And I suspect that he was speaking metaphorically and you took it literally.
At any rate, as Hawking is a physicist specializing in math and theory, I see no special reason to consider his speculations on epistemology or biology as more than the musings of an interested amateur which, while they may be amusing (and even provocative), do not provide much support for an unqualified declaration such as you posted.
Regardless, your claim for an evolution in intelligence is simply not supported by facts unless you wish to jump over to metaphor–in whcih case you need to make that clear in your statement rather than simply posting a claim for a new reality without explaining that you had taken the discussion out of the real world.
Dude. He says "I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human
race. " Where do you see a metaphor ? A metaphor for what ?
The argument for the evolution of intelligence is not based solely on Hawkings ideas either. There is further research into the idea. Bryan asked for a well reasoned argument for the limit of human understanding. That’s where this came from.
There is more study on the evolution of intelligence outside of biology and into the realm of an information based environment:
“Human intelligence has evolved steadily over the course of thousands of generations without drastic change in the environment. However, the challenges we face in modern society have forced the independent domain of intelligence to assume the roles that other domains would have played in the primitive environment in which we evolved. There are clear genetic links that predispose people to have a larger cerebral cortex, allowing them to better deal with the challenges of the expanded work load modern life puts on our intelligence domain. Evolution has not yet had a chance to catch up to the rapid progress we have made as a society and might not due to human circumvention of natural selection.”
Here again, we have acknowledgement that our intelligence will result in a new phase of human evolution. We will use our collective intelligence (the stuff sotred in books) to effect an actual change in biology. This is not a result of natural intelligence. Without the evolution of intelligence through external information, the option to affect actual biological change doesn’t happen. It is a step in the evolution. It is supported and not without merit. Your reluctance to participate in discussion of the idea does not invalidate it.
"Once genetic engineering technology has matured and is safe, then we will have the knowledge to begin changing our own DNA to make future generations stronger, smarter, and more resistant to disease. **Human evolution is now entering a new phase where genetic engineering will allow parents to design their own children. ** "
After billions of years of evolution, the outcome of this trend on earth has been the rise of humankind and the discovery of advanced technology.** Now it seems that the process of evolution is on the verge of accelerating as technology allows natural evolution to be overtaken by ‘consciously controlled evolution’**
“Our goal should be to extend the theory of evolution to explain the rise of intelligent life, the conscious struggle for power and wealth, the discovery of advanced technology, and the change from natural evolution to ‘consciously controlled evolution’ through genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.”
More thought that evolution has entered a new phase:
“Today, in the conscious evolution phase, our development is dependent upon us. If we continue to simply follow nature’s commands, in other words, follow our thoughts and desires without any true awareness of their cause, we will be led into intensifying pain.”
Here is more study of language and information as it relates to evolution:
“The acquisition of language greatly enhanced our capacity for mental modelling. Language and associated forms of communication enabled humans to share the knowledge that is used to construct useful models of reality. All members of a society could eventually acquire and use the knowledge discovered by any individual. This enabled knowledge to be accumulated across the generations. The progressive accumulation of knowledge has enabled humans to model more accurately a greater range of interactions with our environment, and to predict the consequences of our actions over wider scales of space and time (Stewart, 1995). This has enabled us to discover more effective ways of achieving our adaptive goals”
“Our ability to construct and manipulate models has also improved as we have learnt to augment our mental abilities with external artefacts such as pen and paper, books, recording devices, computers and other forms of artificial intelligence”
Our mental adaptability can be expected to continue to improve as humanity accumulates more knowledge about how the external world responds to our interventions and as artificial intelligence is developed further.
"In principle, we could use mental modelling to greatly enhance our evolutionary adaptability. We could use mental modelling to discover and implement adaptations that are best for humanity in evolutionary terms. We could do this by using modelling to identify the future consequences of alternative actions, including their evolutionary effects. This would enable us to determine which actions would contribute best to the evolutionary success of humanity. We would be as effective at discovering the best adaptations as our models allowed. As our modelling capacity improved, humanity would be able to adapt successfully to a wider range of evolutionary challenges. "
“The use of mental modelling for evolutionary adaptation would easily outperform gene-based natural selection. Genetic evolution is largely blind and operates by trial and error. It has no capacity to predict the future effects of alternative adaptations and to use these predictions to identify the best adaptation. Furthermore, genetic evolution cannot learn and accumulate knowledge throughout the life of the individual. And it is unable to establish adaptations that benefit only future generations and not the organism itself [and its genes] (see for example, Stewart, 1997a). Once a species has accumulated sufficient knowledge, the use of mental modelling for evolutionary adaptation would enable it to adapt to a much wider range of events than a similar species that evolves genetically.”
“However the system is obviously capable of being used to enable individuals to adopt and pursue evolutionary ends, or any other aim for that matter. It could be used to produce a psychological transformation that would enable individuals to implement whatever actions would contribute most to the future evolutionary success of humanity. Such a MST would overcome the psychological limitations that currently restrict our evolutionary adaptability.”
