The Anthropic Principle

Of course.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

........There is no reason why evolution would evolve it from a natural selection point of view........

two points here;

first 'evolution' is a process, not an active force, or 'being'; it doesn't 'evolve' anything. Species evolve by the random, and totally chance process of mutations occurring in their genetic makeup, which are then 'tested' by the environment, on the basis of their value for the survival of the individual, to the point of reproduction. If the survival does not occur (as is the case in the vast majority of these chance mutations), the mutation is dropped from the gene pool.

and secondly, in light of the above, what feature in a species would be more likely to enhance the individual's ability to survive, than self awareness?

0 Replies

Rapid regeneration and methods for genetic transformation, which is why we are covered with bacteria before we're born, while we're alive, and after we die.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

There is no reason why evolution would evolve it from a natural selection point of view.

Really? Are you seriously arguing there is no reason why intelligent humans would have a selective advantage over stupid humans in the hunter and gatherer environment they developed in?

In a nice coincidence with this thread, Brad deLong references a humorous take on the anthropic principle. It turns out that beaches are obviously designed to be optimal for surfing and sunbathing ....

0 Replies

There is a character in "A history of the world in 10 1/2 chapters" who demonstrates the necessary existence of God thusly (I paraphrase):

The watermelon must have been designed for us, because it is so sweet and can slake thirst.
The apple must have been designed for us, because it fits nicely into the hand, and also has a pleasing taste.
The banana must have been designed for us, because it is very nutritious and has a protective covering that protects it from rot and from insects, but which we are able to peel away using only our fingers.
The pineapple must have been designed for us because it is so sweet, and because it is covered in hard, sharp leaves that make us greater appreciate the suffering of Christ upon the cross as we savor the sweet juices within.

The mans daughter eventually dies on an expedition up Mt. Ararat to find Noah's ark, if I remember the story correctly.

0 Replies

BoGoWo,

Well, let's put it this way then. I believe it's more likely that cognition is supermaterial than that it would be the result of some random mutation. The idea that something random would result in self-awareness seems absurd to me, kind of reversed. Of all the millions of species on this planet, only one has the ability to contemplate its own existence, only one has the ability to reason, only one has the ability to act contrary to instinct...

0 Replies

This idea of "purpose" is surely a product of "intelligence" or the tendency to "forward plan", BUT (1) such intelligence has also discovered that
"time" is a psychological construct and (2) meditational practices emphasize the wisdom of "being" over "becoming".
It seems to follow that the concept of "purpose of the universe" is pretty low-level from an epistemological point of view.

0 Replies

Quote:

Of all the millions of species on this planet, only one has the ability to contemplate its own existence, only one has the ability to reason, only one has the ability to act contrary to instinct...

You are making a whole spate of assumptions about both the abilities of the human intellect and about the abilities of animals to act counter to their instincts. Never mind that the distinction between thought and instinct is likely artificial in itself, and our definitions of them a bit self-serving.

Or, if you prefer a different token: the very rarity of such contemplation could be used as an argument against design. If all was created, why were such advanced mental faculties not distributed more liberally?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Derevon wrote:
There is no reason why evolution would evolve it from a natural selection point of view.

Really? Are you seriously arguing there is no reason why intelligent humans would have a selective advantage over stupid humans in the hunter and gatherer environment they developed in?

Self-awareness is not synonymous with intelligence. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't be necessary for a strictly animal human being to realise his own existence. There is no need for him, from a survival point of view, to have the ability to contemplate what the purpose of life is etc.

0 Replies

The animal and plant kingdoms are full of features that aren't necessary for existence. It is part of evolution, if you subscribe to the model. From a survival point of view, what is the point of the peacock's tail feathers?

0 Replies

Quote:

The animal and plant kingdoms are full of features that aren't necessary for existence. It is part of evolution, if you subscribe to the model. From a survival point of view, what is the point of the peacock's tail feathers?

To attract the opposite sex, so as to be able to reproduce?

0 Replies

Yes, but why does that attract the opposite sex? If evolution is efficient (which you imply that it is when you claim that it could not produce an essentially useless mental attribute), then females should be attracted to features that will better ensure the fitness of their offspring: body size, flight, sperm count, whatever. But the big tail feathers are, if anything, impediments to survival.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

.....I believe it's more likely that cognition is supermaterial than that it would be the result of some random mutation.....

there you go 'believing' again....why?

Derevon wrote:

.....The idea that something random would result in self-awareness seems absurd to me, kind of reversed.......

the entire body of belief of religion seems 'absurd' to me, things existing that you cannot see; places to 'go' after the body ceases to function; revenge as a 'priciple; only the 'baptized' are pure - even if they never knew about it, and all that went before the advent of the organization of the 'belief system' were of no consequence, and damned to hell, or whatever......and you find self awareness amazing!

