Intelligent Evolution?

[mijopaalmc]

I'm not missing any points at all, seemingly crucial or otherwise. The point is, mijo, that we can illustrate (we can actually demonstrate it, if you have the time!) that complex machines can evolve by human effort with the 'convenience' of intelligence removed equally well compared to how they evolve in practice. In other words, we can show that intelligence is not a prerequisite to seemingly irreducibly complex design. It's that simple.

Wow, what a straw man. I never made that claim. I said that how and why the (reducible) complexity arises in either case is fundamentally different you cannot analogize technological development with biological evolution on the basis of how and why complexity arises.

 

[articulett]

I'm not missing any points at all, seemingly crucial or otherwise. The point is, mijo, that we can illustrate (we can actually demonstrate it, if you have the time!) that complex machines can evolve by human effort with the 'convenience' of intelligence removed equally well compared to how they evolve in practice. In other words, we can show that intelligence is not a prerequisite to seemingly irreducibly complex design. It's that simple.

Plus... "intelligence" is a byproduct of evolution. We evolved to assemble information into useful bits... nobody designs anything from scratch... it's all building up and tweaking what came before... even Engineers... who don't just magically understand "engineering" either. Damn, he's so dense. Yes technology evolved in an environment of information processors-- just like webs evolved in an environment in an environment of spiders... yes, it looks "designed" and convenient... but that's because natural selection gives the appearance of such. It builds complexity from algorithms... and gives the appearance of systems amazingly well adapted and working together.

Zowie... how did my heart happen to fit so perfectly in my body? Is it designed? Not by anything intelligent. And it's a hell of lot more impressive from my perspective than airplanes.
Of course what is "good" about designs is interpretive...

 

[six7s]

six7s-

You still have not explained why you think I'm a "wooist", except that "disagreement with articulett" seems to be the new definition of "woo".

Try this for a simple, concise explanation:

• you conveniently ignore repeated debunking of your erroneous waffle

Note: This is the hallmark of, not science, not scepticism, but woo

When you're obsessed with obfuscating,you couldn't see a clue if it was dancing naked on your nose

When your an under-cover wooist, you pretend you can't see clues, facts or thorough and repeated debunkings of your erroneous claims

Wow, what a straw man. I never made that claim

OK... then respond to my debunking of claims that you did make, re:

• promotion of a mutation being reliant solely on a host in which it (the mutation) is fully expressed

• your overlooking of:
  • the 'dormancy mechanism'
  • how version control is - almost invariably - simply a goal that is rarely, if ever, realised
  • how a blueprint is not a guarantee for the shape, form and function of the product

N.B. It'll take more than donning a labcoat and groucho mask from the fancy-dress shop to make you look like anything other than an under-cover wooist

 

[Southwind17]

Wow, what a straw man. I never made that claim. I said that how and why the (reducible) complexity arises in either case is fundamentally different you cannot analogize technological development with biological evolution on the basis of how and why complexity arises.

And I corrected you previously when you erroneously inferred that the validity of the analogy collapsed on the basis of the irrelevant 'hows' and 'whys':

Here we go again. The analogy is fundamentally not concerned with the 'how' and the 'why'. It simply shows that seemingly irreducibly complex machines can arise in the absence of intelligence.

You seem to be accepting now, mijo, that the analogy, so far as it goes, is sound, i.e. that intelligence is not a prerequisite to seemingly irreducible complexity. If not, then you have a strange, ambiguous, way of arguing your point. If so, then I rest my case. My work is done here!

 

[President Bush]

... you seem to be forgetting what the analogy set out to do. It's purpose was to demonstrate that seemingly irreducibly complex machines can arise over time from very basic natural ingredients, indeed the very same ingredients that all of nature's living organisms are created from.

I own another apology to cyborg. Looks like it's Southwind17 to make the reference to irreducible complexity first.

... intelligence is somewhat of a red herring in human design. As I've argued and demonstrated on numerous occasions now (the Sam & Ollie scenario probably being the most conclusive of my analyses), intelligence, namely intent and forethought (but including any other humanistic aspect of technological development, such as research, prototyping and testing) are completely unnecessary for complex machines like those we see around us to develop.

