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

winternights: Pinching passages from Wiki (Abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#cite_ref-26 ) isn't going to help you persuade others on this thread that a mind is not required for intent.

I'm currently reading a book by Bill Bryson. There's a quote from Freeman Dyson, where he says that the more he learns, the more it seems to him like the universe was waiting for us to arrive. I know Dyson is religious, but does anyone know what he is referring to more specifically?

Rudest elf

winternights: Pinching passages from Wiki (Abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#cite_ref-26 ) isn't going to help you persuade others on this thread that a mind is not required for intent.

It like being back at school, “Miss, please miss, Winternights is cheating”, it’s called supportive evidence, its content is factual and has proven useful in assisting me convey my thoughts.
I’m not trying to persuade others, I rather watch paint dry than do that.
I’m simply doing what it says at the top of the page “This is the Conversation Forum for Ask h2g2”, being involved in a conversation forum.
I’m about to support that by cross referencing it to a previous post (30106) , there my own words, you wont find them else where, just in case you find it necessary to start blabbing on me again,”H2G2 is no more than a drop in centre where you voice your say then bugger off and do your thing there after.
I personally do don’t visit here with a view to being educated or otherwise, if you feel your views do not receive a good reception then consol yourself in the fact that you’ve had the chance to have your say and if its not well received then whoopee do.”,
As for “mind is not required for intent” obviously you have not followed the thread or have casual skipped through taking on board only those things that best suit your beliefs. I have given good account on MY thoughts through out this discussion.

Okay, let's have another go at understanding this.

<>

So far, so good, I think, but the next bit doesn't seem to follow, and the terms seem to be ill-defined.

<>

Perhaps it should read something like "The above goes to describe intent as a *product* of “Natural agency” in nature, a process existing in or produced by nature and its environment not as necessarily being brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind…"

<>

The essence of philosophy is to analyse the meanings and uses of words and the concepts they represent. In what sense does the word "intent" have a value, direction, meaning and purpose"? And if you mean intent itself, how exactly are these derived from intent?

Noggin

winternights: "it’s called supportive evidence"

All you need to do to avoid accusations of plagiarism is to use inverted commas and provide a source.

"I personally do don’t visit here with a view to being educated"

That's a pity. I've learned quite a lot since I started reading this thread some 10 years ago.

"As for “mind is not required for intent” obviously you have not followed the thread or have casual skipped through"

As stated above, I've had an interest in this thread (and read every post) for many years.

No one else here has supported your contention that inanimate objects have intentions. Perhaps you need a dictionary: http://www.onelook.com/?w=intent&ls=a

Winternights, although I think we're getting too caught up in the details of wordplay and nitpicking definitions, I think the main reason we are having trouble accepting your definition is that part of there being intent is having a purpose or reason and the most of us here view that the only "reason" that evolution has derives from thousands of years of pure chance and statistics, no matter how complicated the process. With that reason also comes a clear sense of an almost religious bias that is not really relevant unless you're trying to justify someone's faith in the process itself. Maybe I missed something, is there really any point other than that?

At this point, in light of Noggin's assertion above
and Rudy's follow-up, I think it is important that we
establish that intent is not a uniquely human faculty.

Hoomans may have highly specialised and complex
means and methods to achieve objectives but we
should agree that most living organisms have and
do display intention.

The level of mind required to form intention may be
quite elementary. A cat that bats at ball of wool is
demonstrating intent, though I'll be damned if I
could imagine what that might be.

Action=reaction is a fundamental and observable
reality of the physical whirled but one hesitates
to postulate that the cat is consciously testing
Newton's Laws of Motion.

~jwf~

"Hoomans" I like it!

Thank you all for your comments, views, theories, beliefs and time.

I have enjoyed reading your posts and furnishing you with my thoughts in response, not that I’m backing down as that’s not my style or that I’m agreeing to disagree on this point but I feel that I’ve had my bash at it and that the last few posts have nicely summarised most folks thoughts on addressing my angle on this subject.

I will of course continue to put my two pennies worth in as the debate continues

Note-to-self=37 posts to read. Now! Dubious:

The Hyper-Entomology Hypothesis (this is a Tolkienism, so watch out):

As a potential sub-hypothesis to my perspective, what we now call plants and animals had it out way-way back consciously, and plants surrendered and have tricked us already into leaving only dumb animals on Earth. Picture that. Call it "Heh?!"

Oh, and I think Entomology needs to get name Insectology.

Back to Clive's post 30070..

Very interesting Clive . PS, I think I recommended Nick Lane's 'Life Ascending' a while back. I re-read it recently, and I'll recommend it some more.

This appears to be a link for the paper, although it's by E. J. Chaisson here. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/EnergyRateDensity_I_FINAL_2011.pdf

I've no idea if energy density is a valid way to measure progress as such, but it does seem a good idea, and it's intuitive that there is a hierarchy in energy use from bacteria, eukaryotes, plants, fungi and animals. The paper states that plants are 3bn years old, and it may be a flaw that cyanobacteria and oak trees are lumped together. Nick Lane emphasises that eukaryotes are *much* more dynamic than bacteria. I'd guess that there's a big disconnect between them.
Among animals, it seems obvious (but may not be) that warm-blooded animals need more complexity to manage their metabolisms, and you'd think their behaviour would be more complex because they'll *do* stuff with all that extra energy. Also, vertebrates are the most complex animals, and of the varying groups, say reptiles, fish, amphibians, mammals and birds, only two of them are warm-blooded, and I think, in terms of species, they're in the minority.

As for convergent evolution, it seems pretty well-established that similar types of mammals have evolved in similar conditions, namely in Australia, South America and Eurasia. However… if vertebrates hadn’t evolved, would there be *any* kind of large, mobile land animals? I’m not sure how far the idea can be stretched. I’m open to discussion though

Oh, and also, given that the vast majority of biomass seems to be bacterial, there probably hasn't been a huge surge in complexity if you measure it the right way.

Well I don't know much about this, but weren't there huge insects, such as spiders, when the composition of the atmosphere was different and there was more oxygen(? maybe, I forget which element) in the air?

I could look it up, but I'm being lazy right now....

Relatively, yes. But not above a couple of feet, with seemingly different atmospheric conditions to now. I don't think any other phylum other than vertebrates has ever gotten *really* large on land, and, replaying the tape of life, one wee glitch 560m years ago could've wiped out *all* the 'higher' animals.

I'm not sure how this fits with the theme of convergent evolution, which I think is pretty well established within vertebrates.

Someone mentions giants and the thread goes quite for three days.

Its all right now as you can all come out as they’ve all gone now

Was busy doing other more life-affirming things, specifically going out with friends to go see the rather enjoyable Marvel Avengers.

“Was busy doing other more life-affirming things” , justification structure

>> Marvel Avengers <<

Structured justice.

~jwf~