"Real" ringworlds

[narf poit chez BOOM]

ok. something quick. i am trying to change my sleeping hours. therefore, i am tired and sound less comprehensible than i am. but, i have made a point.
you cannot make something more complex and expect it to get intelligent. you can only say that in theory, while in fact there is no link.
now, i must sleep.

[ May 15, 2003, 09:18: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Actually, you can. It happens every second of every day, and has been happening for every second of every day for all of eternity. All systems get more complex as time goes on. Entropy is always increasing. More chaotic systems are be definition more complex.

[Primogenitor]

Complexity does not mean intelligence. But then what is? Computers can do math faster, store more data, but are they inteligent? Where in the animal world do you draw the line? are dolphins/whales smart? What about apes/monkeys?

This is getting rather Zen. Or maybe it isnt because it doesnt exist? Who am I, Am I Me? Since this entire thread is mearly an imterpretation of an arangement of magnetic feilds and electrons, does it exist?

[dogscoff]

you cannot make something more complex and expect it to get intelligent.

We're not doing that- not every complex system is "expected" to gain intelligence. For example no-one is expecting the global telephone network to suddenly achieve sentience. (although that would make a cool scifi book=-)

However, it is scientifically provable that at least one very specific kind of complex structure (the brain) gives rise to (or is required to harbour) intelligence.

Your argument seems to be equivalent to "this bit of unrefined metal can't open a tin, therefore tin openers do not exist."

[dogscoff]

Where in the animal world do you draw the line?

that depends entirely on how you define intelligence/ sentience.

Why does there have to be a line anyway? Why not just have a big, vague sliding scale? Better yet, a six-dimensional graph with lots of axes and different colours.

[Primogenitor]

Better yet, a six-dimensional graph with lots of axes and different colours.

Axes imply a scale, since weve agreed you cant scale ro measure intelligence. The graph would not have axes, or values. Ha! Integrate that!

[Loser]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You do not rule out the theory of evolution; you in fact are good evidence of it's validity.

That sounds troublingly circular, since Evolution was formed specifically to explain our existence.

Before a discussion of evolution gets any further, I would like to point out a few things about how theories and science work.

Science: the dogma that is wrong

In science, we make up reasons for why the world works the way it does. These are hypotheses and humans have probably been doing this for as long as we've been here, or longer. What makes science better than other dogmas is what you do next.

After forming a hypothesis the scientist finds a way to test it. This test should not only be a "if this works, I'm right" setup, it should also cover "if it turns out this way, I'm wrong" circumstances.

The greatest thing about science is that it is often wrong. It is in a continual climb of improvement.

But what if it's about Napoleon, Doctor Wally?

There are two kinds of theories for which this is very difficult, in fact almost impossible. The first are sociological theories, as the test group or the control group tend to be subjected to inhumane situations in order to prove or disprove the theory. See the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Johnson/Tudor Stuttering Experiment for examples of some of the least inhumane experiments. Note, if you will, that sociological theories are still tested today, but the limitations on the test that can be done also limit the theories that are proposed.

The other sort of theory that is difficult to test are historical theories. The Theory of Evolution and the theory "Democracies don't make war on each other" that I have brought up in the Iraq thread are both theories of this sort. Most of the time theories of historical matters are of such a scale, and deal with matters so unreachable, that proving them is a matter of waiting for something new to be found.

Alternately, you can use the theory to suggest that something would exist is a certain place and of a certain nature. This is the way we will prove the theory of evolution: we search for the 'missing links' that the theory of evolution specifies must exist between differing species.

Now I speak about things

Unfortunately, we have not yet found any conclusive evidence in this matter. There are a number of places that we could look for such things, a number of dramatic transitions rich in the possibility for such a find: water-to-land, ground-to-air, land-to-water, ape-to-man. But, despite the fact that so many separate species seem to have made the first three transitions, we have not found a proper candidate.

