• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Evolution?

One of the infinite number of monkeys coming close enough that something like the text of Hamlet might be discerned through the gibberish ain't the text of Hamlet.
Click to expand...

A is not B: It seems we have a lot of people who feel it is really profound to state the obvious.

A becomes B is a far more interesting area of study.

I don't expect you to understand how this relates to the discussion at hand.
 
President Bush said:
One of the infinite number of monkeys coming close enough that something like the text of Hamlet might be discerned through the gibberish ain't the text of Hamlet.
Click to expand...


cyborg said:
A is not B: It seems we have a lot of people who feel it is really profound to state the obvious.
Click to expand...


Well... you seem to have missed it the first time.


cyborg said:
A becomes B is a far more interesting area of study.

I don't expect you to understand how this relates to the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...


You all have made it quite clear how "A becomes B" by abstracting away intelligence.

In this instance "A becomes B" would read: one of the infinite number of monkeys coming close enough that something like the text of Hamlet might be discerned through the gibberish is the text of Hamlet.

I disagree.
 
Last edited:
Articulett,
No it doesn't. So long as life forms are doing what they are "programmed to do", information gets copied.

Just think of the information. How does the information that makes a horse ancestor evolve to become a horse. Just think it terms of how the information changes--the genome. Now think about the design of the first airplane-- the blueprint.... and think about how that design changed over time to give rise to the 747... Information does not "self replicate"-- it gets itself replicated via "replicators". You keep confusing this. The eohippus (horse ancestor) lives and dies and eohippus, but the parts of her genome is passed on... how does that eventually code for the horse? I maintain that it's the same way that the blueprint information of the first successful airplane, became todays successful offshoots. The information that allowed that first plane to fly-- was information that was good at getting itself copied. Just like the little butterfly mutation that kept that conferred parasite resistance.

You are confusing getting yourself replicated (from a bit of informations perspective) with the thing it codes for copying itself. That isn't what is happening. Until you understand this, you cannot understand what is being said.
Click to expand...
In talking about the historical development of the aircraft, the design parameters were not altered by processes in any way akin to mutation, but deliberately.

Recently (within the last 20-odd years) evolutionary approaches have been used on occasion.

However it is fair to say that up to the 1970s the vast majority of aircraft development used "classical engineering".

Experiment was used, but the results of the experiment were analysed, and changes to the design made in attempts to fix certain problems. Similarly alterations were made in response to performance in actual use.

Failures were analysed, and remedies proposed to fix the causes of the failures.

This is completely unlike random mutation.

When the mathematical models were made as a result of experiment, either the information was always there and had been "discovered", or it was created anew. If it was always there, then it can't have evolved. If it was created anew, it was created in direct response to a need.

Completely unlike random alteration in evolution.

And we are not even begining to talk about natural selection.
 
Last edited:
And jimbob fails to comprehend different levels of abstraction and their application for the nth time.

This conversation is becoming awfully circular.

Do you know what a black box is?
 
Last edited:
Wrong Jimbob... I see you're ignoring serendipity and such along with all other links that might give you a clue.. Okay, so why didn't airplanes just stay as they were? Why don't people continue to copy the original design? Why did the design change?... when?... was each step purposeful?... Were there steps that didn't work though intent was there? And what do you mean purposeful... does it matter if it was purposeful if the result is that it got itself copied?-- just like the butterfly mutation? ----

Sorry Southwind...

He can't get it. He's an endless loop.

He wants to be right more than he wants to understand. He's another one that has a problem with natural selection and what is and isn't random (and a snootiness regarding anything to do with Dawkins though it might give him a clue if he read him and quit assuming that his education on the topic was thorough and complete.) I have never seen Jimbob have a eureka moment... but he can argue his points ad nauseum even if no one else understands, cares, gets him, or thinks his views are useful. He's out to win the imaginary game in his head where he proves (to himself) that the analogy doesn't work... because it doesn't work for jimbob... and jimbob imagines himself an expert on evolution-- though no-one else considers him as such.

I would guess that's the gist of the naysayers... they have a history of exactly this. I am always curious as to what makes them think that they have enough expertise to offer an opinion on the subject. From my perspective they just don't have a crisp understanding of natural selection but they imagine they do--though no one has given them any reason to think so as far as I can tell. Lots of recent writings on the topic support your analogy, southwind, as has been demonstrated. The naysayers really don't seem to be keeping abreast.
 
Last edited:
President Bush said:
Please explain to me what I failed to understand. I am genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

Error correction.

A system with no regards to what something should mean is unable to take advantage of random change of the sequence that leads it closer to the target. This is the situation which is correctly analysed by pure probabilities and leads to the probabilities of monkey's typing Hamlet as astronomically small.

Introducing a system where Hamlet is meaningful allows random changes to converge upon Hamlet. In this case the former probability assessment is completely wrong.