"CONCLUSION:
Humanity is on the threshold of a major evolutionary transition"
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2001/PsyEv.htm
Tom, the idea that the accumulation of knowledge through language, text and artificial intelligence is contributing to the evolution of human intelligence is not something I dreamed up, it’s not a metaphor, it’s not science fiction (although I might call it paranormal) it is a legitimate endeavor.
I would urge you not dismiss out of hand, what you do not or will not attempt to conceive.
I was giving Hawking the benefit of the doubt. If you (and he) really want to assert something rather dumb as a biological fact, (because evolution in this context IS biological), then have at it, but you are wrong.
As to genetic enhancements, those may, indeed, be necessary in the future to handle the increased knowledge base required for species survival in a technologically super-advanced world–or they may not. However, that would be breeding and genetics, not evolution. And it certainly has not yet happened.
The use of sloppy language to make a point is a bad thing. Evolution has a meaning. Intelligence has a meaning. Claiming that humanity has “evolved” greater “intelligence” when what you really mean is that humanity has developed tools to increase the range that the same level of intelligence may be employed to expand knowledge even further is nothing but sloppy language–or metaphor. It is simply false in any literal sense.
It doesn’t seem to me, in my admittedly superficial skimming of the discussion about him, as though Hawking is making a biological point at all; I think it would be a mistake to construe what he’s saying in such a way. He just seems to be saying that it would be useful to analyze more than simply biological mechanisms as carrying the force of reproduction, natural selection, mutation, etc. Basically, the whole perspective people such as Dawkins tried to foster with coining “meme” as an analogue to “gene”. That seems to me to be what Hawking is trying to do; introduce a new perspective, but not make any outlandish, unsupportable biological claims.
By the way, citing some New Age smoke and mirrors playground that has stolen the name of an ancient Jewish mystical tradition is not going to win you debate points. Should we start quoting L. Ron Hubbard next? How about Madame Blavatsky?
If you want to make claims about either intelligence or evolution, stick to scientific journals or make it clear that you are engaged in (pseudo)philosophical pondering. There is a legitimate non-scientific arena for the discussion of epistemology, but I am afraid that I would discount anything coming out of any of the “Kabbalah” sites as far less than rigorous thought.
However, that would, indeed, mean that Hawking was either speaking metaphorically or attempting to wander into the realm of philosophy. The concepts of evolution and intelligence are already firmly grounded in science. In addition, intelligence and epistemology are both addressed by philosophical explorations. Grabbing any statement from those fields of thought and plunking them into a discussion about the borders of science (as in this thread on where the paranormal belongs in a scientific discussion), obscures the borders of the disciplines by using words in an equivocal way.
Hawking may, indeed, have been wandering into the realm of philosophy or spirituality or something. However, that is even more reason to leave his observations out of this particular thread.
s/b philosophy or mysticism.
(I do not know that Hawking has any more interest in mysticism than spirituality, but that word is a better fit for others who might be engaged in similar explorations of the idea of intelligence removed from the scientific.)
What context would that be ? The context of evolution ? The context of intelligence ? You now would seem to be at the least, arguing that human intelligence is limited by biological factors. What are the biological facts of human intelligence ? What is the range and where does it end ? Where does human intelligence such as comprehension and explanation meet it’s biological limits ?
So selection of genetics is not evolution ? That seems odd. Isn’t natural selection a function to evolution ? Why would conscious selection not yield the same results as random ? I do believe that genetics and evolution are considered, in modern science, to be synthesized. Perhaps you have overlooked, or decided not to not to conceive of this either.
I don’t think there is anything sloppy about it. I don’t beleive it to be false. I beleive the evolution of intelligence, as recognized and demonstrated in evolutionary alogorithms and artifical life is perfect evidence of the evolution of intelligence, a logical step in the consciously controlled evolution of man. No less biological than traditional notions of the modern synthesis of evolution, only selective genetics will become the fourth and most active determination of the evolution of human intelligence.
Yeah, my reading of it would be that Hawking was attempting to point out what he saw to be a useful and enlightening metaphor connecting biological evolution with other similar paths of development. Or perhaps “metaphor” may be a misleading term, suggesting that other developments should be viewed through the primary lens of biological evolution; rather, I think Hawking was trying to point out something related to the fact that the same general principles of natural selection, reproductive propagation, mutations, etc., underlie a variety of things fairly well (genes, memes, language families, the acquired knowledge of society, etc. [perhaps some of this is fuzzier than others]), and one needn’t limit one’s perspective regarding them to an analysis of biological evolution alone.
“Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view.”
"I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race. "
Let’s see here…Stephen admits, predicts even, that some, like you guys, will object and goes on to say that is to narrow a view in his estimation. He further solidifies his position by again asserting his positon that he believes it is legitimate to include factors other than DNA in evolution.
