Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

I think you're missing the some big advantages to intelligence over non-intelligence.

The simple fact that intelligence allows a species to modify its own evolution in directed ways, a thing which allows it to bypass the local maximum for an overall maximum in terms of evolution, is a big thing. Simple fact is that due to the way that evolution works it will always select for the local maximum/minimum, which does not necessarily imply the overall maximum/minimum. On the other hand as things that can actively direct our own evolution, it is possible for us to step through an area of reduced fitness in order to access an area on the other side that is of higher fitness than any local maxima we could obtain on this side.

Additionally intelligence allows for greatly improved speed of evolution. Within only a few hundred years we have created new species and increased their production rates far beyond what evolution managed to accomplish in millennia. We can select for the good and weed out the bad many orders of magnitude faster than basic evolution ever could.

And really that's the advantage to intelligence. It would allow an alien race that thought this:

And look at that! Look at them take in solid matter and expel lumps of waste rather then photosynthesizing like any proper species.

To look beyond the short-term decreased local fitness and see the long-term increased maximum fitness that comes by working together. (Ignoring the fact that consuming solid food is orders of magnitudes more efficient than photosynthesis for now, so solid food is pretty much required if you want your "life" to consist of more than standing still in one spot due to lack of energy).

The ability to think in longer terms and in greater areas than your immediate environment is the advantage to intelligence, and that's an advantage that will always trump the slow speed of evolution in the long term. (Barring it destroying itself so quickly it can't adapt to its own changes, which I'd argue is more a flaw in that particular expression of intelligence, not in the idea of intelligence itself. The very fact that we can see what we are doing and argue about the destruction we are causing automatically gives us an advantage over a species like locusts that might consume and consume until they destroy themselves.) Panthers and wolves might be able to kill and eat us after millions of years of evolution, but in as little as a few hundred we can develop new tools to destroy them so efficiently that the only reason they are still around today is because we are actively taking steps to prevent their destruction.

[Loud Whispers]

Again, you're defining "Success" as "What humans do".

And again: So what?

Building big monuments is a show of success because it's something humans did.
Painting pretty pictures is success because it's what humans did.
I'm not trying to merely be Nihilistic, I'm trying to get you to understand that you're judging the worth and success of something based on a set of preconceived notions that inherently place you, yourself, as the most successful. Which isn't just shallow and self centered but completely masturbatory! It's the Rational that imperialists used to slaughter anyone who didn't conform to their particular ideas of what an "Advanced" society is.

I thought I made it clear I understood this position and found it to be utterly useless.

I mean, you may dismiss Bacterium but they've created (Proportionally) bigger and more complex structures than anything humans have ever made. Not to mention the fact that they've been alive far longer than us, they evolve and reproduce far faster and far more effectively, and they have no need to paint pictures and build monuments out of some broken and run amok self preservation drive making them existentially fearful of death. They don't waste time doing things that don't increase their chance of survival and reproduction. We're wildly evolutionary less fit than them. And chances are our  species will die out, but that bacteria will survive.  Hell, if we make it to another planet, that bacteria will be there with us. It doesn't need to waste energy or time building spaceships. We do that for it.

Thing is - they haven't built bigger or more complex structures than anything humans have ever made, being alive is no accomplishment when human civilization has trumped the nonexistent achievements of bacterium in the span of a few thousand years, evolutionary limits have been transcended and to top it off we are controlling their evolutionary paths. The only thing you've done is changed the criteria of a successful species by its propensity to proliferate itself in order to paint homo sapiens as some imperialistic species driven mad by survival instincts when last I checked there were several hundred million whose religions held impermanence as a core value. This is the same rational that guilt-ridden marxists and puritans use to flagellate themselves for their own success.

*Sigh* Let me explain this in the most asshole way possible. You are looking at yourself, saying "I am awesome" and then creating a list of ways you think you are awesome and comparing other things to that list.  Allow me to do the same, but from the perspective of an alien race with different values.

In my mind's eye you are some highly offended land squid trying to reduce humanity's accomplishments to nothingness to compensate for cephalopods total lack of life beyond eat, fuck and die. Squid internet defence force, please.

"Pyramids of Giza"
These humans spent 80 years piling stones atop one another to revere a corpse of a man who was thought to be great by the sheer luck of his birth. What a positively meaningless waste of time. If anything it's a monument to their own lack of logical thought.

