Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!dcs.ed.ac.uk!newshost.dcs.ed.ac.uk!mxm
From: Mike Moran <mxm@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmmmmmm.....
In-Reply-To: fm845@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 1 Mar 1995 13:42:41 GMT
Message-ID: <MXM.95Mar1233313@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University
References: <3j1tki$33b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 23:33:13 GMT
Lines: 85
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:27856 comp.ai.philosophy:25817 comp.ai.alife:2642



Robert B Bushman writes:
In article <3j1tki$33b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> fm845@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert B. Bushman) writes:


fm845> D. Davis wrote:
>> here we are on top.

fm845> Josh responded:
>> could someone justify this statement for me?

fm845> I think the fairly common consensus here would be;
fm845> Of all known biological organisms, we (humans) are the only
fm845> ones known to posess higher reasoning capabilities, external
fm845> memory storage (books, newspapers, computers), complex tools
fm845> , high level natural language, etc.  You can probably pose a
fm845> fairly acceptable argument to some facet of some of these
fm845> issues, but you can't refute them all.

	I would have to say all can be refuted if you shift your
viewpoint from that of the human race, to that of nature as a whole.

					  You may also argue that
fm845> being intellectually advanced does not equate to superiority,
fm845> but the fact remains that applied intellect is the single most
fm845> common measure of individual and societal superiority.  Toss
fm845> in the fact that our intelligence has produced the power to
fm845> in most cases win any sort of battle with any given organism
fm845> (with the obviuos current exceptions EG AIDS which are non-
fm845> conscious), and it is hard to dispute that we are indeed the 
fm845> pinnacle by most standardized measures.  Why do we get
fm845> to set the standard of measure?  Cuz no other specie is 
fm845> presenting an alternative test and accompanying set of rules.
fm845> Consider also the fact that we are the only specie that has
fm845> engaged in rampant overpopulation of it's ecosystem, and found
fm845> ways to survive in the face of natural starvation.

	Ok, lets use the phrase 'applied intellect'. We do indeed
apply our intellect in all the areas you mention BUT what you fail to
mention, are the possible long term effects of these intellectual
pursuits. Could we really call a species intelligent, if the long-term
result of its 'intellect' caused its own destruction?

	I think it is only because of the very small time-scale in
which we think, that we view ourselves as intelligent and successful on
the large scale. 

	This small sense of scale also extends to the space scale
in which we evaluate ourselves against *particular individuals* of
other species. It can be seen how ludicrous this type of evaluation is
when we apply it to other pairs of individuals from different
species. For example, if we compared an ant say, with a horse, and the
horse stepped on the ant, could we really conclude that the species of
which the horse was a member of was better than that of the ant?

	Surely the comparison should be in terms of many millions of
comparisons, and over a very long time? I really don't think that we
can yet do this with humans, and any pronouncements we make are
inevitably short-term, and short-sighted.

fm845> We may or may not be the moral equal of our abilities,
fm845> but we are superior in all categories to any close competitor.
fm845> through machines, we are stronger than apes.
fm845> through machines, we fly better than birds.
fm845> through machines, we are larger and swim better than any fish
fm845>                   , whale or shark
fm845> thes machines are our intellectual product, our intellect
fm845> makes us superior.

fm845> On next stage in evolution 
fm845> <<computer glitch>>

fm845> On next stage in evolution, I like the recent concept
fm845> in 'Wired'  by Greg Blonder;
fm845> If we want to remain on top, we better start advancing
fm845> genetic engineering as fast as we are advancing computers.

fm845> Bob Bushman    fm845@cleveland.freenet.edu (I think)


						Thanks,

							Mike

