• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tana

Is evolution cyclic, or linear?

60 posts in this topic

Since I most enjoy on here discussing, or watching intelligent people discuss "materialism" vs "spiritualism" topics, I thought I would open another.

I would prefer this not devolve into another "merits" or proof of evolution debate, or a sectarian debate, but rather thought experiment on where eternal evolving could take us.

Since I am of the camp that existence can not be explained simply by the mindless interactions of intelligence-less particles following evident laws-of-motion. That an explanation of existence must include some form of intelligence or self awareness interacting, if not creating particles objectively. (since we certainly do subjectively)

Does anyone have any thought experiment that could suggest that following materialism and evolution from a beginning? to an end?....... creates paradoxes?

Here is a quote of an anon. poster on an insignificant site;

"The fossil record shows that our period of rapid brain growth is over? Excuse me? Is there some directing hand in evolution all of a sudden that dictates a preferred outcome? Strictly speaking, there is absolutely nothing in evolutionary terms that is preventing us from evolving back into bacteria. After all, they are the most successful organisms on the planet at copying their genetic material."

What could be the next step in the evolution of human intelligence, larger physical brains? A.I.?

I would think that materialism require evolution to be cyclic and not linear. But why would intelligence once achieved allow itself to devolve?

Could the life span of a hospitable Eco-system be what limits eternal evolution? Or the possibility that the life span of the universe limits it. An advanced intelligence could find a way to seed a new Eco-system, but could it survive through the universe imploding?

Maybe this topic could at least drag "Tarski" out of hibernation. Does anyone else miss T when he is not posting?

Curt

0

Share this post


Link to post

With regard to evolution one cannot overestimate the effect of environment. It is certain that in the far distant future, hundreds of millions or billions of years hence, the Earth will no longer sustain human life as we know it.

If a hypothetical space alien were to visit Earth 500 million years from now and were to find bacteria as the only life form living in a barren, hot, toxic environment, littered with fossilized human remains, would that alien think that humans had "devolved"? Hopefully not.

Hopefully the aliens would recognize tha,t just as happened with the dinosaurs, the terrestrial environment changed to the point that humans could no longer live here.

So my first response is that evolution is not cyclic, but the tree can be trimmed by the environment, and substantially so.

Now to materialism. There is a great deal of evidence that relatively simple, naturally arising molecules can, given the proper natural conditions and catalysts, organize themselves into self-replicating systems. This has been observed with RNA, certain fatty acids mixtures in water, especially salt water, and so on. Neuroscientists have a good idea how the complex and electro-chemical interactions within the body can make us self aware. This knowledge is not yet complete or perfect, but it is a more productive road to follow than simple saying "God did it" and resorting to prayer to find the answers.

There has never been any verifiable, reproducible physical evidence for some mystical or invisible "life force' or material independent "intelligence".

Until there is such evidence, I think that the safest course is to stick with the science, and the science says that materialism works just fine

0

Share this post


Link to post

With regard to evolution one cannot overestimate the effect of environment. It is certain that in the far distant future, hundreds of millions or billions of years hence, the Earth will no longer sustain human life as we know it.

Nothing is absolutely "certain". You can't even decide if it's perhaps hundreds of millions or billions. What criteria makes it certain and yet be off by a hundred million years?

If a hypothetical space alien were to visit Earth 500 million years from now and were to find bacteria as the only life form living in a barren, hot, toxic environment, littered with fossilized human remains, would that alien think that humans had "devolved"? Hopefully not.

Hopefully the aliens would recognize tha,t just as happened with the dinosaurs, the terrestrial environment changed to the point that humans could no longer live here.

So my first response is that evolution is not cyclic, but the tree can be trimmed by the environment, and substantially so.

Jumping to way too many conclusion here. What about immortality and eternal life in the future for this planet? Even our planet will become immortal.

