TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

46 pointsby not_that_noobover 8 years ago

18 comments

roywigginsover 8 years ago
Both the Intelligent Alien and Simulation ideas just push the question of 'purpose' up a level. Sure, the aliens may have a purpose, but if they are themselves a cosmological purposeless accident then by extension it's arguable that so are we.
评论 #13162001 未加载
评论 #13162617 未加载
评论 #13162204 未加载
Florin_Andreiover 8 years ago
Well, if time is somehow &quot;leaky&quot;, if the barrier between future and present is not absolutely, 100% impenetrable, then it&#x27;s quite a distinct possibility that a future superintelligence would meddle into the affairs of its own past, perhaps with the goal of enabling its own existence.<p>Both general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to suggest that time is not perfectly linear (GR) and not perfectly crisp or perfectly clearly delineated (QM). Of course, there is a long way from these suggestions to time travel - but the thing is, you don&#x27;t need time travel in the pop-sci sense. All you need is a &quot;leak&quot; of some interactions, however tenuous, from the distant future into the present. You only need to manipulate the states of a tiny number of particles in the brains and&#x2F;or chromosomes of various creatures, affecting the wave functions of a few atoms and then allowing the effects to play out from there.<p>To be sure, this is very highly speculative, and I&#x27;m not suggesting this is what is actually happening. I&#x27;m just saying - if this, then that. Or, to put it in clearer terms, the conditions are:<p>1. Time is ever so slightly &quot;leaky&quot;.<p>2. A vast, extraordinarily powerful superintelligence will emerge in the future, or humanity will in effect be that for all practical purposes.<p>It would be essentially the equivalent of God leaving biologic evolution and human progress mostly to their own devices, but once in a while putting his thumb on those respective scales. In this scenario, evolution would be a bipolar process: powered by the usual push of genetics, natural selection, etc at the bottom, but also informed by the pull of a future ideal at the top.<p>Going much further, kickstarting life, or even triggering the beginning of this Universe could also be targets of interest for manipulation.
评论 #13162098 未加载
评论 #13162176 未加载
milesfover 8 years ago
Do you think it&#x27;s reasonable that conversations like this are fine on HN, but anytime I bring up Christian thought on the matter I am pressured to &quot;not talk religion&quot;?<p>Wrestling with these top shelf Maslow&#x27;s questions like &quot;why am I&#x2F;we here?&quot;, &quot;what is the meaning of life&quot; and other big life questions are common among all of us. So why the willingness to conjecture that (we live in a simulation | aliens may have seeded life on earth | evolution has a purpose) yet outright reject any religious discussion?
评论 #13162177 未加载
评论 #13162300 未加载
评论 #13162283 未加载
评论 #13162787 未加载
评论 #13162131 未加载
评论 #13162997 未加载
评论 #13162436 未加载
评论 #13162882 未加载
DougN7over 8 years ago
I&#x27;ve always thought the &#x27;living in a simulation&#x27; scenario and creationism are pretty much the same thing, if the person that started the simulation felt some sort of rules ought to be followed (for the longevity of the simulation, or whatever reason they might have). That doesn&#x27;t seem like a stretch - we do that with the Sim games, and we&#x27;re hardly brilliant.
评论 #13162956 未加载
评论 #13162074 未加载
评论 #13162093 未加载
empath75over 8 years ago
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?list=FLRhV1rWIpm_pU19bBm_2RXw&amp;v=HxTnqKuNygE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?list=FLRhV1rWIpm_pU19bBm_2RXw&amp;...</a><p>Counterpoint.
ozyover 8 years ago
If compute power is the only thing that matters, we do not live in a simulation. The best computer we can hope to build in the future will only have a minute fraction of the compute power of reality. Simulating reality on that computer will either be a tiny reality, or a much lower fidelity reality.<p>If you find yourself alive, likely you live where there is the most compute power, therefor, base reality.<p>Especially since we have zero indicators that any part of our reality is &quot;fake&quot;.<p>Think about a character in the Sims, it would never be able to understand the mechanism by which its arm moves, if it understood its world completely. Because those movements are part of the simulator, not part of the simulated world. Arm movement is not an emergent effect.<p>Our reality however is based on atoms. Or quantum fields if you want to go deeper. And maybe some kind of cellular automata behind that.<p>If evolution had a purpose, we can detect an upwards line in complexity, and we must conclude it is unlikely we humans are the end station. Probably we will create self replicating intelligent machines that can colonize space. Emotional meat bags are not very suitable ...
评论 #13162855 未加载
tyrannofloristover 8 years ago
Hah. I generally respect Robert Wright, but man you can set your watch to him taking time to shit on Stephen Jay Gould in whatever he writes.
socmagover 8 years ago
Well duh.<p>Yes I realize that comment seems &quot;trite&quot;<p>What is it that the genome is doing. Look around and see how it is expressing itself.<p>I&#x27;m not a huge fan of Dawkins recently after he went a bit nuts on the whole atheism thing. Not because of the atheism thing but because it distracted him from what he was really about.<p>The genome is expressing itself, and it is way more than selfish. That thing is regression analysis to a large power. Constantly calculating minimal cost to self preservation and better versions of itself. We can learn a lot.<p>Personally I think its whole purpose is to build its own God. And the next God and the next... and it is doing it.<p>(I am a &quot;classical&quot; atheist)<p>Down votes or up votes, please explain.
