Does this mean that over time (a lot of time) all random systems can be sentient?
And is really it time that is needed? Or is it a lot of attempts?
If large random systems can be sentient then there are a lot of candidates out there!
What about the molecules in the oceans? Can they by a fluke, by pure chance happen to find themselves in just the right pattern to be sentient. Maybe only for a second? How about the Internet with all the data runnning in it's veins?
Once a system becomes sentient, will it be able to prevent itself from collapsing back to chaos?
And maybe ghosts and spirits are a product of spontaneous superconfigurations of ordinary matter?
Muse this.
And while you do, please visit
Posts
2 comments:
I love your blog, but this particular post is weak...
Random mutation is an input to evolution. Randomness is not essential it is just easy way to generate changes. Key concepts:
Changes must be small. Creatures who varied wildly from one generation to the next could not build on the complexity of previous generations, so they were out competed by the gradualists, who advanced faster.
Changes must be selected... The environment decides whether a change is good. That removes all the randomness from a process, especially when the environment includes other individuals competing in precisely the same niche (meet the rest of the same species.)
All changes must be ´improvements.´ Our eyes are wired backwards, with nerve entries coming out the front of our light sensitive cells, and having a blind spot at the very centre where all the nerves combine. it is astronomically unlikely that a random collection of mutations would ever ´correct´ our eye design. A more likely scenario would be to have slight modifications, but they would almost certainly reduce effective vision for several generations before the improvement occurred. Individual in these intermediate stages would never survive, nor continue the process, because selection does not go ´uphill´.
Reference:
´The Blind Watchmaker´ -- Richard Dawkins. A fascinating couple of hundred pages on the topic.
Thanks for your wise thoughts Philobyte!
I agree, it stands to reason that the evolutionary process of trial and error is a much faster way of achiving intellegence or other complex and "working" configurations of matter than put trust inte pure chance. But is it the only way?
Maybe our universe just is to young today for this to have happened yet? Who knows what can happen given enough time and matter?
I don't want to dismiss the idé just because there's a faster way.
Post a Comment