Now to materialism. There is a great deal of evidence that relatively simple, naturally arising molecules can, given the proper natural conditions and catalysts, organize themselves into self-replicating systems. This has been observed with RNA, certain fatty acids mixtures in water, especially salt water, and so on. Neuroscientists have a good idea how the complex and electro-chemical interactions within the body can make us self aware. This knowledge is not yet complete or perfect, but it is a more productive road to follow than simple saying "God did it" and resorting to prayer to find the answers.

Evolutionary scientists want desperately to believe that there is "a great deal of evidence" pointing to chemical evolution when in fact there is none. Abiogenesis has been utterly refuted to this point. There is actually a great deal of evidence showing that life, under any natural circumstance, does not form by itself.

Neuroscientists have no idea how intelligence works. We have found no proof for the blueprint for intelligence in all things we can physically see and test. As of date, "intelligence" remains the greatest enigma to the sciences. We have no answer for it, we do not know where or how it originates or even how it works. Neuroscientists only can map the reactions of the human mind on the effects that intelligence produces and interacts with. If intelligence were known, we could find the sequence or mathmatical equation for it in nature and duplicate it ourselves. We absolutely cannot make anything "self-aware or intelligent" as an entity by itself.

There has never been any verifiable, reproducible physical evidence for some mystical or invisible "life force' or material independent "intelligence".

Until there is such evidence, I think that the safest course is to stick with the science, and the science says that materialism works just fine

And take the road Dawkins is proposing perhaps? Perhaps we could all become atheists and pass laws to denounce and outlaw "religion". Science by itself gives us nothing morally or ethically in the real world. We need not have 100% viable proof for the existance of truth. This is why we have "faith". We have "faith" that God exists- that there is a spirit inside of us and that spirit is the source for ourt "intelligence" and selfa-awareness capabilities.

That said, I will stick with faith based religious truths over atheistic naturalism any day!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't whales evolving from land mammals demonstrate a large degree of cyclicalness?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't whales evolving from land mammals demonstrate a large degree of cyclicalness?

Perhaps if it were true.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Since I most enjoy on here discussing, or watching intelligent people discuss "materialism" vs "spiritualism" topics, I thought I would open another.

I would prefer this not devolve into another "merits" or proof of evolution debate, or a sectarian debate, but rather thought experiment on where eternal evolving could take us.

Since I am of the camp that existence can not be explained simply by the mindless interactions of intelligence-less particles following evident laws-of-motion. That an explanation of existence must include some form of intelligence or self awareness interacting, if not creating particles objectively. (since we certainly do subjectively)

Does anyone have any thought experiment that could suggest that following materialism and evolution from a beginning? to an end?....... creates paradoxes?

Here is a quote of an anon. poster on an insignificant site;

"The fossil record shows that our period of rapid brain growth is over? Excuse me? Is there some directing hand in evolution all of a sudden that dictates a preferred outcome? Strictly speaking, there is absolutely nothing in evolutionary terms that is preventing us from evolving back into bacteria. After all, they are the most successful organisms on the planet at copying their genetic material."

What could be the next step in the evolution of human intelligence, larger physical brains? A.I.?

I would think that materialism require evolution to be cyclic and not linear. But why would intelligence once achieved allow itself to devolve?

Could the life span of a hospitable Eco-system be what limits eternal evolution? Or the possibility that the life span of the universe limits it. An advanced intelligence could find a way to seed a new Eco-system, but could it survive through the universe imploding?

Maybe this topic could at least drag "Tarski" out of hibernation. Does anyone else miss T when he is not posting?

Curt

The main problem with evolutinary theory is that they are incapable of making predictions on what we will evolve into. Evolution teaches that man has gotten smarter and healthier along the way. The scriptures on the other hand have shown how man has gotten worse and actually lives shorter lives, have less children, etc.

There is also no proof on where "intelligence" comes from- where it originates. if we say it is solely the "brain" then there should be a DNA code for "intelligence". If this were true then you could mathematically write down the equation for intelligence.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't whales evolving from land mammals demonstrate a large degree of cyclicalness?

