News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

questions on Ny thing

Started by billy rubin, May 20, 2021, 08:35:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

billy rubin

#45
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2022, 02:34:11 PM
Once evolution started going down the intelligence path, destructive beings like humans was probably inevitable. But nature has even more destructive things to rid itself of intelligent beings. Fortunately, we are confined to a small planet in the corner of an ordinary galaxy, so our influence is limited.  Woe to the universe if we ever hook up with other intelligent beings. What calamity would ensue!!!

but has evolution ever gone down the intelligence path except with the primates?

possums and cockroaches and sharks and so on dont seem to need it. even the cetaceans, which are arguably intelligent enough to rival us seem not to have taken th edestructive path, maybe because they couldn't, being acquatic. who knows what philosophy they discuss, though?

the destructive path seems to be a primate thing, and not all of us either. siamangs and gibbons arent really smart, and arent destructive. a chimpanzee will take a grove of trees and denude it, whereas a siamang will live there for years and never damage it at all. but an orang utan wont damage its personal habitat either, and i think theyre as smart as chimnps.

why did humans take the chimp route of fouling our nest, and not the orang utan route of sustain ibility?


more people have been to berlin than i have

billy rubin

why am i asking questions i cant answer?


more people have been to berlin than i have

Ecurb Noselrub

Why? Because in their particular environment intelligence became a survival tool. But now it is more of a liability. Ultimately, whether a species opts for intelligence or instinct, they all seem to be doomed in the end.  The survival game has an termination point.

billy rubin

intelligence appears to be a local peak in the human adaptive landscape. we climbed the peak for greater fitness, but now we're up there and the eternally moving environmental coordinates are moving away from us.

but naturl selection wont le us climb down, and th enext peak is too far away to jump to.



im not sure that survival is doomed. george gaylord simpson estimated that the duration of a typical species over time was about five million years, but he used a palaeontological definition of species. but then some slightly higher taxa have very long lifespans, lik ehorshoe crabs from the ordovician and nautiluses all the way from the cambrian. so there are pretty complex creatures that can be very longlived, at least at taxa above the species.

but maybe the fact that there arent that many of them proves your point. certainly the rule is to die off. and we do seem to be among that group


more people have been to berlin than i have

Dark Lightning

Cute visual. What sort of units is it drawn to? Homo Sap is a vicious predator. I expect them to last.

billy rubin

its just a random unitless presentation of sewell wright's adaptive landscape model.  suppose youre a giraffe in africa, and the axes corespond to leg length and neck length. in your area a certain combination of the two lets you run fastest without falling and reach the highest leaves without fainting when you lift your head. the peak is the best combination of the two for your area. so any population that immigrates into that region will have a selection pressure that causes the expression of necks and legs to drift up to the top of the peak, like bubbles underwater rising along the inner surface of a hollow dome. over time, the genotype of any population will rise to the peak and stop. if there is another even higher peak nearby but a valley of un-fitness lies in between, then the population will never reach it without a drastic mutation.

its just like en engine map. there wil be a landscape of ignition timing and rpm that shows the highest bmep for all combinations. the shape of the surface shows th eoptimum combinations giving th ehighest bmep. th edifference is that biological landscape is self-improving through natural selection. but the axes and a multidimensional surface are the same.

in the real world, any combination of genes is included in the multi-axis model, hundreds or thousands of them, and they all interact to varying degrees. the various factors combine to form the optimum genotype for a given environmental niche. interspecific competition in bad times means that each niche will hold mostly one species,.

theres lots of interpretations









this shit fascinates me, so i get nerdy over it


more people have been to berlin than i have

Dark Lightning

Unitless = pointless, as I'm sure you know. It's therefore art.

billy rubin

is there a difference between science and art?


more people have been to berlin than i have

Bad Penny II

Quote from: billy rubin on January 24, 2022, 04:33:12 AM
is there a difference between science and art?

Green! is there a difference between science and art?

Of course, science appeals to science wankers and art appeals to art wankers.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

billy rubin

i dont think that helps very much


more people have been to berlin than i have

Bad Penny II

Quote from: billy rubin on January 23, 2022, 03:35:18 PM
this brings up th eelon musk dilemma. ive mentioned it before, but hes all gung ho on colonizing the rest of the galaxy, so that human beings can expand across an infinite frontier, because . . .

because ?

none of these intergalactic gene spreaders ever adresses the question of  . . . because, why?

at least that i have noticed. its a giant cosmic manifest detsiny. for you people unfamiliar with weird american political history, "manifest destiny" was how 19th century united states people in the east looked at the north american continent. we had a frontier in the east, and mexico to the south, canada to the north, and afterwe threw the mexicans out of california, we had a fringe over there from mexico to oregon/washington that were entering official statehood. anyway it was considered the manifest destiny of white northern european americans to gradually seep over the whole north american continent, and all other political and ethnioc entities were to be swept aside. this is actually what happened, and oklahoma and arizona were the last of the contiguous territories to be admitted as states.

so th eelon crowd seems to have this same manifest destiny idea towards space, th eidea that its important for us to spread our DNA across light years of the universe. in spite of the fact that we obviously cant take care of what we already have here on earth, and that its our DNA-driven drive to splash more DNA everywhere thats driving the overpopulation thats fouling our household here and will do the same everywhere else too

do we really need a univers full of more elon musks? next time, we can launch billionaires into space from mars instead of texas? turn video game star wars into cool reality? make flash gordon and the emperor ming the future of everything we re involved in?

why?

i dont understand the idea that this is even a useful thing, much less at all likely.

Because we like ourselves, I'm nice, most of the people I know are, the continuation of us is a good.
Fuck all the moaning bastards deploring the despoiling of dead planets and floating about things.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

hermes2015

Quote from: billy rubin on January 24, 2022, 04:33:12 AM
is there a difference between science and art?

I am not clever enough to even attempt to answer this interesting question, so would be interested to hear what people like Bronowski, Kenneth Clark, or Roger Penrose had to say about it.
"Who is to say that pleasure is useless?"
― Charles Eames

billy rubin

Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 25, 2022, 12:40:17 PM
Because we like ourselves, I'm nice, most of the people I know are, the continuation of us is a good.
Fuck all the moaning bastards deploring the despoiling of dead planets and floating about things.

i think im okay too, but i dont have a problem with the extinction of me. i do not see the continuation of me as a good, or a bad, or as an anything.

its all a nothing. there is no nothing that is more important than any other nothing, as i see it.


more people have been to berlin than i have

billy rubin

Quote from: hermes2015 on January 25, 2022, 12:59:38 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on January 24, 2022, 04:33:12 AM
is there a difference between science and art?

I am not clever enough to even attempt to answer this interesting question, so would be interested to hear what people like Bronowski, Kenneth Clark, or Roger Penrose had to say about it.

i suspect it has to do with the motivations of the creator, whether scientific, or artistic.

both are rooted in creativity, in the expression of something.

maybe, one has more rules than the other. but im not sure. there are lots of rules in art, but then, maybe its the science types that looke for them?







more people have been to berlin than i have

billy rubin



stuff like pollock^^^ bothers me immensely, because i cant figure out whether im missing something or not.


more people have been to berlin than i have