I am, indeed, arguing that intelligence is limited by biological factors. That is what intelligence is, the ability of the brain (an organ of the body), to perceive, organize, and process information. You, on the other hand, appear to wish to give intelligence some new (but never explicitly defined) definition that somehow includes adding technological enhancements outside of humans (i.e., tools) to actual human intelligence without providing any reason for us to accept your claim. You do this particularly when you link your (never explicit) definition of intelligence to evolution. Evolution is a biological process.
Ranges and terminals? I don’t know. Neither is germane to your declaration that we have seen extreme evolutionary (i.e. biological) improvement in the last 300 years.
If you want to include technology in your discussion of intelligence, then you need to accept that Caterpillar (or even Ames) has increased the strength of humans in an evolutionary jump. Reliance upon tools does not actually enhance the biological strength of an individual, it simply allows the tool wielder to perform prodigious feats that could never be accomplished without the tools. Reliance upon writing (and printing and faxes and e-mails and distribution lists and databases and communication chains) does not actually enhance a person’s intelligence, it simply allows the writer/reader to employ a non-human tool to engage in data processing at levels that would not have been conceivable prior to the introduction of those tools.
Results are irrelevant. The entire definition of evolution is the natural selection of improvements based on random changes. Directed changes, whether through breeding or genetic manipulation are , by definition, not evolutionary. Darwin conceived the concept of evolution based on breeding, but his specific point was that breeding, (a not natural phenomenon), was replicated (over a much longer period of time and without direction) in Nature as evolution. Again, you resort to equivocation when you look at the result of breeding and apply to it the word evolution.
“Controlled evolution” is an oxymoron. If it is controlled, it is not evolution; it is breeding. It is exactly this misuse of language that is sloppy, whether it originated in your mind or was borrowed from someone else whose language was inaccurate.
So what? However brilliant he certainly is, Hawking is speaking as an articulate amateur attempting to join two disparate fields, one of which he has not studied (biological science) and one of which I have never seen evidence that he has studied (epistemological philosophy). Such ruminations by bright amateurs are always welcome for their ability to provoke us to think about the world in new ways. However, they provide no basis for us on which we may establish the veracity of a totally separate argument.
Evolution has a meaning. In the context in which you used it, it has a specific biological meaning. It is fine for us to play with ideas, as Hawking does, and even to extrapolate scenarios for the potential development of human culture and society. However, those playful thoughts provide no basis for your assertion in this discussion, in which we need to rely upon facts as we wrestle with the boundaries of science. The paleontologist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin did a lot of ruminating on the meaning of evolution as applied to the human spirit. Many of his ideas can provoke us to reconsider our lives and our place in the universe. However, as scientific evidence has accumulated, the foundations of many of his ideas have been swept away. He can still be a fun read, but it would be unwise to base any scientific conclusions on his philosophical thoughts, interesting as they appear. As a reflection on the possible evolution of human society, Hawking might even possibly have a point, but to attempt to use his statement as a claim for the evolution of humanity, the claim fails for the lack of rigor or evidence provided in his statement.
Actually pi is determined, specific, and known; merely unwriteable in decimal notation if you are inconvenced by finite limits on space, time, available pencil lead, or your writing speed. So in theory he could bring pi.
Besides, surely he’s corrected his misunderstanding of the definition of “paranormal” as meaning “anything unknown” by now, right? I thought the present confusion was that he’s using the word “intelligence” to mean “information”, and fighting for his right to misuse the term with every peice of slim support he can find.
I think the confusion here again is semantics. When Hawking talks of human evolution, he’s using it in the colloquial sense. Evolution as a word just means change. Television has evolved since its inception, with what’s on the air today being much different than 50 years ago. But there’s nothing biological going on there. Biologically speaking, humans have not evolved in the past few hundred years. Human society has evolved, with its increased reliance on technology and the scientific method. You could say in the future humans will evolve via genetic engineering, but that doesn’t really fit the scientific view of evolution, which happens gradually via random mutations.
If by “human race” Hawking really means “human race and culture” then his point makes a lot more sense. I’d say that if we start mucking with our genome, then we can truly say that our intelligence has evolved, since evolution means change in the genome over time. It wouldn’t be natural evolution, it would be intelligent design, but remember Darwin got a lot of inspiration from breeders who forced the evolution of plants and animals before there was a theory. I think Dawkins distinguished memes from genes because he understands biological evolution better than Hawking, and would never misuse the term the way Hawking does.
Now back to power tools I’ve read that anthropologists find it almost impossible to reproduce the stone edges that our ancestor of 100,000 years ago made. Perhaps our intelligence has devolved?
Sure thing, buddy. How about this?: “pi”.
(Yeah, I know you’re just mocking Iknewit; still, this is the requisite answer whenever this sort of challenge comes up)
I’ve read that anthropologists find it almost impossible to reproduce the stone edges that our ancestor of 100,000 years ago made. Perhaps our intelligence has devolved?