No. Absolutely not, Whales are not fish. They have not devolved or journeyed back down their evolutionary branch toward fish. Whales and other cetaceans retain mammalian characteristics including relatively large brains, a basic mammalian skeletons design, and many mammalian social characteristics.

They have just moved back into an environment that they share (to some extent) with fish. However, no fish can match whales in their range (thousands of miles horizontally and thousands of feet vertically) or their mastery of the ocean environment.

Would you say that the fact that kiwis have evolved to fill a niche in New Zealand that is occupied by hedgehogs elsewhere in the world reflects "cyclic" evolution (devolution)?

0

Share this post


Link to post

With regard to evolution one cannot overestimate the effect of environment. It is certain that in the far distant future, hundreds of millions or billions of years hence, the Earth will no longer sustain human life as we know it.

If a hypothetical space alien were to visit Earth 500 million years from now and were to find bacteria as the only life form living in a barren, hot, toxic environment, littered with fossilized human remains, would that alien think that humans had "devolved"? Hopefully not.

Hopefully the aliens would recognize tha,t just as happened with the dinosaurs, the terrestrial environment changed to the point that humans could no longer live here.

So my first response is that evolution is not cyclic, but the tree can be trimmed by the environment, and substantially so.

Now to materialism. There is a great deal of evidence that relatively simple, naturally arising molecules can, given the proper natural conditions and catalysts, organize themselves into self-replicating systems. This has been observed with RNA, certain fatty acids mixtures in water, especially salt water, and so on. Neuroscientists have a good idea how the complex and electro-chemical interactions within the body can make us self aware. This knowledge is not yet complete or perfect, but it is a more productive road to follow than simple saying "God did it" and resorting to prayer to find the answers.

There has never been any verifiable, reproducible physical evidence for some mystical or invisible "life force' or material independent "intelligence".

Until there is such evidence, I think that the safest course is to stick with the science, and the science says that materialism works just fine

Hey Mr. fox, glad to hear from you. In fact, you are exactly who I was hoping would pick up the materialism platform, as we are unofficial friends,and you are obviously highly educated/intelligent, and I have been wanting to discuss with you the subject of "materialism" vs "idealism".......MINUS, Deity based philosophy.

Before addressing your very good points specifically, I would like to ask you some really stupid potential assumptions I've allegedly thought.

Is it possible that you have such a bad taste in your brain from your apparent forced association with Mormonism/Deity based religion, that you have developed a dislike and distrust for anything at all Idealism based?

If you don't mind my asking, where did your path take you after leaving Mormonism? Was it similar to "Tarski's, as he has described he at one point adopted "new age" type ideas but later rejected them?

Since I have no authority to police this thread, I am simply trying to recommend that it stick to Idealism (consciousness created reality excluding deity) vs materialism, and that thought experiment using empirical knowledge and reasoning be the guide.

I have it at about 80/20, based on my ability to understand current scientific models, and my deductive reasoning. 80% potential that it is a counsciousness based existence, 20% that it is material based. Where do you have it?

0

Share this post


Link to post

The main problem with evolutinary theory is that they are incapable of making predictions on what we will evolve into. Evolution teaches that man has gotten smarter and healthier along the way. The scriptures on the other hand have shown how man has gotten worse and actually lives shorter lives, have less children, etc.

There is also no proof on where "intelligence" comes from- where it originates. if we say it is solely the "brain" then there should be a DNA code for "intelligence". If this were true then you could mathematically write down the equation for intelligence.

Rob Osborn,

Sorry, but I just have to say this. Your demonstrated lack of understanding of science, and especially evolution (as well as basic history, I might add), is nothing short of astounding. Others on this board have advised you to take a Biology 101 class at BYU. From what I can see, you could benefit from a freshman biology and history classes in high school.

