Intelligent Evolution?

[Southwind17]

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.

Nicely put!

 

[Belz...]

Nicely put!

Careful, Southwind. You have NO IDEA what Lightcreatedlife believes in !

 

[Southwind17]

Careful, Southwind. You have NO IDEA what Lightcreatedlife believes in !

Maybe so, but what he/she wrote above seems sensible, unless I'm missing some cryptic conotation!

 

[six7s]

Maybe so, but what he/she wrote above seems sensible, unless I'm missing some cryptic conotation!

I have participated in a couple of other threads with light and, although I have no reason to doubt an intent that is both sincere and in keeping with the promotion of thought, I have a hunch that the direction might be somewhat out of kilter with 'mainstream' scepticism, critical thinking and science

To examine the possibilty that there may well be at least one "cryptic conotation", see light's homepage: http://inthemath.com/

This formula is the life part of the "Theory for everything" that science is looking for. It easily tells the whole story, unites the forces, science with religion, and covers the life part of the equation from over 200 angles without anything being moved around. Heaven and hell do not necessaily mean religion, they are showing the flow of the "processed" energy that leaves the body. The energy has to be there, and it has to leave, the only question is where, how and why. I say where they go has to be part of a recycling process. I'll show you where this came from easy and logical all the way. </snip>

 

[Belz...]

Maybe so, but what he/she wrote above seems sensible, unless I'm missing some cryptic conotation!

Let's just say that his "sensible" writings hide something quite... er... unique.

 

[President Bush]

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

Thanks for clearing up what you were referring to. Let me start over.

The analogy, very interestingly, has, therefore, developed, and now shows that 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. 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.

As you had said: "the analogy, very interestingly, has, therefore, developed"... I thought you'd might be up to addressing a development such as cyborg's reference to an Integrating Modelling Toolkit and evolutionary algorithms.

Which is why I put the question as I did:

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?

But are you reading them at all?!

I have... checked twice: connecting "wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion", putting "components together haphazardly", all with an "absence of intent and forethought" is a design process!

 

[Southwind17]

Thanks for clearing up what you were referring to. Let me start over.

As you had said: "the analogy, very interestingly, has, therefore, developed"... I thought you'd might be up to addressing a development such as cyborg's reference to an Integrating Modelling Toolkit and evolutionary algorithms.

Which is why I put the question as I did:

I have... checked twice: connecting "wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion", putting "components together haphazardly", all with an "absence of intent and forethought" is a design process!

Is there a point trying to be made somewhere in this?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Is there a point trying to be made somewhere in this?

Yeah, it doesn't actually resemble how professional engineers do design. I'll grant that my perception of engineering is probably more ideal than the process of engineering actually is, but I still think that it is a lot more orderly than what Ollie did or the Blind Watchmaker of evolution.

 

[President Bush]

Is there a point trying to be made somewhere in this?

Yes... I think good-natured banter is worth its weight in gold.

My turn now: do you say that connecting "wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion", putting "components together haphazardly", all with an "absence of intent and forethought" is a design process... because you need to in order to support your analogy or because you really believe that connecting "wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion", putting "components together haphazardly", all with an "absence of intent and forethought" is a design process?

Or is there some other reason for saying such a thing?

 

[Southwind17]

Yeah, it doesn't actually resemble how professional engineers do design. I'll grant that my perception of engineering is probably more ideal than the process of engineering actually is, but I still think that it is a lot more orderly than what Ollie did or the Blind Watchmaker of evolution.

So what? Who's arguing that the analogy only concerns 'professional engineers'? We've moved on, mijo, but the argument, examples and hypotheses being used all trace right back to the OP analogy and serve to validate it. If you like, I can re-state the analogy in its current form, then once you accept it I'll show you the logical link back to the OP analogy. Would you like me to do that for you?

Yes... I think good-natured banter is worth its weight in gold.

My turn now: do you say that connecting "wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion", putting "components together haphazardly", all with an "absence of intent and forethought" is a design process... because you need to in order to support your analogy or because you really believe that connecting "wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion", putting "components together haphazardly", all with an "absence of intent and forethought" is a design process?

Or is there some other reason for saying such a thing?

I'm not bothered what we call it; 'design', 'assembly', 'manufacture', etc. all fit the bill. The point is, Mr President, do you understand what I'm saying, and what the analogy is seeking to show? We can call it whatever you like, but if you don't focus on the argument, electing instead to debate meanings of words, then you're a lost cause.

 

[President Bush]

Yes... I think good-natured banter is worth its weight in gold.

My turn now: do you say that connecting "wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion", putting "components together haphazardly", all with an "absence of intent and forethought" is a design process... because you need to in order to support your analogy or because you really believe that connecting "wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion", putting "components together haphazardly", all with an "absence of intent and forethought" is a design process?

