The World without Religion

Quetzal, suppose biological evolution on planet X. Is it possible to imagine brain-power evolving in such a way that is sheerly non-human-like? Having intelligence but not having the tendency, for example, to "detect patterns"?

Hi robin,Speculation about life on other planets is fun. I would say that, since pattern recognition is a property of our perceptual system (especially vision), then it would be fairly easy to imagine an organism on another planet that has a different system. After all, the only requirement is that they have an adequate means of receiving and processing input from their particular environment.You don't even have to look far from Earth for at least primitive "alternative perceptual systems". For example, the Latin American fer-de-lance Bothrops asper can detect and track its prey via ground vibrations transmitted through its lower jaw. A number of fish use electricity, including the famous electric "eel" Electrophorus electricus, which evolved in the murky waters of the Amazon where vision is problematic, use various frequencies and intensities of electic current to detect changes in their environment (including predator-prey relations, detection of sexual partners, etc). Long distance migrators like the North American bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus and sea turtles have magnetite in their brains that allow them to use the Earth's magnetic fields for orientation. And of course, cetaceans and bats (twice) have developed sonar as a method of determining their immediate surroundings. It's easy to imagine one or more of these systems developed to the point where it is useful for a hypothetical alien "intelligence". Or there might be something completely different - (low-frequency radio waves or light flashes interpreted by resonating crystals in an organic matrix, for example). As long as it "works" in the particular environment, there is no reason that this path should be any different as far as utility goes than that one.[edited to fix UBB code][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I would say that, since pattern recognition is a property of our perceptual system (especially vision), then it would be fairly easy to imagine an organism on another planet that has a different system.

---

Hey Quetzal,But whatever system we imagine, we are still talking about pattern recognition, yes?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hey John,Hmm, not necessarily, or at least not in the sense I think robin meant. The vibratory, electric and even sonar systems are more intensity and frequency detection rather than pattern recognition per se.I think robin was focusing on my contention that human pattern detection - especially our capability to infer pattern where there isn't really any - is one of the elements of our capacity for magical thinking. I can see a line of reasoning that goes something like - if human pattern detection is one of the causative factors of human sense of the numinous (or transcendant, or whatever else is related to the divine thingy), then is it possible organisms on other planets with different systems of pattern detection may also have a sense of the divine. I may be extrapolating from too little data on that, and I apologize to robin if I've misunderstood. Besides, there's no reason to think that a critter with a completely different biology and form of intelligence wouldn't be just as screwed up as we humans are...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hmm, not necessarily, or at least not in the sense I think robin meant. The vibratory, electric and even sonar systems are more intensity and frequency detection rather than pattern recognition per se.

---

And you consider this to not be a form of pattern recognition? I confused. Seems like with sound, vibration, or whatever the trick is to detect the pattern.

quote:

---

Besides, there's no reason to think that a critter with a completely different biology and form of intelligence wouldn't be just as screwed up as we humans are...

---

No doubt. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

[begin evasive response]

quote:

---

And you consider this to not be a form of pattern recognition? I confused. Seems like with sound, vibration, or whatever the trick is to detect the pattern.

---

Erm, yeah, that was sort of my assertion. I have no way of proving that the "pattern recognition" is simply related to the way our brains have evolved to process incoming information - and I have no way of proving that either the organisms I mentioned or our hypothetical alien critter DON'T have something similar that could be called "pattern recognition". Let me put it to you this way: does vibration detection in Bothrops provide a recognizable pattern to the snake, or is it merely a rough measure of distance, direction, small-enough-to-eat or too-big-to-mess-with? You tell me... I think that's what I was trying to get at - after all, we're talking aliens here, so I'm alowed to speculate without evidence. [/end evasive response]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I have no way of proving that the "pattern recognition" is simply related to the way our brains have evolved to process incoming information - and I have no way of proving that either the organisms I mentioned or our hypothetical alien critter DON'T have something similar that could be called "pattern recognition".

---

Granted. Neither you not I can prove anything (until I get my warp drive working. I made it out of old tires )

quote:

---

Let me put it to you this way: does vibration detection in Bothrops provide a recognizable pattern to the snake, or is it merely a rough measure of distance, direction, small-enough-to-eat or too-big-to-mess-with?

---

If it DIDN'T produce a recognizable pattern would the snake be able gain any information at all? If there is no pattern of some kind, there is no information, IMLTHO. It would be like watching the white fuzz on an old TV. Patterns are information, thus pattern recognition is by default a requirement of, probably, anything alive more complex than a virus (maybe).

quote:

---

You tell me... I think that's what I was trying to get at - after all, we're talking aliens here, so I'm alowed to speculate without evidence.