If you insist on remaining willfully ignorant of even basic science and basic history then, for the sake of your own credibility and as a courtesy to others here, I would suggest that you stick to pointing out what you think the scriptures say on the subject matter at hand and refrain from claiming that qualified scientists who post here are in error.

In your blind religious zeal, you seem to have no idea how ridiculous some of your claims appear to non-LDS who may be visiting this site out of curiosity as to what Mormons believe.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What could be the next step in the evolution of human intelligence, larger physical brains? A.I.?

I doubt there will ever be much 'natural evolution' in humanity without major social changes. Evolution as understood would be more likely to occur in small populations with a lot of inbreeding. While inbreeding has major short-term drawbacks it also eliminates genetic problems from a population.

We are unlikely to change unless we develop the knowledge and inclination to change ourselves or humanity as a whole suffers a near-extinction level event (nuclear war, supervolcano, large meteor, something of that nature). Where this would lead is best explored in science fiction.

I would think that materialism require evolution to be cyclic and not linear. But why would intelligence once achieved allow itself to devolve?

Probably wouldn't. It might kill itself off though. We are gaining more effective methods of killing each other all the time. In another generation or two a racial supremacist will be able to build a weapon that could 'cleanse' the earth. If we do get into space in any major way, the destruction of the biosphere of the Earth would be simple and easy. One quibble I have with Star Wars is that the Death Star is an over-engineered and very expensive method of performing the task of taking out a planet.

Could the life span of a hospitable Eco-system be what limits eternal evolution?

Nope.

Or the possibility that the life span of the universe limits it. An advanced intelligence could find a way to seed a new Eco-system, but could it survive through the universe imploding?

I suspect Gods can.

For other methods, look at some of the more theoretical levels of the Kardashev scale.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Rob Osborn,

Sorry, but I just have to say this. Your demonstrated lack of understanding of science, and especially evolution (as well as basic history, I might add), is nothing short of astounding. Others on this board have advised you to take a Biology 101 class at BYU. From what I can see, you could benefit from a freshman biology and history classes in high school.

If you insist on remaining willfully ignorant of even basic science and basic history then, for the sake of your own credibility and as a courtesy to others here, I would suggest that you stick to pointing out what you think the scriptures say on the subject matter at hand and refrain from claiming that qualified scientists who post here are in error.

In your blind religious zeal, you seem to have no idea how ridiculous some of your claims appear to non-LDS who may be visiting this site out of curiosity as to what Mormons believe.

With all due respect, the learning of "man" means nothing in the face of gospel truth. I am very aware of scientific facts as they exist. But, I am very skepticle of the theories of "man". I have every right to say that "qualified scientists" are wrong on certain issues. I have every right to do that. Sure, evolutionists want to shut up and suppress any other view besides theirs, but that is what you get with evolutionists and I can't halp those individuals. But, I can help others to see their folly before it is too late for them too.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Mr. fox, glad to hear from you. In fact, you are exactly who I was hoping would pick up the materialism platform, as we are unofficial friends,and you are obviously highly educated/intelligent, and I have been wanting to discuss with you the subject of "materialism" vs "idealism".......MINUS, Deity based philosophy.

Before addressing your very good points specifically, I would like to ask you some really stupid potential assumptions I've allegedly thought.

Is it possible that you have such a bad taste in your brain from your apparent forced association with Mormonism/Deity based religion, that you have developed a dislike and distrust for anything at all Idealism based?

I would not say that I have a dislike or distrust for ideas or concepts that are idealistic, or idealism based. I am certainly idealistic enough to believe that I or someone in my family who I helped to raise and teach, might someday make an important contribution to society. I am idealistic about a number of other things as well. Idealism does not mean that one has to accept assertions with no evidence. And even more so, idealism does not mean that one should accept unfounded assertions in the face of evidence to the contrary.

If you don't mind my asking, where did your path take you after leaving Mormonism? Was it similar to "Tarski's, as he has described he at one point adopted "new age" type ideas but later rejected them?