Ah, the one who is not a nihilist begins being a nihilist.

"The Paintings of Michelangelo"
Look, they're spending years and huge amounts of money and time to create images of themselves. And they're now painting an image of themselves and claiming it created the universe! How positively Arrogant! And Stupid.

Squids be getting jelly they can't paint.

And now they're trying to spread and colonize everything around them incessantly rather then simply controlling their population! Have they no foresight? No sense of personal responsibility?

If it was the other way around you'd be decrying humanity's short sightedness in having the stars at their fingertips and turning away; there's no pleasing the self-loathing complexes of zoophiles who cry foul at the roads man makes, metaphorically and literally.

And look at that! Look at them take in solid matter and expel lumps of waste rather then photosynthesizing like any proper species.

Lesser species do that for us :^)

They are an arrogant, time wasting, disgusting bunch of animals and I recommend we wipe them out because they are clearly lesser beings than us.

How will they wipe us out when their society deconstructed any scientific achievement as objectively equal to being useless bacteria? Hahahaha

See! I have used nothing but objective facts to prove that humanity is, in fact, total shit!
Now would you like to be euthanized immediately or do you have some more solid waste to excrete before hand? I'm not sure how you lesser life forms work.

Shrekmate squid

[mainiac]

[piecewise]

Snip

I want to at least thank you for using the 4chan memes now and saving me any further effort. Normally I'd make a great big post, I'd argue the fact that you didn't actually make any arguments for your point of view, you just discounted any other point of view and attempted to use insult and mockery to obscure that. I'd try again to explain that perhaps your egotistical viewpoint isn't exactly the best one to have when talking about vastly varying exo cultures that might value very different things. I mean hell, apparently thinking that the pyramids of giza were a bit over done as a burial monument is nihilism. But I don't have to! I know that no matter what I say or argue that you're not gonna listen! You're just gonna say "nuh uh, not gonna listen to any of that ethnocentristic bullshit, commie pinko."

I mean you completely ignore the purpose of an argument and instead sit there and attack the nature of an example. I simply cannot fathom how you STILL fail to understand the concept that maybe it's not fair to base the judgement of "Who is most advanced" solely on things that you think are advanced. I don't understand how you cannot see the historical examples of this happening and how it has never gone well.

"zoophile"
":^)"
"Shrekmate"
"guilt-ridden marxists"

I'm tempted to call it satire, some parody of the right wing. A Texan senator who votes to bring Jesus and Democracy to the Martians because they are clearly the most advanced and morally correct methods of living. Poe's law is in full effect.

[i2amroy]

I mean you completely ignore the purpose of an argument and instead sit there and attack the nature of an example. I simply cannot fathom how you STILL fail to understand the concept that maybe it's not fair to base the judgement of "Who is most advanced" solely on things that you think are advanced. I don't understand how you cannot see the historical examples of this happening and how it has never gone well.

As another person in the thread, I agree with you about not needing to base "who is most advanced" solely on things that we think are advanced, but I fail to see what criteria we should be using in it's place. As I pointed out a few posts back there are some definite advantages "intelligence" has over "non-intelligence", such that we can draw a defining line even using a "fit" basis rather than a anthropocentric one.

[Loud Whispers]

That's some nice quote mining there Mr. Squid nihilist; you are the embodiment of teenagers first philosophy trying to educate the ignorant, lesser masses. Of course though, you are not superior and I inferior, for I am a an ape and we are equal to cephalopods :D
Irony incarnate; discounting any other point of view and using insult and mockery to obscure that.

I mean you completely ignore the purpose of an argument and instead sit there and attack the nature of an example.

And you prove yourself by ignoring my arguments, sitting there and attacking my examples. So close to self-awareness, but so far. You went into edgelord levels of punishment when you started decrying mankind as arrogant, ignorant and mean with the pyramids of Giza being nothing more than rocks whilst failing to explain how a deer licking its balls is anything more than a deer licking its balls. Not all species are equal. Humanity comes on top. When it comes to social, verbal or logical intelligence we are on top. And to bring up the Wolf's point earlier in which of two planets you would come across, would you be more interested in contacting an alien planet where there is a large presence of single celled organisms adapted to high pressure alkaline environments or a world where multi-cellular intelligent and sapient complex organisms have advanced so far that they've begun venturing into space too?

