/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15299807

>as would be expected in an evolutionary paradigm

... and where exactly is that expected in the paradigm outside some new ager pop sci bullshit? Not how nature wörks, not how she behaves at all. Rather, we are dealing with certain complexity thresholds which do allow for emergent traits at certain stages ... and these can equally be lost again, either by submerging or actual ablation.

>>15299901

>Intelligence requires a lot of investment of resources.

Yeah that alone is an argument against the initial faulty assumption here. Tendency to invest into self replication itself is still the priority.

>>11118495
This. Every time there's a thread full of people shitting on it they eventually reveal that they don't even understand the argument. I'm no fanatic for it but why shit on something you can't even understand?