---

Oh yes indeed.BTW, I like your UBB tags. Maybe we should try to get them implemented and strictly enforced.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

We're getting a bit off on a tangent here. Be that as it may, you said "patterns are information". I concur 100%. However, turn that around: is all information pattern (or alternatively, is pattern the only possible form of information)?If the answer is "yes", then the answer to robin's question waaay up at the top of this page is "no, all hypothetical alien critters have pattern recognition", because to exist they have to receive information from their environment. However, to show this is correct, you will have to discuss specifics about how vibration, electric sense, or sonar derive patterns, and then show how those patterns/information are processed to provide a representation of the organism's environment.If the answer is "no", then it is possible to consider an alternative system that doesn't rely on pattern for processing information from the environment. Ergo, my assertion, while not shown to be correct, has not been invalidated either.(I'm practicing to be a creationist.)

My point about pattern detecting has to do with what we make of them rather than the method of transmission. I don't think bats and sea turtles are speculating about the supernatural. Their pattern detecting is presumably unconscious, which can help them to survive but not help them be believers in the supernatural.One can imagine a creature on planet X developing an extreme amount of automatic systems (I don't know what the brain-terms are for this function, Quetzal--maybe you can supply it) and hence developing what looks from a distance like conscious intelligence. Maybe it would be a kind of super insect. This super insect would evolve its automatic instinctive capabilities to the point where it can make things and so forth. In some ways, this sort of development might even be more advantageous from an evolutionary point of view. It would have no fear, whereas humans are full of fears. It would not hesitate to give up its life for the group, whereas humans are often hesitant. Still it would not be speculating about the possibility of supernatural events or beings since it would not be speculating at all. In religious terms, this creature would have no soul. In my terms, it would have no mind--though the brain might be huge.But I cannot imagine a fully conscious intelligence, an intelligence capable of forming theories about the causes of patterns, being different from humans no matter what the transmission device--sonar or simple hearing. Therefore, the implication of your post 17 is: all intelligent beings, at least in the early phase of their existence, have a tendency to invent a supernatural realm--and so a belief in gods or God. Such creatures have a tendency not to believe in simple coincidence. My wife has given birth all 3 times during a full moon. Obviously there's a connection. From a survival point of view, it is good to assume a connection between recurring events. Is there a scenario where skepticism about coincidences would benefit the survival of a species?

quote:

---

My point about pattern detecting has to do with what we make of them rather than the method of transmission. I don't think bats and sea turtles are speculating about the supernatural. Their pattern detecting is presumably unconscious, which can help them to survive but not help them be believers in the supernatural.

---

I agree. My point was that the systems used by these organisms were "primitive" versions of something that COULD develop into the sensory system used by an alien intelligence. It doesn't necessarily follow inevitably that this intelligence - using a completely different perceptual system and probably a completely different way of processing information - would perforce develop the same capacity to believe (based on misinterpretation of input) found in humans. It also doesn't mean that they wouldn't. I know that's not an unequivocal answer - but we ARE speculating about the capabilities of an organism for which we have absolutely no data.

quote:

---

One can imagine a creature on planet X developing an extreme amount of automatic systems (I don't know what the brain-terms are for this function, Quetzal--maybe you can supply it) and hence developing what looks from a distance like conscious intelligence. Maybe it would be a kind of super insect. This super insect would evolve its automatic instinctive capabilities to the point where it can make things and so forth.

---

Yeah - or it could be a silicon-based lifeform, or an inflatable bag of methane, or whatever. We have no way of knowing what path life would take should it develop on another world. Science fiction notwithstanding. For the sake of discussion, I'll grant that "something" exists that has the ability to modify and manipulate its environment, is self-referential, (and for simplicity) is self-contained with a distinct personality (which doesn't necessarily follow), and has managed to organize with other conspecifics to undertake cooperative behaviors. Whew - lots of assumptions there, and I've constrained our aliens to what works here on Earth, but I am unfortunately limited in my imagination...

quote:

---

In some ways, this sort of development might even be more advantageous from an evolutionary point of view.

---

I disagree with this statement (or maybe I'm simply misunderstanding it). What does "advantageous" mean in this context, let alone "more advantageous"? I submit that the only way you can even begin to argue "advantage" is by comparing organisms occupying the exact same niche - and which are competing with one another for limited resources. Beyond that, I'm not sure you can qualify any evolutionary development as "advantageous".

quote:

---

It would have no fear, whereas humans are full of fears.

---

This doesn't follow at all. "Fear" is the term we use for (primarily) automatic physiological changes organisms undergo when confronted with a threatening situation. As such, it is a distinct survival-based adaptive response. (Remember the bunny from my essay.) Unless our hypothetical alien organism is utterly invulnerable to anything short of a planet-wide cataclysm, it would seem to me that it would HAVE to have developed something akin to a "fear" - or at least fight-or-flight - response pattern. Again, this may be due to a lack of imagination on my part - and I may be projecting from Earth-based life (the only thing I know even a little about).

quote:

---

It would not hesitate to give up its life for the group, whereas humans are often hesitant.

---

Here I think you're projecting your personal desires or interpretation of an "ideal". No problem, of course - we are talking hypothetically. Okay, we'll take it as a given that the organism manifests pure altruism.

quote:

---

Still it would not be speculating about the possibility of supernatural events or beings since it would not be speculating at all. In religious terms, this creature would have no soul. In my terms, it would have no mind--though the brain might be huge.