I mean you completely ignore the purpose of an argument and instead sit there and attack the nature of an example. I simply cannot fathom how you STILL fail to understand the concept that maybe it's not fair to base the judgement of "Who is most advanced" solely on things that you think are advanced. I don't understand how you cannot see the historical examples of this happening and how it has never gone well.

Because what you're suggesting as "fair" is utterly without merit; I understand what you're saying like I said I made myself clear - I find your opinion to be worthless to discussion because no one gives a fuck about how well aphids reproduce versus how well humans reproduce because things like intelligence are clearly one of the most important traits to compare; without these things we would not even be able to produce these scales. Again, you cannot elevate a deer licking its balls or a bacteria living in the intestines of a human to the same level as a human because there is simply no comparison how vastly inferior one is to the other.
Do you think I waste time pondering how much more superior a goose is to a human in unaided flight? No, I cook the goose. Do you think I would cook a human, or an alien of similar intelligence? No.

I'm tempted to call it satire, some parody of the right wing. A Texan senator who votes to bring Jesus and Democracy to the Martians because they are clearly the most advanced and morally correct methods of living. Poe's law is in full effect.

You are the living parody to me, I mean it's clear in your minds eye that you've conflated political, ethnic and religious identity with your beliefs and now I've triggered you because I am actually Rick Perry from the state of Texas, hyuk hyuk
Remember guys, if we don't treat rice and cattle as our equals we're basically Hitler

[piecewise]

I mean you completely ignore the purpose of an argument and instead sit there and attack the nature of an example. I simply cannot fathom how you STILL fail to understand the concept that maybe it's not fair to base the judgement of "Who is most advanced" solely on things that you think are advanced. I don't understand how you cannot see the historical examples of this happening and how it has never gone well.

As another person in the thread, I agree with you about not needing to base "who is most advanced" solely on things that we think are advanced, but I fail to see what criteria we should be using in it's place. As I pointed out a few posts back there are some definite advantages "intelligence" has over "non-intelligence", such that we can draw a defining line even using a "fit" basis rather than a anthropocentric one.

All I was trying to say is that there really isn't any objective measure of worth or advancement. It's like morality; there is no objective moral standing on what is good or evil. Such things are constructs we invented and defined.  And judging other species, even other races or groups based on subjective values and then declaring that it is "objective fact" that they are lesser is factually wrong, extremely vague, and more than likely driven by arrogance.

And it really bothers me because I see this sort of argument used all the time to attack and demean the arts, literature and similar human endeavors because they are "Objectively less important" than science or mathematics.

[Loud Whispers]

All I was trying to say is that there really isn't any objective measure of worth or advancement. It's like morality; there is no objective moral standing on what is good or evil. Such things are constructs we invented and defined.  And judging other species, even other races or groups based on subjective values and then declaring that it is "objective fact" that they are lesser is factually wrong, extremely vague, and more than likely driven by arrogance.

And it really bothers me because I see this sort of argument used all the time to attack and demean the arts, literature and similar human endeavors because they are "Objectively less important" than science or mathematics.

Well for one they are intrinsically of no use and for seconds when I see someone legitimately arguing that there is nothing morally right or wrong I agree and move on because there's one thing in sitting in a damp corner with soggy sandwiches thinking about the nature of the universe and there's another thing in actually getting shit done. It's one thing to cry and moan morality is our construct and it's another thing to then go around mass murdering people whilst yelling "it's ok, it's ok in my mind." Similar thing with this dogs bollocks about not calling lesser beings as lesser beings for being lesser beings.

*EDIT
Ahah, there it is again, that freudian slip
You conflate all of this with political, ethnic and religious identity.

And judging other species, even other races or groups based on subjective values and then declaring that it is "objective fact" that they are lesser is factually wrong, extremely vague, and more than likely driven by arrogance.

Holy shit, you know when I said this?

Thing is - they haven't built bigger or more complex structures than anything humans have ever made, being alive is no accomplishment when human civilization has trumped the nonexistent achievements of bacterium in the span of a few thousand years, evolutionary limits have been transcended and to top it off we are controlling their evolutionary paths. The only thing you've done is changed the criteria of a successful species by its propensity to proliferate itself in order to paint homo sapiens as some imperialistic species driven mad by survival instincts when last I checked there were several hundred million whose religions held impermanence as a core value. This is the same rational that guilt-ridden marxists and puritans use to flagellate themselves for their own success.

