest a change in the last sentence of the article. to this.

Man has evolved from the animal kingdom, that fact has been well established. However, is man a highly evolved animal? Or is he another step in evolution?

There is a limit to what can be brought out in a single article. Also, sometimes the questions we ask are more important than the answers we provide. Remember the reason for bringing this to your attentions is to generate questions and discussions.

What I'm kinda getting is that you mean, even though man is an animal, he isn't in some other way. We clearly are animals, and you're not completely thick, so it seems there's something lost in translation.

It seems to me that you think that our brains have crossed some kind of emergence threshold, which leads to something qualitavely different to what's come before. Is that basically correct? If so, I more or less agree with what you're saying, but not how you're saying it.

PS, fancy putting spaces in between paragraphs? It makes it much easier to read.

"Remember the reason for bringing this to your attentions is to generate questions and discussions. "

Well, it's certainly succeeded in that respect, but not as far as PR is concerned. There are other places you could submit this on h2g2, such as the Forum, Speaker's Corner or the Post. I think you'll find it will have as equally lively a reception in any of those other places.

The difference between man and animals is in the programming of the brain. It is more like a higher level programming language. Most of the background for this view can be found on my published sociological articles and could not be woven into this article without getting too long. If you have a better place to place this article thats fine with me. I am only looking for what I can not get here in the hinterlands, feedback and discussion. The kinds of feedback and discussion I would expect from the people who are likely to join this group.

I am working on a paper on the evolution of western political philosophy that would add further thought to what has been developed here. Am I wrong in thinking that this is the place to come for lively discussions of this sort?

Yes, I'm afraid you are. I'd suggest you try the Forum. PR has a very specific purpose, that is to get entries into the Edited Guide.

OK Sounds good to me but what do you mean by the forum. Where do I go to find it and to add my paper?

Follow the guys in white and purple robes

(Do a search. You'll find it soon enough)

The Forum:

<./>Browse</.> / All About h2g2 / The World of h2g2 / The Town / Town Square

TRiG.

Fine

Before I go I want to thank you for the challenging conversation. It has been almost 15 yeards since I retired from teaching and I was begining to worry that my brain was about to atrophy.

I was surprised by the questions you did not ask. Most scientists have a problem with general systems theory and those disciplines that stem from it. Tou never questioned the use of system thinking to place all of evolution in a single category, the development of successive levels of existence with increasing complexity. You seemed to be fixated on the relationship between man and animal which was not the intent of the paper.

The intent of the paper was to show that evolution began with the beginning of the universe and not with the beginning of life. The "evolutionary rule" was simply a summary of the article in its simplest terms. It was expressed as an observation statement and not a scientific law. To be a law of scientists somone would have to develop an experiment that would test and that someone would have to be a scientist not a philosopher.

Again, thank you and I hope that I will find more like you on this site.

Your mistake, Wally, is thinking that "evolution" means something more than just "change". We've no problem with accepting that evolution started at the start of the universe, because it is blindingly obvious that things have been changing since then.

<>

That's because everything else in the article made sense and didn't appear to contradict established science. It makes sense, and is even quite appropriate at a time when we are struggling to pinpoint the origins of life, and even to define life. The lack of comment in other areas is a good thing - it means everyone is happy with it.

But the "humans are special" theme crops up time and time again in both the article and your subsequent posts; if anything it is you who are fixated. Some examples:

<>
<<...non-living entities,living entities, and man...>>>
<< ...looking at the development of man we should see a step change in the kind of art work.. >>
<>
<>

The idea that non-human animals are pre-programmed automatons was pretty much trashed about 30 years ago. The difference between humans and dolphins, say, is a quantitative one - there is no reason to believe there is a qualititative difference.

Of course as author you are free to categorise and place dividing lines where you see fit - but this is a subjective decision. You can base your reasons for such a decision as religion, philosophy, anthropocentrism or even just convenience; but not on science as the evidence simply doesn't support it.

"there is a continuous thread of personal opinion in there that makes it unsuitable"

Unsuitable for the Edited Guide perhaps, but I think this would fit very well in the Underguide. This type of personal work-in-progress is exactly their .

Bower birds don't just dance and sing - they build elaborate sculptures, and seem to have their own sense of what makes a 'beautiful' structure and what does not. You can see some photos at http://www.pmgmontana.com/zoology/viewtopic.php?t=1819&highlight=&sid=aed8f230ddd80d2e7673454e743c3b48 (though you may have trouble reading the text - it's all Greek to me). There are many species of bower bird, each with their own artistic preferences. David Attenborough did a programme on them once - there's a clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbWJPsBPdA

Gif