Underscoring the inhuman minds of Uplifts, AIs and Bioroids

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The notion of "progress" in evolution is a pernicious one, that lots of otherwise intelligent people seem to fall into. It tends to be a fallacy that I am sensitive to, for whatever reason.

'Progress' would seem to require that not just evolutionary processes but the existence of life had to do with a purpose or plan. And whence this plan, or goal? Now, it may well be true; there may exist a higher purpose of life in the universe. But it's not really the sort of question that one can answer with biology, I think.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It seems to be related to sensory ability, so some intelligence would seem to be likely with multicellular animals, just to make sense of the environment. Like everything else, there are advantages to intermediate stages even if the current form started out as a side effect of some other trait.
Barnacles. Neotony. Sometimes it works "backwards".

The notion of "progress" in evolution is a pernicious one, that lots of otherwise intelligent people seem to fall into. It tends to be a fallacy that I am sensitive to, for whatever reason.
....

Advantages to intermediates stages, of course. That's how eyes evolved so many times in unrelated lineages. But presapience can't be that advantageous for it to have developed in only one lineage.

There are those sea creatures that start out free floating animals only to latch onto substrates and "digest" their brains living from then on as filter feeders. I certainly loathe the incorrect assumption of the ever upward ladder of evolution.
You are preaching to the choir to use a very bad expression as an atheist. ;)

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by gjc8

Of course, neither uplifts nor AIs are naturally evolved. In fact, if you consider that a trait that's particularly linked to technology and science, then it would make sense to consider how it might be different in uplifts, since those are specifically species that didn't develop technology and science.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You misunderstand me. Because it's not predictive, intelligence is an improbable thing to evolve. It has little "power" except far in the future. Of course there had to be some reason for our ancestors to develop it. But the animal kingdom still shows that getting stronger, faster, tougher, etc. usually works out better and far far more often.

Sexual selection has been proposed, as one possible reason why we have such huge brains, in spite of the enormous cost of having them, not only in terms of metabolic energy, but also the risk of birth. No other known species (except the neanderthals) had birth that were even risky. When a mare is preggers, she'll just walk around, and squeeze out the foal eventually, no big deal. None of the screaming and pain and justified fear that we humans have.

Notice the implications for THS sex bio-roids?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Owen Smith

No. You'll have to spell it out for me.

They can have arbitrarily big heads, since they don't need to pass through a birth canal. Of course this is true for even humans due to exowombs.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

They can have arbitrarily big heads, since they don't need to pass through a birth canal. Of course this is true for even humans due to exowombs.

Bobbleheads, huh?
Creepy.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Owen Smith

No. You'll have to spell it out for me.

Even for exploitative purposes, very low IQ isn't always going to be what sells best.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You misunderstand me. Because it's not predictive, intelligence is an improbable thing to evolve. It has little "power" except far in the future. Of course there had to be some reason for our ancestors to develop it. But the animal kingdom still shows that getting stronger, faster, tougher, etc. usually works out better and far far more often.

I wouldn't say so. More sophisticated predation and predator avoidance strategies count for a lot with large animals.

[Keiko]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "works out better" too. Human intelligence seems to have done all right for us. Of course, other strategies worked well too. Some animals haven't changed much for millions of years. But we've also hunted a number of larger, tougher species to or near extinction. I guess intelligence won't really be "proven" until it gets our species through some cataclysm nothing else could like a planetary extinction event?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Owen Smith

He said "Notice the implications for THS sex bio-roids". I don't see how this is an implication for sex bio-roids in particular, it seems to me this could apply equally to all bio-roids.

He also thinks that big heads are hot.