In particular the last bit. Thought I wasn't talking about you, turns out I was :D
Distance your politics from this friendo
*EDITx2
Well, you're not a puritan for sure, definitely more the former than the latter

[Egan_BW]

I haven't been following this very closely (internet arguments are the devil btw <3), but isn't this a bit semantic? what you should really be asking is who would win in a fight, not who's "Superior". 

[Loud Whispers]

I haven't been following this very closely (internet arguments are the devil btw <3), but isn't this a bit semantic? what you should really be asking is who would win in a fight, not who's "Superior". 

We don't know how well Martians would do in a fight though, so we'd probably just be listing all the ways aliums could kill us or be killed by us. Alternatively if we're talking homo sapiens vs literally every other organism on the planet we've already won that a long time ago.

[piecewise]

All I was trying to say is that there really isn't any objective measure of worth or advancement. It's like morality; there is no objective moral standing on what is good or evil. Such things are constructs we invented and defined.  And judging other species, even other races or groups based on subjective values and then declaring that it is "objective fact" that they are lesser is factually wrong, extremely vague, and more than likely driven by arrogance.

And it really bothers me because I see this sort of argument used all the time to attack and demean the arts, literature and similar human endeavors because they are "Objectively less important" than science or mathematics.

Well for one they are intrinsically of no use and for seconds when I see someone legitimately arguing that there is nothing morally right or wrong I agree and move on because there's one thing in sitting in a damp corner with soggy sandwiches thinking about the nature of the universe and there's another thing in actually getting shit done. It's one thing to cry and moan morality is our construct and it's another thing to then go around mass murdering people whilst yelling "it's ok, it's ok in my mind." Same goes with this dogs bollocks about not calling lesser beings as lesser beings for being lesser beings.

Let me ask this then: Which groups of humans are lesser beings compared to other groups of humans?

Because you've been very broad in terms of what defines "Greater" or "Lesser". Animals are lesser because they don't build buildings or make art. Ok. Fair enough. I eat burgers, I'm not gonna argue that cows should be allowed to vote.  Does that make someone who can't paint like Michelangelo a lesser being compared to Michelangelo? What is the hierarchy of human endeavor? Are humans in the past lesser beings simply because they had less access to technology, even if they were intellectually similar?  Are people with less access to technology TODAY lesser beings?  Are all human beings equal? Are we as good as our best member?

The reason why I balk at your definition is that it's fine when you use it against stuff like animals.  Yeah, I'm willing to say humans are basically better than insects in most ways. But it starts to get weird when you try to apply it to other sentient beings. And Since this is a discussion about aliens, thats what immediately comes to mind; two species using this metric judging each other and invariably considering themselves to be superior.

[Dorsidwarf]

I say we settle this biophilisophical argument via facing off the argumentees digital achievements in combat.

on the one hand, 400,000 gusars, and in the other, planetwide psychic orbital bombardment.

The above method is equally valid to the argument you two are having.
Neither of you will change the other's opinion. Neither of you is objectively right. Neither of you are arguing about the political effect of sentient mars rocks.

[Graknorke]

what the fuck is a gusar
besides a Serbian pirate i mean

[piecewise]

I say we settle this biophilisophical argument via facing off the argumentees digital achievements in combat.

on the one hand, 400,000 gusars, and in the other, planetwide psychic orbital bombardment.

The above method is equally valid to the argument you two are having.
Neither of you will change the other's opinion. Neither of you is objectively right. Neither of you are arguing about the political effect of sentient mars rocks.

I think it's very related to the political effect of sentient mars rocks. Mostly because it's the kind of argument that such a thing would bring up. Would we have the "Right" to go there and mess with them? Are they lesser beings compared to us? And how do we judge that?  I mean, what if these things have very complex thoughts, a deep philosophy, all sorts of advanced thinking, but just don't build buildings.  I mean, we need buildings because we need shelter but a rock is a rock and it don't need shit. Is a society that has no structures necessarily lesser than one that has large complex structures?

I dunno. But I think it's a bit rash to judge so quickly.

what the fuck is a gusar
besides a Serbian pirate i mean

Serbian Light Calvary, apparently.

They sound like some sort of soup to me.

[Wolfhunter107]

Light cavelry. Think early hussars.