An analysis showing intelligence to be unnecessary?

The same machines, or comparable variants, would inevitably emerge from a design process where the intelligence was removed, relying then entirely on replication, random variation and selection.

Setting up a a generic, comprehensive, and extensible set of abstractions allowing definition and use of interoperable model components relating to targeted combinatorial optimization problems all while following a definite list of well-defined instructions in a system modified to make some aspect of it work more efficiently... is a design process where the intelligence was removed?

 

[Southwind17]

I own another apology to cyborg. Looks like it's Southwind17 to make the reference to irreducible complexity first.

An analysis showing intelligence to be unnecessary?

Setting up a a generic, comprehensive, and extensible set of abstractions allowing definition and use of interoperable model components relating to targeted combinatorial optimization problems all while following a definite list of well-defined instructions in a system modified to make some aspect of it work more efficiently... is a design process where the intelligence was removed?

You should read more!

 

[Belz...]

Follow the narrative line:

Yeah... that's also a nice.... ... "argument".

 

[Belz...]

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.

But that makes no difference whatsoever as far as the analogy is concerned, because the question is whether or not the information is copied.

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

This is completely unlike random mutation.

How so ? Trial and error is still trial and error.

 

[articulett]

You should read more!

I know... that's why I have to put the woos on ignore. They are each having their own hard to track conversation in their head--where they are winning point in a game only they seem to understand.

They are so hard to follow.

But the weird thing is-- they are just so incurious to new discoveries and understanding and books and documentaries on the subject they imagine themselves experts in. Isn't that weird. And they keep proffering their views as if they are offering something useful... as if someone other than them thinks they are smart or understand the topic. I worry of some of these self appointed experts give new members that I like a bad impression of this forum. They are so off-putting... so very unaware that they are the incompetent ones my sig refers too-- the ones most likely to overestimate their expertise and thus least likely to recognize competence and use it as a model for improvement. They could use this thread to learn from you and others-- but instead they use it to win points in their head in a game that only they are privy to.

It is a well recognized type-- and it has a name:

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

Once you recognize them, engage them for entertainment purposes only and warn other new posters you like. I usually keep them on ignore unless I'm in for a rousing game of "goad the pedant".

 

[Belz...]

In nature the target is ever shifting because what constitutes correcting 'errors' is also dependant on how other things corrected their 'errors'

And what is considered an error, depending on the circumstances, may not be later on, and vice-versa.

 

[Belz...]

Can you take the tape out of a betamax cassette, put it into a VHS cassette and play it, on a VHS VCR?

Maybe not, but I can take a Mustang engine and put it in my Protégé.

I think you're making far too much of small differences. It's an ANALOGY.

 

[articulett]

And what is considered an error, depending on the circumstances, may not be later on, and vice-versa.

Exactly! Moreover, lots of information systems are involved--lots of organisms... something that makes one organism slow might allow another organism to get the fuel they need to pass on more info. The mutation that helped the butterfly genome was not so good for the parasite genome... though that is likely to evolve too... adaptation often means using lemons to make lemonade-- organisms evolve to adapt-- just as multiple people put info. into the internet organism and multiple people extract and replicate that information. An "error" depends entirely on perspective. From the chaos and error and recombinations and replication comes an amazing sort of order and complexity... because the goal of information is to get passed on and so it can't help but organize itself to increase better efficiency, communication, replication, recombination, adaptation, etc. When it comes to information encoding (from DNA to language to digital data)-- you either get replicated and passed into the future-- or you die out.

The information lives on long after the replicator if it's successful and so errors will be corrected or adapted.

 

[Belz...]

It is a well recognized type-- and it has a name:

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

Also the "Center of the Universe" syndrome. If they think it, it MUST have some value!

 

[Belz...]

