What if evolution is (the) intelligent (designer)?

[CapelDodger]

Are you sure there are no other options?

You could ignore this guy and hope he goes away. That's an option. A Tar Baby, and AWOL from his own threads.

 

[CapelDodger]

Eventually someone thinks of the concept of pouring fuel all over a water wheel and lighting it up, presto, jet engine.

That's a pretty brutalist treatment of the idea, very graphic, I'm not saying I don't like it but ... I prefer the image of the jet-engine emerging fully-formed from inventiveness and a profound understanding of thermodynamics.

Nothing incremental about that at all. They didn't have to invent "half a jet engine" and develop it into something useful first in order to get there.

They just had to demonstrate proof of principle to get the development money, and since the principle was sound that just meant not jumping the gun and getting ahead of the technology.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't know if Myriad is advancing the hypothesis that evolution is intelligent, given a certain definition of "intelligence".

Why redefine intelligence? Isn't that just bound to cause confusion?

 

[Apathia]

I get your what you are saying, Myriad. I have my own cute term, "Smart Evolution." When someone starts on Intelligent Design, I tell them I believe in Smart Evolution. The process is smart. Not wise, not cunning, not conscious. but not run amok random stupid.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why redefine intelligence? Isn't that just bound to cause confusion?

Yes.

That's the goal: To cause confusion.

This might be the Creationists' next move, after the Dover fiasco.

First, they tried to equate Creationism with Evolution. When that didn't work (Overton), because Creationism wasn't scientific, they changed "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design", and dressed it up in pseudo-scientific clothing. When Dover struck that down, what's next?

Hey, Evolution itself is "intelligent", right? So, there's no reason why you shouldn't also accept Intelligent Design.

They will come up with something new, and this just might be it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I suppose that then the obvious counter is: What if evolution is God?

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

And the human body with all its flaws is the best this so-called god can do, this so-called god is not very intelligent.

Paul

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And the human body with all its flaws is the best this so-called god can do, this so-called god is not very intelligent.

Paul

Even if humans were a disappointment, God would still get credit for the rest of the universe.

 

[RationalReverend]

What if SPAM was made of meat?

 

[Paulhoff]

Even if humans were a disappointment, God would still get credit for the rest of the universe.

Still this so-called all-knowing god falls on its face......

Paul

 

[KingMerv00]

Still this so-called all-knowing god falls on its face......

Paul

I'd say he failed mostly because of a lack of creativity.

Billions of lightyears of black inky void.

75% hydrogen 25% helium.

BORING.

 

[Paulhoff]

I'd say he failed mostly because of a lack of creativity.

Billions of lightyears of black inky void.

75% hydrogen 25% helium.

BORING.

The so-called god made helium so the so-called god could talk like Donald Duck……

In the beginning it didn’t take much to entertain the so-called god.

Paul

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'd say he failed mostly because of a lack of creativity.

Billions of lightyears of black inky void.

75% hydrogen 25% helium.

BORING.

A 14 billion year process makes it possible for you to be bored. And you are doing that while talking on a machine conceived and developed by the organ in your head, an organ it also made possible. I don't believe that I should endlessly worship to give thanks, but then a being that could do all that, would probably find most of what I do boring.

 

[roger]

Myrid, I find your hypothesis uncompelling.

Why? Well, we already have computer programs that use the same heuristics used by evolution. We have programs that use better heuristic searches than evolution - better by a long shot. Yet we don't call these systems intelligent.

The search heuristic of evolution is extremely basic. Genes change, and either survive, or don't. The mechanisms of course are more complicated (how do the gene's change - well, a number of ways. etc.), but that doesn't seem to be a measure of intelligence.

There's no symbolic processing going on, no pattern recognition, no communication, features which are normally part of what we call intelligence.

The features you specified: memory, propagation of patterns, and nonlinear behavior (I'm going by memory here) are not necessary and sufficient features of intelligence. Necessary maybe, sufficient, no, unless you are prepared to call your computer's cpu intelligent.

What I would suggest doing, is defining what for you constitutes necessary and sufficient features to constitute intelligence. Then, apply this filter to real world examples. Does a river meet the requirements? A dog? A fly? A human? Etc. If you could come up with a set of features that we could 1) provisionally agree with, 2) applies to humans, 3) doesn't apply to flies, and 4) applies to evolution, you'd probably start getting agreement that your ideas have merit.

FWIW, I don't have a list of necessary and sufficient properties for intelligence. But I would include pattern recognition, symbolic processing, novel problem solving.

For example: swat at a fly, and it's eyes detect the movement and it flies away. That's pattern matching. However, every time it flys off in the direction it is facing at a 45 degree angle. Once you learn this it is trivial to catch a house fly in your hand. Sweep towards it at a speed that will catch it when it takes off at 45 degrees and you will catch it every single time. So, there is no symbolic processing going on, no problem solving, etc. It's just hard wired behavior (I'm making sweeping claims here - addressing this properly would take a text book - the point is biologists would not describe this behavior as intelligent, whatever the exact mechanism). There is no learning. It is possible to catch and release. Do this 100 times, and the 100th time the fly still takes off at 45 degrees, straight ahead. There's plenty of other examples with insects - if they are performing a sequenced behavior, you can mess with them 1000 times and they will not realize it. There's a wasp that brings a captured bug to it's nest, leaves it at the door, go into the nest to check it, then comes out and drags the bug in. Okay, so if you move the bug slightly away from the door while the wasp is inside, it will come out, move the bug to the door, and go inside to check the nest. It's purely programmed behavior - it never realizes that it doesn't need to check the nest because it just did it 10 seconds ago. This is not intelligent behavior. Complex, yes, but not intelligent (by my intuitive definition/understanding of the word). But it is already orders more complex than the simple system of evolution.

