>In the long run intellect will win

Citation needed. What's even more possible is that in the long run nature will win -- it is a far more powerful force than intellect.

In the very least, let's see how intellect fares against the heat death of the universe...

I think GP means to that for many problems, the time span for finding a local optimum in an evolutionary way ("nature") is longer than in a scientific way ("human trial and error + reasoning").

Of course, there are probably species that burn through a few generations per hour but these are not really suited to solving problems that mammals can.

>I think GP means to that for many problems, the time span for finding a local optimum in an evolutionary way ("nature") is longer than in a scientific way ("human trial and error + reasoning").

For some problems regarding the functioning of living things yes, but for other problems evolution doesn't apply, and nature (aka the universe) can "strike" before science had the time to find anything to protect against them (e.g. a meteor hit).

And for other problems still, science might be the one that created them (e.g. nuclear annihilation, global warming, etc).

>Of course, there are probably species that burn through a few generations per hour but these are not really suited to solving problems that mammals can.

No, but some of them could e.g. mutate and kill all humans or enough to destroy civilization.

I always consider intellect to be a part of the nature. It is a nature's way to reason about itself after all.

In an abstract way yes.

But in another sense, intellect vs nature is a useful distinction to make.

(E.g. blind forces of evolution through selection/mutation/etc, vs conscious targeted changes).

The work of Karl Popper suggests than human knowledge also progresses in an evolutionary manner, by conjecture and refutation. So something resembling natural selection must be going on in our brains.

http://www.the-rathouse.com/CRContents.html

>The work of Karl Popper suggests than human knowledge also progresses in an evolutionary manner, by conjecture and refutation.

Human knowledge in general might, but I'm talking about how humans take action and shape the world around them vs how evolution does.

Conjecture and refutation are not like random mutations -- that's just the "survival of the fittest" part of evolution, which is not the actual mechanism and which applies to everything (after all, anything that survives is fitter that what didn't).

What is this "force" you call nature that you are plotting against intellect?

Well, if you ever witnessed first hand an earthquake or something like Harvey you wouldn't have to ask.

SMASH CUT:

ESTablishing shot: Motorhome parked in remote field.

SUPER: Meanwhile, at the Soylent lab...