Derevon wrote:

.....Of all the millions of species on this planet, only one has the ability to contemplate its own existence, only one has the ability to reason, only one has the ability to act contrary to instinct......

nonsense; have you never encountered a dog?
and the species that seems to have the most trouble abandonning instinct - its evolutionary 'hardwiring', teaching it to hoard wealth, guard 'territory', and fit into its heirarchical 'place' without question; is the same one that makes up stories to protect it from the 'unknown'!

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Yes, but why does that attract the opposite sex? If evolution is efficient (which you imply that it is when you claim that it could not produce an essentially useless mental attribute), then females should be attracted to features that will better ensure the fitness of their offspring: body size, flight, sperm count, whatever. But the big tail feathers are, if anything, impediments to survival.

does no one understand evolution?
The male (in this case) only needs to survive to reproduction, for the species to be successful; after that the female doesn't give a tinker's damn if his tail gets caught in his VCR, and a fox gets him; he's done what he needed to do, and because of that tail, she chose him.

VERY IMPORTANT!!! none of this has to make sense (it's kind of like religion that way) it just has to work!!! Some of the most bizarre things happen in the name of survival; but they work!

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Yes, but why does that attract the opposite sex? If evolution is efficient (which you imply that it is when you claim that it could not produce an essentially useless mental attribute), then females should be attracted to features that will better ensure the fitness of their offspring: body size, flight, sperm count, whatever. But the big tail feathers are, if anything, impediments to survival.

I'm not a biologist or anything. I don't know why peacocks find certain tail feathers attractive, but I suppose there is a reason for that.

Anyhow, I'm not saying that evolution can't result in useless abilities, I'm sure that can happen. What I really mean is that abilities that don't increase the chances of survival have less likelihood of remaining in the gene pool, which makes things even more improbable. That argument alone is of course not sufficient to claim that self-awareness couldn't be a result of evolution, though.

0 Replies

Quote:

VERY IMPORTANT!!! none of this has to make sense (it's kind of like religion that way) it just has to work!!! Some of the most bizarre things happen in the name of survival; but they work!

bogowo -- relax, bud; this is precisely my point.

Quote:

That argument alone is of course not sufficient to claim that self-awareness couldn't be a result of evolution, though.

That's all I wanted to hear.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Derevon wrote:
.....I believe it's more likely that cognition is supermaterial than that it would be the result of some random mutation.....

there you go 'believing' again....why?

Because I don't know of course. The purpose of this thread is to determine if people think the universe is created for a purpose or not. What else than believing can one do?

Derevon wrote:

.....The idea that something random would result in self-awareness seems absurd to me, kind of reversed.......

BoGoWo wrote:

the entire body of belief of religion seems 'absurd' to me, things existing that you cannot see; places to 'go' after the body ceases to function; revenge as a 'priciple; only the 'baptized' are pure - even if they never knew about it, and all that went before the advent of the organization of the 'belief system' were of no consequence, and damned to hell, or whatever......and you find self awareness amazing!

What is absurd about things existing that you cannot see? The human eye can only perceive light at certain wavelengths. Radiation isn't exactly visible, nor are radio waves, etc etc. As for consciousness surviving death, there are thousands of testimonies from people who've had near-death experiences, and out of body experiences, reporting things that are impossible to explain scientifically. You are of course free to believe that religion is absurd if you like. Not that I understand what it has to do with this thread or anything. The question was whether or not we believed that the universe is created for a purpose.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

........What is absurd about things existing that you cannot see?........

i'll give you full marks for that one, stupid comment on my part; of course there are lots of things we cannot see, as you point out.
But for things like electromagnetic radiation we have evidence!

That's all i ask.

0 Replies

Looks like I'm not the only one...
Well, well, well... Ender does any of this sound famillar? This sounds like what I've been saying for the past few months! No ill my freind but they all bring up valid will meant by this but I should get to what I have to say. The main problem with that theory is that you are looking at the universe as though it is perfect for Us and that everything has a purpose. Of course, we could have just as easily evolved to best adapt to the contitions surrounding us...

You know how I voted so I won't even bother saying it.

0 Replies

There are really two questions here, rolled into one.

1. Was the universe made (implying a maker)?

2. Was the universe made for a purpose?

If the answer to #1 is no, the answer to #2 is no as well.

However, if the answer to #1 is yes, the answer to #2 is still anybody's guess.

0 Replies

The Anthropic Principle

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know