It seems to me that many of the faithful have a hard time with the concept that not everyone needs the crutch of some kind of fantastical cosmic narrative in order to feel comfortable in life. I see no difference between the value of theism in the lives of adults and that of Santa Claus the lives of young children (Santa is a magical person who will reward you for being good, and not so much for being bad - good and bad being what those in authority over the child says it is).

Since I have no authority to police this thread, I am simply trying to recommend that it stick to Idealism (consciousness created reality excluding deity) vs. materialism, and that thought experiment using empirical knowledge and reasoning be the guide.

I have it at about 80/20, based on my ability to understand current scientific models, and my deductive reasoning. 80% potential that it is a consciousness based existence, 20% that it is material based. Where do you have it?

Given the evidence, I would at least reverse your probability estimate and make it 80% that consciousness arises from materialistic (deterministic) mechanisms, and 20% that it arises from some other unseen universal intelligence or life force.

In fact having just written this and then re-read it, and if I had to bet money, I would say the probability was on the order of 99% that consciousness arises from the interactions of matter as determined by the laws of physics and as they apply to chemistry and electrochemistry.

I would be happy to get into my reasons for this viewpoint, as well as the supporting evidence, but it is late here and such a discussion is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Oh, and I appreciate the expression of "unofficial" friendship. Works fine for me. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post

I would not say that I have a dislike or distrust for ideas or concepts that are idealistic, or idealism based. I am certainly idealistic enough to believe that I or someone in my family who I helped to raise and teach, might someday make an important contribution to society. I am idealistic about a number of other things as well. Idealism does not mean that one has to accept assertions with no evidence. And even more so, idealism does not mean that one should accept unfounded assertions in the face of evidence to the contrary.

It seems to me that many of the faithful have a hard time with the concept that not everyone needs the crutch of some kind of fantastical cosmic narrative in order to feel comfortable in life. I see no difference between the value of theism in the lives of adults and that of Santa Claus the lives of young children (Santa is a magical person who will reward you for being good, and not so much for being bad - good and bad being what those in authority over the child says it is).

Given the evidence, I would at least reverse your probability estimate and make it 80% that consciousness arises from materialistic (deterministic) mechanisms, and 20% that it arises from some other unseen universal intelligence or life force.

In fact having just written this and then re-read it, and if I had to bet money, I would say the probability was on the order of 99% that consciousness arises from the interactions of matter as determined by the laws of physics and as they apply to chemistry and electrochemistry.

I would be happy to get into my reasons for this viewpoint, as well as the supporting evidence, but it is late here and such a discussion is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Oh, and I appreciate the express/ion of "unofficial" friendship. Works fine for me. :P

So, with the parameters of this thread established. In thought experiment, where does evolution go from here from the materialism standpoint? Does human intelligence evolve past the point of being carbon based, to being silicon based? ( please excuse my lack of knowledge in both chemistry and computer sciences, and just read the intent) Does/can intelligence evolve from being synapses and chemical reactions to circuits and chips?

You mention "99%" sure. Do you have any one specific area that you are unsure of? Where is the 1% as I would like to find a weakness to attempt to exploit. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Nope.

I suspect Gods can.

Hi 'The Nehor', thanks for the input. In respects to these particular points I want to say that what I am looking for in this thread a way to dabate with the materialist on his terms. Purely through current evident science and through simple logic while setting aside for the moment deity theory. So, I respond this way as I am assuming that you are answering "nope" to the question of "Could the life span of a hospitable Eco-system be what limits eternal progression?.....Whereas my meaning was, Could the life span of a hospitable Eco-system be what limits eternal evolution?

0

Share this post


Link to post

That said, I will stick with faith based religious truths over atheistic naturalism any day!

I like to take the middle road and stick with a little of both.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Wouldn't whales evolving from land mammals demonstrate a large degree of cyclicalness?
No. Absolutely not, Whales are not fish.