Exactly! Moreover, lots of information systems are involved--lots of organisms... something that makes one organism slow might allow another organism to get the fuel they need to pass on more info. The mutation that helped the butterfly genome was not so good for the parasite genome... though that is likely to evolve too... adaptation often means using lemons to make lemonade-- organisms evolve to adapt-- just as multiple people put info. into the internet organism and multiple people extract and replicate that information. An "error" depends entirely on perspective. From the chaos and error and recombinations and replication comes an amazing sort of order and complexity... because the goal of information is to get passed on and so it can't help but organize itself to increase better efficiency, communication, replication, recombination, adaptation, etc. When it comes to information encoding (from DNA to language to digital data)-- you either get replicated and passed into the future-- or you die out.

The information lives on long after the replicator if it's successful and so errors will be corrected or adapted.

And it's exactly the same with technology and car models. Funny that these folks don't get that. I think it's a simple enough parallel !

 

[President Bush]

The same machines, or comparable variants, would inevitably emerge from a design process where the intelligence was removed, relying then entirely on replication, random variation and selection.

Setting up a a generic, comprehensive, and extensible set of abstractions allowing definition and use of interoperable model components relating to targeted combinatorial optimization problems all while following a definite list of well-defined instructions in a system modified to make some aspect of it work more efficiently... is a design process where the intelligence was removed?

You should read more!

I assume you're referring to this part of my last post.

I'm not posting for style. The question was sincere.

 

[Southwind17]

I assume you're referring to this part of my last post.

You assume right.

I'm not posting for style.

That's fortuitous!

The question was sincere.

That's as maybe, but very misplaced. When I suggest you read more, I'm alluding to my posts. Perhaps you could sincerely read them and inwardly digest?

 

[articulett]

That as may be, but very misplaced. When I suggest you read more, I'm alluding to my posts. Perhaps you could sincerely read them and inwardly digest?

Oh, there's a whole banquet of good input here and links galore... I think a cornucopia of "food for thought". I'm just not sure he has the capability of turning that food into thought... much less engage in a coherent conversation about the topic. You can always tell those who read to find information to support their imaginary game so they can win points while putting up their shields of ignorance to keep all negating info. out. If you can't spot them by their non sequiturs and hubris-- their self appointed expertise on the subject (which they have no curiosity in and very little knowledge about) should erase all doubt.


Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
--Charles Darwin
English biologist (1809 - 1882)

(a tip of my hat to Belz for recently reminding me of this fine quote.)

 

[President Bush]

When I suggest you read more, I'm alluding to my posts. Perhaps you could sincerely read them and inwardly digest?

I am not insincerely reading them.

Of course, I am trying to point out what (in my presently mixed state of ignorance and understanding) appears to me to be - if not an actual error in reasoning - an oddity which I do not understand.

The same machines, or comparable variants, would inevitably emerge from a design process where the intelligence was removed, relying then entirely on replication, random variation and selection.

Setting up a a generic, comprehensive, and extensible set of abstractions allowing definition and use of interoperable model components relating to targeted combinatorial optimization problems all while following a definite list of well-defined instructions in a system modified to make some aspect of it work more efficiently... is a design process where the intelligence was removed?

How am I misinterpreting you?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What is your view lightcreatedlife?

I think that evolution is the "intelligent design." But it does not have to have come about due to the work of intelligence, just one cosmic size luck shot. I think that the purpose/direction of life, (how and what humans do) has to do with the overall natural process. I think that humans are at the part of the evolutionary process where it became aware of itself. That being "aware" allows the process to add direction, and speed, to the process. It looks like information, is seeking information, for the purpose of more efficient information.
I think these forums are a part of the process.

 

[Southwind17]

I am not insincerely reading them.

But are you reading them at all?!

Of course, I am trying to point out what (in my presently mixed state of ignorance and understanding) appears to me to be - if not an actual error in reasoning - an oddity which I do not understand.

How am I misinterpreting you?

I will highlight within your previous post all of the operative words/passages that don't fit with the Sam & Ollie story:

Setting up a a generic, comprehensive, and extensible set of abstractions [not sure about this] allowing definition [or this] and use of interoperable model components relating to targeted combinatorial optimization problems all while following a definite list of well-defined instructions in a system modified to make some aspect of it work more efficiently... is a design process where the intelligence was removed?