 

[KingMerv00]

A 14 billion year process makes it possible for you to be bored. And you are doing that while talking on a machine conceived and developed by the organ in your head, an organ it also made possible. I don't believe that I should endlessly worship to give thanks, but then a being that could do all that, would probably find most of what I do boring.

Do you really believe this or are you just thinking out loud?

 

[VonNeumann]

Myrid, I find your hypothesis uncompelling.

Why? Well, we already have computer programs that use the same heuristics used by evolution. We have programs that use better heuristic searches than evolution - better by a long shot. Yet we don't call these systems intelligent.

The search heuristic of evolution is extremely basic. Genes change, and either survive, or don't. The mechanisms of course are more complicated (how do the gene's change - well, a number of ways. etc.), but that doesn't seem to be a measure of intelligence.
...
This is not intelligent behavior. Complex, yes, but not intelligent (by my intuitive definition/understanding of the word). But it is already orders more complex than the simple system of evolution.

I think what Myriad brings up is an interesting topic. I've brought it up recently in other threads around here.

Roger, you explain that you think the system of evolution is simple. "The search heuristic... is extremely basic" - you said. "Complex, yes..." you say, but not intelligent.

I agree with you. BUT...

Let's back away and look at the big picture. First, let me say that it is a mere assumption that the "heuristics", namely random mutation and natural selection, are complete. Are you sure that our model is good enough? Is it complete enough so that what any of what you said makes any sense? Maybe there is a missing component that makes evolution have something other than a zombie mechanistic process. We just assume it doesn't. Best reason is occam's razor and no direct evidence, most will say.

Okay, well let's allow that the heuristics of random mutation and natural selection are sufficient for creation of new organisms for the sake of continuing what I was going to say.

Think of natural selection as being a huge interconnection of organisms with each other and organisms with the physical world. Even sunspots and cosmic radiation play into the selection landscape here. If you were to try to model natural selection you would have to identify innumerable objects with innumerable interconnections and variable weightings, etc etc. Now, compare this with a model of the human brain.

The number of objects in natural selection, consisting mostly of one-cell organisms, and secondarily of multi-cellular organisms, is many orders of magnitude greater. A similar comment can be made about the interconnections, because in the brain there are only billions of neurons and "only" 1,000 to 100,000 interconnections between one neuron and other neurons.

The brain, actually infinitesimally as complex as natural selection, has this thing "intelligence". Why can't this much more complex (an engineer might say infinitely more complex) thing called natural selection also have "intelligence"? Food for thought... My answer is it takes a lot more than myriad-complexity to produce this thing that emanates from "mind": intelligence, planning, intent, self-awareness, consciousness.

Roger, you have stated Nature is not intelligent and I agree, but the idea that something as complex as Nature (specifically natural selection) can cause to come into existence "intelligence", and have this intelligence run on less hardware (the little ol' human neural network) than the physical engine of natural selection , to me, is a compelling question.

I have yet to see someone here directly respond to this question I've presented multiple times here. You are invited. What about the natural selection mechanism being the author of intelligence, an intelligence contained in a 10^10 object network (brain), yet the natural selection mechanism cannot (does not?) support intelligence within itself, even though it is many many orders of magnitude more complex than the brain?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have yet to see someone here directly respond to this question I've presented multiple times here. You are invited. What about the natural selection mechanism being the author of intelligence, an intelligence contained in a 10^10 object network (brain), yet the natural selection mechanism cannot (does not?) support intelligence within itself, even though it is many many orders of magnitude more complex than the brain?

I began to answer this query in the science section where you asked a similar question (actually a series of good questions), but I will try to be a bit more informative in this answer for that particular question.

Our brains are set up on a particular architectural framework. For the most part, our brains consist of several feedback loops, but there are also clearly feed-forward loops. The simplest system to explain is the cerebellum which largley consists of an input fiber that synapses on an "inteneuron" which synapses on an output fiber with a few surrounding fibers that provide additional inputs (positive and negative) and with the "interneuron" spreading out to synapse on an amazing number of other closely associated fibers such that one input is looked at by other cells in the system and the input to one area is compared to inputs in other areas. It' a big, fancy comparator. Granted the whole thing is much more complex with other modulatory inputs and with at least three different "cerebellums" acting at once for spinal info vs brainstem info vs cortical info, but it's still a big comparator.

The cortex is much more complex, but it largely consists of several loops of information. There is info coming from lower centers and converging in cortical centers and local loops within the cortex that send and receive info in a continuous loop. There are loops down to the basal ganglia, loops to the cerebellum, loops back to the thalamus, etc. Constant streams of info following well-laid-out circuits.

Nature is more complex and chaotic. Thinking seems to arise from these continuously circuiting feedback and feed forward loops. If the loops of info are disrupted, then thinking ceases. If you knock out a certain species, the rest of nature just continues blithely along.

So, I would answer your very good question in one word -- structure.

ETA
I don't know if any of that helps, but it depends a bit how much detail you want about the structure.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Do you really believe this or are you just thinking out loud?

I believe there is a process, and it possible that it is the work of intelligence. After that it gets complicated. But even if the process was not the work of intelligence, it lucked up and created some.