Not that you'd be aware of that, if all you listen to is popular media. It turns out that any currently existing water-to-land transitional species is at it's 'evolutionary limit' and is unlikely to finish the transition. And no fossil evidence has produced any water-to-land transitional species that could be an ancestor to any other known land species.

The land-to-air transition seems the most promising, really, since it has happened twice recently (avians and mammals), because the animals involved were of fairly sturdy structure (unlike the soft amphibians), and because we have so much fossilized material from the time period when we're pretty sure at least one of these transitions (avian) must have happened.

I'm sure you are aware of the Archaeopteryx. This species is certainly the strongest contender for a 'missing link', but even here there are uncertainties. Archaeopteryx can be seen as having both some of the features of an avian and some of a dinosaur, but it remains a strong possibility that Archaeopteryx is no ancestor to modern avians. The likelihood that it developed along side them is very real. Then there is the matter of the stuttering steps: we have several wonderful examples of Archaeopteryx in fossilized form, but none of other steps in the process, before or after Archaeopteryx.

I was under the impression that there were no strong examples of land-to-sea transitional species, but I could be wrong.

In the matter of ape-to-man, we again run in to the problem of relation. We can find creatures that are much like man, or creatures that are much like apes, but nothing in between. An additional problem is that many of the older examples of homids do not seem to have lead to modern man at all, but instead represent dead ends in an evolutionary paradigm.

These facts do not disprove evolution, in fact most support it or at least can be fit into the evolutionary paradigm with trivial supposition. But the difference between "the best idea we've got" and "downright fact" is an important distinction to make.

A couple additional things to note.

We're lucky to have a fossil record at all. The conditions required to make a fossil are exacting and rare. There are some creatures that will may never know of, because they were made of too-delicate stuff, or because none of their members died in the right place at the right time.

It speaks strongly of the Theory of Evolution that even the Creationists have incorporated some of its principles into their world-view. 'Creation Science' now purports that animals can, in fact, change to suit their environment (they do still maintain, however, that one sort of creature cannot change into another sort). While this is a reactionary movement, its members may still have something to contribute to the scientific community if they focus on more scientific method and less on philosophical detractions.

In closing

I would like to say at this time that I am uncertain of my intentions in this rant. I do not know what I meant to accomplish by saying these things, but I am fairly sure that I have said all I meant to. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you or your family.

Thank you.

[dogscoff]

Axes imply a scale, since weve agreed you cant scale ro measure intelligence. The graph would not have axes, or values. Ha! Integrate that!

Well I was trying to imply that a single scale to measure intelligence wouldn't do- that intelligence is not just one single value but a the combination of many different attributes. My arbitrary value of 6 is probably a little mean.

[Aloofi]

That theory about evolution have never convinced me.
The fact that life seems to evolve doesn't mean that we come from an ameba.
And all those bones are doubtfull at best, fraudulents at worst.
Anyway, to tell the truth, I will never belive in evolution not just because of all the inconsistence I see, but because Evolution is the official theory of the whole world, and official theories are official because they serve to someone interests, and since I'm not that someone, then its very likely that theory benefits someone that its interested in keeping me on the dark, whatever that dark may be.

Humm...... I guess I'm having a bad day today. All 4 post that I have posted today are anti-corporations and full of grammatical errors.....

[Edit] What did I edit?

[ May 15, 2003, 16:43: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
... and official theories are official because they serve to someone interests...

Buddy, you're starting to sound paranoid.

I don't think multi-cellular life would have come from amoebas. An amoeba has no reason to take the trouble needed to go multi-cellular, no present-day eukaryotes do really.

The life that would have taken a multi-cellular approach was probably something we don't have anymore. It likely took the collective approach to meet a certain goal, and having met that goal better with a multi-celled form, drove all its single-celled ancestors out of that niche. Now the only single-celled life left are those that fill a niche in which multi-cellular life simply can't compete.

That said...

Science does not serve any one man. Popularised pseudo-science certainly can, but true science serves only humanity as a whole.