评论 #13162412 未加载
评论 #13162525 未加载
projektirover 8 years ago
I very much believe evolution has a higher purpose. Nothing alive would exist if it didn&#x27;t. It&#x27;s not nice, though... [1]<p>Unfortunately, whether it&#x27;s just physics, a simulation, or aliens, it&#x27;s bad news in every case, and I don&#x27;t see myself relating to the view that evolution is beautiful or has any interest whatsoever in moral progress anytime soon.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;17&#x2F;the-goddess-of-everything-else-2&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;17&#x2F;the-goddess-of-everythi...</a>
goldeselover 8 years ago
Mckenna shares thoughts on the nature of time, novetly, consciousness and how we are rapidly evolving technologically as a species at a rate thosands of times faster than any living organism through the power of our imagination, creativity and inventions: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=GnjsoBF5Ay0" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=GnjsoBF5Ay0</a>
tokenadultover 8 years ago
The response from Jerry Coyne, a professor of biology who has literally written the book about evolution, is definitive.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;12&#x2F;13&#x2F;robert-wright-in-the-nyt-evolution-could-have-a-higher-purpose&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;12&#x2F;13&#x2F;robert-w...</a>
awinter-pyover 8 years ago
higher purpose = species survival over individual survival.<p>That&#x27;s why genomes have features in place which, for individuals, can suck -- senescence and cancer being the top 2.<p>See also conatus <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Conatus" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Conatus</a>, a philosophical property whereby a thing tends to improve.
评论 #13162119 未加载
danielamover 8 years ago
Lots of muddled thinking, but some good points and a good start. There are a couple of things in particular that I think are interesting and worth drawing attention to. None of these are religious ideas per se; they are philosophical.<p>The first is the the idea of telos. Telos in the philosophical sense refers to that toward which something is ordered. It is frequently misunderstood as something identical with conscious intent, but it has nothing to do with such intent per se, only with what may be called the causal structure of a thing. For example, when I say that a heart is ordered toward pumping blood through the circulatory system, I am not speaking of conscious purposes. I am speaking of the way in which the heart is structured and the way it functions and to what end it functions. Indeed, without telos, we could not explain efficient causality. We could not explain why hearts tend to pump blood instead of, say, materializing elephants or playing the Dies Irae of Mozart&#x27;s requiem. Even biologists who strive to suppress talk of telos inevitably resort to teleological language like &quot;function&quot;. Sometimes such terminology is dismissed as only metaphorical, but such dismissals are flippant and do not pass closer examination. After all, if a term is metaphorical, then you have to ask what the metaphor stands for. Deny teleological language and biology ceases to make sense.<p>The reason teleology has been a difficult thing to digest has largely to do with the mechanistic turn in philosophy that has seeped deeply into ideas about science. Notice how popular debates between atheistic, materialist proponents and theistic, dualist opponents of evolution typically center on the probability of something as complex as life arising without a mind to have caused it. Paley&#x27;s ghost haunts the discussion. The reason is that both the opponents and proponents of evolution in these debates hold to a mechanistic, Cartesian metaphysics where teleology is conceived of as extrinsically imposed by a divine intellect and now something intrinsic to things in themselves. Of course, the proponent will deny the divine intellect, just as he will deny the immaterial Cartesian mind, but he will not have not escaped the metaphysics altogether. This metaphysics has causes a proliferation of problems in philosophy that admit no solutions.<p>However, it is a mistake to think that this metaphysics is the old contender. There is a small but vibrant revival of Aristotelean metaphysics under way and with it comes a &quot;revival&quot; of teleology.
评论 #13163776 未加载
not_that_noobover 8 years ago
What if we&#x27;re just a school science experiment for a higher intelligence? Like some kid&#x27;s ant farm, where we are the ants!
评论 #13162123 未加载
psadriover 8 years ago
What we call &quot;evolution&quot; is simply the bias towards survival present in self replication.<p>The bias is present because the genomes that did not exhibit it died out in competition with the ones that did.<p>The fact that we as humans feel it so profoundly is a testament to the complexity that can emerge from a simple process given enough time.
fiatjafover 8 years ago
By definition, shouldn&#x27;t any process have its ends present in potentia at its beginning?
hacker_9over 8 years ago
Betteridge&#x27;s law of headlines: Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word &#x27;no&#x27;.
评论 #13161905 未加载
canadian_voterover 8 years ago
We&#x27;re a zoo for a higher intelligence? Joke is on them, reality is a simulation! Turtles.