Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!news.oleane.net!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!news.unige.ch!usenet
From: sylvere@divsun.unige.ch (Silvere Martin-Michiellot)
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmm
Message-ID: <1995Feb15.131631.18928@news.unige.ch>
Sender: usenet@news.unige.ch
Reply-To: sylvere@divsun.unige.ch
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
References: <3hocrp$5gs@news.u.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:16:31 GMT
Lines: 83

In article 5gs@news.u.washington.edu, gorgonne@u.washington.edu (Wombat Love) writes:
>sylvere@divsun.unige.ch (Silvere Martin-Michiellot) writes:
>
>>In article iaf@news.u.washington.edu, gorgonne@u.washington.edu (Wombat Love) writes:
>>> >: Demetrius L. Davis (davisd@pleiades.cs.rpi.edu) wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> >: yet through this complex chain of 
>>> >: evolutionary selections and survivals, here we are on top.
>>> 					  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 	
>>> 
>>> 	whoa.  Pardon my interjection, but could someone justify 
>>> that statement for me?
>>> 	Becuase humans (it seems) are the most "complex" forms of life 
>>> extant, does it necessarily follow that they are the most advanced or 
>>> successful?
>>> 	This seems to be a fairly naive, anthropocentric standpoint.
>>> 
>>> 			-Josh
>
>
>>You stupid.
>
>	Easy, punchy.  No reason to make it personal.
>

All right, I was very angry but I'm feeling better now.

>>First, we are not the most complex. (no more, no less than other mammals 
>>for example.)
>
>	What gives you that idea?  Just in the areas of cognitive and 
>behavioral complexity we are far beyond even chimpanzees.
>

We can't say that we are the most complex because :
first, this reflects a pure anthropocentric view
then, to say that we are more complex, we must define a measure of complexity
      (volume of the brain...) that relies either on biology (that's what I meant in
       my previous article) or psychology... and it is absolutely *NOT* evident that
       theses measures will lead to the same results.


>>Then, the top can only mean that we have no predator : advanced, 
>>or succesful is only human concern (and the hope that everything we do 
>>leads us to a better world).
>
>	That's an ultrasimplistic view of evolutionary success.  Just 
>because an organism has no natural predators, does not make it king of 
>the hill.  Besides, humans are infested with predators that feed off of, 
>and frequently kill, them: viruses.
first, evolution doesn't mean progress but transformation
then, success is anthropocentric : you are proud to be here. It is not a matter of
success but a matter of luck : evolution could have lead to something else.
then, I agree we are not the king of the hill because of predators. I even mean we are
not "king of the hill" at all. I meant that considering the chain of food, we are at
the top, and this is the only way to say we are at the top of something : You can eat
everything and no one can eat you.
finally, we have very few predators (or at least very few dangerous ones) considering
others species. 

>
>>Adaptation to what, indeed ?
>>To nothing. Mere luck. That is all.
>
>	To the local environment.  
>
>

How can you measure adaptation ? May be your brightfull idea of adaptation will be out
dated if we kill ourselves in a nuclear war (for example) or if we are not able to
survive a big catastroph.
You can only say "so far, so good"
And I say "So what ?" (thanks to Megadeth heavy metal band)

-----------------

"Is anyone alive down there ?"

Silvere MARTIN-MICHIELLOT


