Quote:
Originally Posted by Makhnov
We can imagine a future scenario where sentient life leaves the earth and ends up colonizing the galaxy. I take it you don't find this story very compelling.
Did you read the PDF by Rescher?
|
Yes, I did read the PDF. It is an interesting philosophical discussion, but I discount almost all of his rather esoteric, flawed analysis because of his tendency to make sweeping pronouncements of opinion as fact.
Do I think we will ever be able to move beyond the Earth? I dearly hope so. Unfortunately, these days I despair of getting much beyond the end of the year (mixed spatial/temporal analogy, I know).
It is an interesting read , but fundamentally ignores an awful lot what was known even in 1985. His understanding of what constitutes science (versus technology) is completely at odds with reality.
Natural Science (as opposed to Social Science), by its nature, and regardless of the starting point, will lead to the same fundamental results, not inherently different understandings of the universe. Intelligence may result in flawed hypotheses of the basic workings of the universe, but science WILL overcome those as amassed experience dictates changes in those hypotheses (assuming the intelligence is combined with some time-binding ability). He confuses technology with science.
As for the rest of his argument regarding intelligence... it falls simply into the philosophical. Again he makes sweeping assumptions of intelligence that cannot be refuted because they fall outside any possibility of experiential confirmation. Is there an evolutionary imperative to intelligence? Of course not. Evolution has no imperatives. It is random. Where there is an evolutionary advantage to intelligence it will occur. Could that be in a mole-like creature? No one can say. Could it be in a non-carbon-based life form? No one can say. It is an inherently moot philosophical question. I can argue just as well as he that there is an absolute bias for intelligent technological life, and that the Universe must teem with it.
Finally, he simply fails to understand the enormity of time and the basic concept of time-binding (the passing on of learned knowledge). His comparisons of human civilisation are of necessity incredibly limited in that aspect. An intelligent organism capable of time-binding will eventually form a society of some sort. If that develops into a civilisation, the mere fact of time-binding WILL lead to technological change and advancement. It is the existence of the civilisation that will form the technological imperative, not simply the intelligence (one of his points). However, the rest of the his argument simply relies on too much assumption to be anything more than speculative.