Or is there some other reason for saying such a thing?

I'm not bothered what we call it; 'design', 'assembly', 'manufacture', etc. all fit the bill. The point is, Mr President, do you understand what I'm saying, and what the analogy is seeking to show? We can call it whatever you like, but if you don't focus on the argument, electing instead to debate meanings of words, then you're a lost cause.

Yes, I think I have an idea what it is you are saying. And I think it's a bad analogy. Sorry.

We all all agreed, I believe, in wishing to deny the so-called arguments of "intelligent design".

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, I think I have an idea what it is you are saying. And I think it's a bad analogy. Sorry.

Well, if you only have an 'idea' then who are you to judge? I suggest you take the time and effort to understand and appreciate the analogy fully before drawing conclusions.

We all all agreed, I believe, in wishing to deny the so-called arguments of "intelligent design".

I wouldn't say 'all', but I certainly do.

 

[cyborg]

I thought you'd might be up to addressing a development such as cyborg's reference to an Integrating Modelling Toolkit and evolutionary algorithms.

Er no. Infinite Monkey Theorem.

 

[President Bush]

I thought you'd might be up to addressing a development such as cyborg's reference to an Integrating Modelling Toolkit and evolutionary algorithms.

Er no. Infinite Monkey Theorem.

Damn. And I thought I'd found something to make make complex ontologies look intuitive.

It is a framework where all concepts used in modelling of natural systems are explicitly defined by standard ontologies. The IMA derives its power and generality from adopting the semantics of the natural entities represented (e.g. economic value, biomass, or nitrogen flow) as opposed to that of the workflow or model that calculates the desired results. It is not committed to a particular set of modelling concepts except what expressed by its core (upper) ontologies, which are carefully designed for maximum generality, paradigm independence, and uncoordinated extensibility. Many common modelling paradigms and toolkits can be implemented in the IMA by defining new ontologies in the terms of the core ones and - when necessary - providing software extensions in the form of shared libraries to complement the functionalities of an IMA runtime system.

The IMA is a conceptual framework and software design, which is implemented in the Integrating Modelling Toolkit, an open source software package being developed at the Ecoinformatics Collaboratory.

http://ecoinformatics.uvm.edu/technologies/integrating-modelling-architecture.html

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I have a hunch that the direction might be somewhat out of kilter with 'mainstream' scepticism,

I don't know what that means.

critical thinking and science

But it will promote critical thinking and science.

To examine the possibilty that there may well be at least one "cryptic conotation", see light's homepage: http://inthemath.com/

I don't believe that that diagram is a message of any kind. It can't be... right? But it can still be sold as "funny how things..."

Let's just say that his "sensible" writings hide something quite... er... unique.

While I no longer believe that there is a spirit that survives death, the march towards immortality will eventually take science towards creating a means to do just that. So, the "feeling" that there is a spirit, might somehow be an "erge" to creat one.

 

[Belz...]

While I no longer believe that there is a spirit that survives death

Oh, so your oft-vaunted "plan" is no longer part of your beliefs ? Just out of curiosity: if months of arguing with JREFs didn't change your mind, what did ?

 

[Southwind17]

The plot thickens!

 

[jimbob]

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

Because in evolution, only successes reproduce. A trait that prevents an organism from reproducing, prevents that organism from reproducing. Only beneficial traits are selected for. No information is obtained from anything that fails to reproduce. There is nothing to stop a trait "failing" on many occasions.

In typical development, any failures are analysed. The performance in the field is also analysed and proposed solutions to the particular problem are tried.

An example: The early spitfire lacked a fuel injection system that made the engine cut out in negative g. The ME109 didn't. This disadvantaged the spitfire, so solutions to this problem were developed.

As well as this, experimental structures are often used to test particular aspects of a structure, to determine what the weak point is, or what the "entitlement" of a process/structure is. The structure can then be optimised in light of this information in a way that is completely random mutation.

Of course some development uses the power of the evolutionary approach, and do use a process analogous to mutation (evolutionary algorithms).

However, even in this situation, the selection of fit variants is according to the requirement specifications of the engineers, and not according to natural selection.

Evolutionary algorithms are useful in demonstrating the power of evolutionary approaches, but they still need to select against arbitary selection criteria, unlike natural selection, where any orginism that produces reproducing offspring has "succeded".

Do you see what I am getting at here, Belz?

 

[Belz...]

Because in evolution, only successes reproduce.

You'll find that technological failures rarely reproduce, either.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You'll find that technological failures rarely reproduce, either.

Interesting how you seem to have missed the rest of the post where he explains that the agents of technological development can glean information from failures while the agents of biological evolution can't.