---

None of this follows from the preceeding. Again, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Why WOULDN'T it be speculating about the possibility of some kind of transcendant, supernatural entity? I don't say it would (after all, it's invulnerable, fearless and altruistic - hmm, sounds like an angel or demon...), but there's no way you can assert from what you've posted that it wouldn't.

quote:

---

In religious terms, this creature would have no soul. In my terms, it would have no mind--though the brain might be huge.

---

So only an organism that is afraid can have a soul? And that without a soul an organism can't have a mind? I really don't understand your point - and I don't see how the conclusion follows from what you've written. What is the connection between mind and soul? I don't believe that I have a soul - because there is nothing I have ever seen that indicates that such a thing exists - does that mean I don't have a mind? Very strange assertion, robin. Please explain.

quote:

---

But I cannot imagine a fully conscious intelligence, an intelligence capable of forming theories about the causes of patterns, being different from humans no matter what the transmission device--sonar or simple hearing. Therefore, the implication of your post 17 is: all intelligent beings, at least in the early phase of their existence, have a tendency to invent a supernatural realm--and so a belief in gods or God. Such creatures have a tendency not to believe in simple coincidence. My wife has given birth all 3 times during a full moon. Obviously there's a connection. From a survival point of view, it is good to assume a connection between recurring events. Is there a scenario where skepticism about coincidences would benefit the survival of a species?

---

However, simply because an intelligent organism can associate cause and effect, doesn't imply they are gods-ridden. It's only when that association is erroneous (when correlation is confused with causation) that we have one of the foundations necessary for the development of magical thinking. I CAN imagine an intelligence that is instantly capable of determining the appropriate causative or correlative relationships between two or more temporally and/or spatially linked phenomena. An organism that WOULD be capable of avoiding observer bias, in other words. That's not skepticism - that's just better reasoning. Human brains are sloppy. We get all kinds of things wrong. They're sloppy because of our natural history - historical contingencies that resulted in the critter you see each morning when you look in the mirror. Doesn't follow that ALL organisms end up this way.

Quetzal, what I was doing was trying to imagine a brain development that would be different from human-style development. I thought to myself, what if there was brain development but not of the type that produced consciousness? So what we could have is like an ant except much more developed in terms of programmed behavior. Much more sophisticated automatic behavior--but still automatic. This creature would have a big brain but it would only be of the sort that generates unconscious reactions. That was the only alternative I could think of to human-type consciousness. An ant will attack someone who is a 1,000 times bigger than him (such as myself). Apparently this ant is programmed to bite anything that registers disturbance, or in human terms, whatever is threatening. In this sense the ant has no fear. I would assume in terms of evolution the cause of such programming is that it helps to protect the ant-city as a whole (thus the so-called "altruism"). It certainly doesn't protect the individual ant. Now suppose the ant continued to evolve along these lines rather than take a human-like path. You would eventually have a creature who could do all sorts of things unconsciously. This creature would have no mind (or soul).Obviously this thread I started is getting a little too fanciful . . .But I like to talk, so what the hell . . . As far as the advantage, I was comparing this to humans. However, on the whole the humans would have an advantage because of their capacity for creative thought. If we had a war with such creatures, we would be able to predict their strategies.[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-04-2002]

And now I think I know what my point is. Consciousness is a threshold, not something gradual. You are either conscious or you're not. For not to be conscious of oneself is not to be conscious at all. Animals are not conscious. Dogs are functionally blind.

Yeah, that was actually my first take on what you were proposing: a sort of ultra-eusocial colonial organism - like most bees, ants and termites. However, I'm hard pressed to consider hard-wired behavior patterns to be representative of "intelligence", at least as we understand the term. OTOH, I CAN picture such an organism developing a sort of "distributed intelligence" where, while each individual component wasn't intelligent as we know it, the aggregate did have the creative, etc spark. There have been a few scifi stories written about things like this (my favorite was about a huge oceanic mat of organic material about the size of the sargasso sea that had "intelligence"). In such a case, an individual component ("neuron"?) might be quite insignificant - and hence sacrificeable without cost to the "mind". It doesn't change the fact that the "mind" itself is "conscious" - and might be quite creative.

quote:

---

And now I think I know what my point is. Consciousness is a threshold, not something gradual. You are either conscious or you're not. For not to be conscious of oneself is not to be conscious at all. Animals are not conscious. Dogs are functionally blind.

---

I see the point you are trying to make. However, in one sense you are in an analogous position to a creationist trying to identify the barrier between kinds that differentiates micro- from macroevolution. You need to define consciousness in an operative manner so that you can say what attribute of consciousness is found in humans to the exclusion of all other animals. If you're going to make that kind of assertion, you're going to have to show unequivocally that it IS in fact an either/or proposition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
And now I think I know what my point is. Consciousness is a threshold, not something gradual. You are either conscious or you're not. For not to be conscious of oneself is not to be conscious at all. Animals are not conscious. Dogs are functionally blind.

---

[Emphasis mine]And we know this how?