I know. That's why I did not equate. But I think evolution does not have to be mathematically perfect to be cyclical.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hi 'The Nehor', thanks for the input. In respects to these particular points I want to say that what I am looking for in this thread a way to dabate with the materialist on his terms. Purely through current evident science and through simple logic while setting aside for the moment deity theory. So, I respond this way as I am assuming that you are answering "nope" to the question of "Could the life span of a hospitable Eco-system be what limits eternal progression?.....Whereas my meaning was, Could the life span of a hospitable Eco-system be what limits eternal evolution?

Well, assuming there is no God then it depends on how much moral improvement you expect to see in humanity. If you take the "Star Trek/Arthur C. Clarke" approach and think humanity is continually and gradually improving then I suspect humanity could one day survive the heat death of the Universe (depending on what we find). Also, if you deny any supernatural element it is (from all indications) inevitable that we will one day be able to re-engineer our bodies into whatever we like or transfer from body to a machine construct or even back again. If there is no supernatural 'spirit' or 'soul' to worry about and the human body is a complex machine we should be able to engineer an ageless one or a machine that can last forever given an energy supply or whatever else we like. We could shed the human form entirely for something better.

The only thing that would limit human experience and/or intellectual advancement would be a lack of energy to continue existing.

Here are the theoretical extrapolations some scientist/theorists have come up with.

Quoted from another site: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-kardashev-scale.htm

The Kardashev scale is a way of classifying how technologically advanced a civilization is. The scale originally ranged from Type I to Type III, although in recent years Type 0, Type IV and Type V civilizations have been informally added.

A Kardashev Type I civilization would be one that is able to harness all the power available on a single planet. This figure has been quoted as about 10^16 Watts, though it might be much larger. To truly harness all the power of a planet would require its disassembly and reconfiguration into a gigantic solar panel much thinner and larger than the original Earth. It would also theoretically require fusing together all atomic nuclei with a mass lower than that of iron, and fissioning all atomic nuclei with a mass greater than that of iron, in order to extract the energy. The available energy would be several orders of magnitude larger than typical guesses.

Because Earth's present-day technological infrastructure has not yet consumed all the energy on this planet, it is informally known as a Type 0 civilization. Kardashev's original definition for the threshold between a Type 0 and Type I civilization was one with an available power level of 4 x 10^12 Watts.

A Kardashev Type II civilization would harness all the power available from a single star. This figure is around 10^26 Watts, but as in the last case, it has likely been underestimated. Although one might think that a Dyson sphere, a solar panel encasing the entire sun, would be sufficient to harness all the sun's energy, to truly tap everything would require disassembling the sun and creating a lattice of mini-reactors that fuse together nuclei in the most efficient possible way. Although figures of thousands of years in the future are sometimes given for the transformation of humanity to a Type II civilization, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence might make this possible much sooner than previously expected.

A Kardashev Type III civilization would harness all the power in a single galaxy. This has been estimated at around 10^36 Watts, although Kardashev's original definition was 4 x 10^37 Watts. With the power of an entire galaxy at its disposal, a civilization would likely be able to come up with radical new power sources, perhaps extracting energy from the vacuum itself. With self-replicating space probes carrying the full set of capabilities necessary to kickstart a stellar civilization, galactic colonization could happen almost as quickly as the speed of light travels.

A Kardashev Type IV civilization would be one that consumes the power of an entire galactic supercluster. Kardashev Type V, of course, would be a civilization that occupies the entire universe.

I have read of further Kardashev levels that could theoretically survive the heat death of the Universe but most require some form of parallel Universe theory to be true or some kind of technology that would be able to kick-restart an entire Universe or a way to recreate (partially or totally) a kind of big bang. A way to travel and communicate at FTL speeds would change the way such a civilization could be run slightly but that may be outright impossible.

