> Finally, I have yet to see a logical argument (by Joe, or others) which
> suggests that "self-will"-- what Joe describes as a type of "conscious
> intention" that is related to Godelian complexity-- is the basis for
> technology (and/ or that this type of logical action is limited to what
> is termed "human").
"jees", said one caveman to another, "i think we'll run out of food if
we don't
kill more animals than we usually do."
The other awnsered : "I found that rocks are pretty hard. Let's try to
throw
them at the animals and see if they die sooner."
"This might actually work, let's try and see!"
Now if this second guy would have just evolved to have a good time at throwing rocks he would propably have done so in a random manner. This would proppably kill some people he knew, propably his mate, so no reproduction for his genes! If he was wise enough (concious?) he would have thought that throwing rocks at animals might gain him food easier.
The problem with evolution is that it is immensly sloooow. so for
someone
who would throw rocks and made sure it landed on the right object it
would
take too long to evolve and his/her genes would not survive. It's more
likely
that throwing itselfe became possible to some animal after which it
found a
purpose for the throwing, thus actually using evolution as a tool. Take
a close look at a small child... it likes throwing all kinds of stuff
and does not actually care for it's target. So evolution provided a
tool for throwing things. evolution did not provide the child with the
concept of obtaining food by throwing it at a moving foorsource.
This has to come from it's conciousness, the understanding that if
the throwing is conciously controlled it could benifit from it.
Evolution provided humans with a brain. This brain is a structure so
flexible that it can be reconfigured every generation or even faster.
It's even capable of logic, someting strange in an analoug universe.
Logic, reasoning and conciousness allow for the construction of propable
solvings to a problem. Evolution would throw random changes into the
game and see how they work out. I think this is a different way of
dealing
with problems.
what is the exact argument for evolution being the same proces as innovation? I forgot and can't think of any..
greetz
aka