5 ms·

It is a fact that we haven't been eaten by a swarm of anything. Facts are evidence. If you don't understand that, I don't think we'll be having a productive or

It is a fact that we haven't been eaten by a swarm of anything. Facts are evidence. If you don't understand that, I don't think we'll be having a productive or fun converstion. Sound more like you're interested in making innane snarky comments to fuel your own ego. Good luck with that.

squigz 3y ago
Would you like to actually address the point I made about simple life?
- billytetrud 3y ago
  If you made a point about that, it was not clear to me. Perhaps you were implying that simple life could be very common even if intelligent life isn't. While yes, that is a possibility, that says nothing of its probability. Were that the circumstance, it leaves the question open as to why simple life would be common but intelligent life not common.
  - squigz 3y ago
    I'm just a bit confused as to why the subject of intelligent life is the focus here, considering the context of this post is basic cellular life. As to why simple life would be more common than complex life... that seems obvious to me: simple systems are easier to emerge from chaos than complex ones.
    - aydyn 3y ago
      From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas. Give the huge advantage that intelligence has for natural selection in complex environments, why would intelligent life not arise from simple life? It's not obvious.
      - squigz 3y ago
        > From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas. That's a very limited and poor perspective. Yes, individual human cells are no more complex than others, but that doesn't encompass the entire system that has to emerge. A human being is - obviously, I would think - a far more complex system than a simple amoeba.
        aydyn 3y ago
        You missed the point. What's the barrier to stop simple organisms from developing into more complex and eventually intelligent systems? There's no delineation between "intelligent" and "simple" life. It's a smooth fitness landscape that evolution would (arguably) climb over time.
        squigz 3y ago
        Evolution doesn't always work like that though. There's a fair bit of luck involved. You're right that 'intelligence' would certainly help an organism survive, but that is hardly a guarantee.
        aydyn 3y ago
        It does "work like that", this is literally my field. Evolution is a random walk where organisms higher up on a fitness landscape are more likely to survive. Over time, the probability of climbing the fitness landscape approaches 1. To claim that intelligent life would not evolve from simple life, you have to posit fitness barriers, i.e. steep discontinuities in the fitness landscape that prevent organisms from climbing. One of those barriers might be the jump from single-cell to multi-cellular in high heat/high entropy environments. But you haven't posited any such mechanisms. Intelligence has evolved multiple times on earth's history (just that the other species are extinct). So there is strong evidence that in earth-like environments there is no such barrier.

squigz 3y ago

Would you like to actually address the point I made about simple life?

billytetrud 3y ago
If you made a point about that, it was not clear to me. Perhaps you were implying that simple life could be very common even if intelligent life isn't. While yes, that is a possibility, that says nothing of its probability. Were that the circumstance, it leaves the question open as to why simple life would be common but intelligent life not common.
- squigz 3y ago
  I'm just a bit confused as to why the subject of intelligent life is the focus here, considering the context of this post is basic cellular life. As to why simple life would be more common than complex life... that seems obvious to me: simple systems are easier to emerge from chaos than complex ones.
  - aydyn 3y ago
    From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas. Give the huge advantage that intelligence has for natural selection in complex environments, why would intelligent life not arise from simple life? It's not obvious.
    - squigz 3y ago
      > From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas. That's a very limited and poor perspective. Yes, individual human cells are no more complex than others, but that doesn't encompass the entire system that has to emerge. A human being is - obviously, I would think - a far more complex system than a simple amoeba.
      - aydyn 3y ago
        You missed the point. What's the barrier to stop simple organisms from developing into more complex and eventually intelligent systems? There's no delineation between "intelligent" and "simple" life. It's a smooth fitness landscape that evolution would (arguably) climb over time.
        squigz 3y ago
        Evolution doesn't always work like that though. There's a fair bit of luck involved. You're right that 'intelligence' would certainly help an organism survive, but that is hardly a guarantee.
        aydyn 3y ago
        It does "work like that", this is literally my field. Evolution is a random walk where organisms higher up on a fitness landscape are more likely to survive. Over time, the probability of climbing the fitness landscape approaches 1. To claim that intelligent life would not evolve from simple life, you have to posit fitness barriers, i.e. steep discontinuities in the fitness landscape that prevent organisms from climbing. One of those barriers might be the jump from single-cell to multi-cellular in high heat/high entropy environments. But you haven't posited any such mechanisms. Intelligence has evolved multiple times on earth's history (just that the other species are extinct). So there is strong evidence that in earth-like environments there is no such barrier.