I am sadly not that optimistic about humanity. If there were no God I suspect that humanity would find a way to wipe itself out within the next millenium. Our weapons keep getting better and I don't see a decrease in grudges and pettiness in humanity that would keep us from one day using them.

Sorry if it was a bit long.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Humans are still evolving.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162933.htm

After adjusting for factors such as education and smoking, their models predict that the descendants of these women will be slightly shorter and heavier, will have lower blood pressure and cholesterol, will have their first child at a younger age, and will reach menopause later in life.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Humans are still evolving.

Of course, but we have interfered drastically in our own evolution, mainly through medical advances.

A very large number of humans, who would never reach reproductive age without intervention, are now surviving and passing on their genes.

0

Share this post


Link to post

From a female perspective, I would hope the human brain would not grow larger until the female pelvis evolves likewise...

0

Share this post


Link to post

From a female perspective, I would hope the human brain would not grow larger until the female pelvis evolves likewise...

Now that is what I would call a valuable insight (and one that most males would be unlikely to have or even fully appreciate)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Now that is what I would call a valuable insight (and one that most males would be unlikely to have or even fully appreciate)

I would disagree. As someone who occasionally gets kidney stones I would love it if the male plumbing in that area were also enlarged.

0

Share this post


Link to post
From a female perspective, I would hope the human brain would not grow larger until the female pelvis evolves likewise...
Now that is what I would call a valuable insight (and one that most males would be unlikely to have or even fully appreciate)
I would disagree. As someone who occasionally gets kidney stones I would love it if the male plumbing in that area were also enlarged.

With larger human brains, it may be possible for someone to eventually develop a usable matter transporter to safely and painlessly get those things out of there.

1

Share this post


Link to post

With larger human brains, it may be possible for someone to eventually develop a usable matter transporter to safely and painlessly get those things out of there.

:P

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well, assuming there is no God then it depends on how much moral improvement you expect to see in humanity. If you take the "Star Trek/Arthur C. Clarke" approach and think humanity is continually and gradually improving then I suspect humanity could one day survive the heat death of the Universe (depending on what we find). Also, if you deny any supernatural element it is (from all indications) inevitable that we will one day be able to re-engineer our bodies into whatever we like or transfer from body to a machine construct or even back again. If there is no supernatural 'spirit' or 'soul' to worry about and the human body is a complex machine we should be able to engineer an ageless one or a machine that can last forever given an energy supply or whatever else we like. We could shed the human form entirely for something better.

The only thing that would limit human experience and/or intellectual advancement would be a lack of energy to continue existing.

Here are the theoretical extrapolations some scientist/theorists have come up with.

Quoted from another site: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-kardashev-scale.htm

I have read of further Kardashev levels that could theoretically survive the heat death of the Universe but most require some form of parallel Universe theory to be true or some kind of technology that would be able to kick-restart an entire Universe or a way to recreate (partially or totally) a kind of big bang. A way to travel and communicate at FTL speeds would change the way such a civilization could be run slightly but that may be outright impossible.

I am sadly not that optimistic about humanity. If there were no God I suspect that humanity would find a way to wipe itself out within the next millenium. Our weapons keep getting better and I don't see a decrease in grudges and pettiness in humanity that would keep us from one day using them.

Sorry if it was a bit long.

Good post T.N. thanks!

I kinda think that FTL and quantum entanglement are areas that are weak spots in the naturalist's theories.

Science right now has the technology to reverse the aging process in mice.

Science right now has the technology to tap into brain signals to control prosthetic limbs.

Science right now is developing biological powered batteries. Will they develop batteries that supply power to the cells?

Does the materialist/naturalist see a time when biological systems become fully integrated and for all intents indistinguishable from synthetics?

It doesn't seem that much of a stretch to think that 100 years from now....1000 years from now science could replicate synthetically biological brain structure, synapses, chemical reactions.

At some point A.I. and it's synthetic systems would be for all intents ethically indistinguishable from their biological counterparts from the Materialist's standpoint ....Think "Blade Runner."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.