Could a more sophisticated being follow humans?

Post Reply New Topic

Deleted

Nature appears to work on the "survival of teh fittest" model, wherby fittest doesn't just mean physically fit, it includes mental fitness too.

Also no creature exists in a vacuum - all organisms (biotic factors) are interderpendant on one another, and we are also dependant on environmental factors (abiotic factors) - weather, geology, earthquakes etc. (Oh the wonders of studying ecology!)

It seems to me there is no need for an "ultimate creature". ORagnisms are always adapting, organisms particularly suited to a particular set of biotic + abiotic circumstances. When the circumastances change the creatures adapt or become extinct. The more specialised an organism becomes (in reference to its surroundings), the more likely it is that that organism wouldn't survive a change in those circumstances.

It seems that Homo sapiens regards humans as being the ultimate creature because we live in alomst all abiotic circumstances, and continue to breed there. (We live in the tundra and the desert; the rainforest and the plains). However, homo sapiens adapt far less to our surroundings than we adapt our surrounds to suit us.

I don't mean to be rude, but your question doesn't make much sense.
What do you mean by 'ultimate'?
Humans are just one tiny part of evolution, and your question seems to be based on a very human-centric view of the world.

Deleted

Dolphins...

Plus they don't start dolphin wars over fish, or fill the oceans with junk and toxic waste.

Dunc

Deleted

oh dear - another thread in which to indulge my old cetacean obsession...

the bigger bit of dolphin's brains is the bit humans use to play, basically.

anyway, douglas adams had it - it's MICE...

Human intelligence is the ultimate intelligence ...

... which is able to be understood by humans. Or should I say it's just a tiny bit beyond our understanding.

This is something I've contiplated before. There is no way to prove or dissprove it at this point so it is a possibilty that we are the begining of a natural stage of evolution. Small mutations that slowly tweak them selves to perfection. It only makes sense that only the most stable of us are the ones that are able to reproduce as it stands now anyways.

Okay, assuming that the theory of evolulution or mutation selection is true..

The earth isn't a planet that could foster the evolution of an ultimate creature due to the constant changes on it's surface. If anything this would have to be done in space, and with the weightlessness or artifical gravity and no changes you'd end up with a creature only adapted to that enviroment.

Also, every single human being is specialized for their current enviroment. They change according to where they are. If you were to move to the middle of Austrailia and live there for ten years your skin would probably be much darker, you'd probably have much 'thicker' skin as well to conserve water.

Then, if you move to Alaska you'll find most people are very..hairy.. to conserve heat.

Regardless of how much time you give any creature in every enviroment, non-permanent changes are made in a sort of dynamic adaptation.

But, I personally believe that zero is equal to zero and one doesn't come from zero, something is not equal to nothing. An outside force had to create everything in existence.

I agree with Tony Atwood when he says that Aspies are probably a more evolved human being, or something to that effect, but don't quote me, as I heard this last year at a seminar.

Notice how, through cognitive behavioral therapy, an aspie can appear to be NT, and be pretty darn close though.

The brain is a magnificient piece, isn't it? New grooves can be cut to compensate for those that aren't there, or are damaged.

Even if an improved intelligence does develop (which, if AI is possible, will most certainly occur, since they can modify their own code), that doesnt spell the end of Humanity, despite what Vernor Vinge may think. Sure, some will be mean and try to exterminate some of us, or recycle us for spare atoms, but humanity is like cockroaches (in all the best ways, of course). We will survive somewhere out among the stars.

Also, I'd like to add that even if a creature is smarter, or stronger, or better at surviving, none of that makes it ethically "superior". Im not saying ALL life has to be preserved. Sapient life, however, is where I draw the line, even if such a superintelligence is as far above us as we are above a flatworm.

Unfortunately AI is a dream. It can only react to stimuli and make a 'memory' to save the reaction and react differently in the future to 'randomize' it..blah blah blah.

Also, AI wouldn't be able to do much more then add in to it's coding which would make it slower and slower thus defeating the purpose of modifying it's own coding...I dont' want to go in depth on it, I'm tired. =\