I hoped to exemplify this with my mangled sentence since the human mind is well attuned to extracting the meaning of written language rather than being concerned with typographical exactness. It is a sophisticated example of error correction where it is not simply the symbols alone that lead the correction process: in fact it is what those symbols represent in the "real world" that is far more important.

Now of course there is no "Hamlet" out there waiting for its meaning to be uncovered but much the same thing is at work in nature.

In nature the target is ever shifting because what constitutes correcting 'errors' is also dependant on how other things corrected their 'errors' - it is a highly entangled system without a clearly defined target because that target is always shifting.
 
Damn Jim-- purpose, intent, etc.-- they are all continuums-- they all come from the environment-- The only thing that matters is "does the info. get copied"-- that is it! That is all that is required for evolution... and a slightly imperfect copying process... and/or an information recombiner... Do you think each step of the internet is evolving purposely, bit by bit? Did language? Does anything really?

I can not believe that you can't get this. But since you can not-- than the others who haven't got a clue yet, most certainly can't get it either. Some, people are colorblind... they just can't see what everyone else can see though it's no fault of their own. (Of course you can't address the issue, until you realize the problem is you.)
 
cyborg said:
Do you know what a black box is?
Click to expand...

And the point is the processes of biological evolution and technological development is not a black box; humans understand how both work and that changes in technological development are made with respect to past failures and how the change might effect the technology in the future. In biological evolution changes occur without respect to either the past of the future.

Why don't you see this as a salient difference between the two processes?
 
cyborg said:
Error correction.

A system with no regards to what something should mean is unable to take advantage of random change of the sequence that leads it closer to the target. This is the situation which is correctly analysed by pure probabilities and leads to the probabilities of monkey's typing Hamlet as astronomically small.

Introducing a system where Hamlet is meaningful allows random changes to converge upon Hamlet. In this case the former probability assessment is completely wrong.
Click to expand...


Bear with me, please. I am unsure what you mean by this system.


I hoped to exemplify this with my mangled sentence since the human mind is well attuned to extracting the meaning of written language rather than being concerned with typographical exactness. It is a sophisticated example of error correction where it is not simply the symbols alone that lead the correction process: in fact it is what those symbols represent in the "real world" that is far more important.

Now of course there is no "Hamlet" out there waiting for its meaning to be uncovered but much the same thing is at work in nature.

In nature the target is ever shifting because what constitutes correcting 'errors' is also dependant on how other things corrected their 'errors' - it is a highly entangled system without a clearly defined target because that target is always shifting.
Click to expand...


I doubt that you intend to anthropomorphize here, but it sounds to me as though you are. Please explain further. Thanks.
 
And the point is the processes of biological evolution and technological development is not a black box
Click to expand...

From you - the man who argues the universe is made of black boxes - this is rich.

It does - of course - miss the point.

Why don't you see this as a salient difference between the two processes?
Click to expand...

Because I'm using a black box - it isn't a difference.

Abstractions ignore differences.

Analogies are not the thing they are analogising.

The screw in my window is not the screw in my door yet I call them both 'screws'.

And finally differentiating technological development from human evolution as artificial is artificial.

Does any of this get through at all?
 
mijopaalmc said:
And the point is the processes of biological evolution and technological development is not a black box; humans understand how both work and that changes in technological development are made with respect to past failures and how the change might effect the technology in the future. In biological evolution changes occur without respect to either the past of the future.

Why don't you see this as a salient difference between the two processes?
Click to expand...


Guessing here... but I'm waiting for some sort of reference (on the part of cyborg) to "irreducible complexity".
 
Last edited:
Mijo et. al.

Changes to information are all based on what has accumulated so far; changes to the information drives the future of what will be. The environment selects from those mutations based on what is best at getting itself replicated. Humans are part of that environment...and the replicators of human encoded information systems. They are NOT the information itself. Creatures are not their genomes. Life forms are part of the environment AND the replicators of genomic information bits.

If you guys would quit thinking you are saying something useful and stop insulting those who know more than you-- you might actually learn something. We all understand what you are saying. You just aren't hearing what the majority is trying to clue you in on. Why in the world do you imagine yourself experts on the subject. Everyone is telling you that you are muddled. The actual experts use sound like Southwind and Jimbob. Catch up on the latest developments... read a link... or give us some reason to continue in this eternal game where you all pretend you are experts on something that NOBODY else thinks you have a clue about.
 
cyborg said:
I'd prefer it if you had the honesty not to pretend you gave a **** about getting clarification in the future.
Click to expand...


cyborg said:
I fail to see what mental deficiency could allow for that sort of connect.
Click to expand...


Oh well... I am a novice in these fields with little formal background. I intend no harm and I am genuinely curious about what the hell you mean.

Why I said: "just guessing" and "guessing here". :confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom