Intelligent Evolution?

[cyborg]

Does the telescope look askance at someone holding it the wrong way around?

Meaningless.

 

[quixotecoyote]

4 billion years of evolution begs to differ.

Dishonestly taken out of context as I was referring to human technology development.

Yes. It is. You guys just refuse to acknowledge it. Your notions about how human designs are formulated are simply not borne out by reality.

Basically the "NUH - UHH" argument. Interesting choice.

Ugh. Not the Tai Chi argument again.

No, although your preference for smears over honest evaluation is noted.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Meaningless.

No sense of humor.

 

[cyborg]

Dishonestly taken out of context

Nope.

as I was referring to human technology development.

Which is typically evolutionary. But you guys seem to like to pretend that pure human intelligence would magically come up with new technological developments sans environmental input.

I have NO ****ing idea what it is you guys think intelligence is but you all seem to be imbuing it with god-like qualities to magically produce results with no computational effort whatsoever.

Basically the "NUH - UHH" argument. Interesting choice.

Nope. But if you will insist on jumping into the thread without reading the background...

No

Yes.

although your preference for smears over honest evaluation is noted.

It is not a smear. It is the Tai Chi argument:

"How can you use an intelligently designed program to show evolution lacks intelligence?"

You make precisely the same mistake that is repeated countless times on this thread on a variety of properties: you extend their relevance beyond that where it is relevant.

The fact that the process in question was "intelligently" formulated is irrelevant. It is the process itself that is being analysed.

How you guys think we're making an argument for ID when you come out with stuff like this is beyond me.

 

[cyborg]

No sense of humor.

Pointless with you guys. President Bush seems especially unwilling to actually address the mathematics preferring instead to rest everything on the fallacies he has collected but does not understand. I congratulate him on his ability to contribute nothing.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Nope.

Your mastery of NUH_UHH will be unprecedented if you keep in practice. We all have to have goals, I suppose.

Which is typically evolutionary. But you guys seem to like to pretend that pure human intelligence would magically come up with new technological developments sans environmental input.

Only for bizarre and unconventional definitions of evolution.

Defined as random changes with selective pressures, evolution is not like most technological development.

Of course, I don't remember anyone claiming that environment input was absent.

I have NO ****ing idea what it is you guys think intelligence is but you all seem to be imbuing it with god-like qualities to magically produce results with no computational effort whatsoever.

Please quote where anyone suggests intelligence has "god-like qualities to magically produce results with no computational effort whatsoever." I smell just another dishonest debate tactic.

Nope. But if you will insist on jumping into the thread without reading the background...

Another NUH-UHH

Yes.

Oh look, an YUH-HUHH argument. You're diversifying.

It is not a smear. It is the Tai Chi argument:

"How can you use an intelligently designed program to show evolution lacks intelligence?"

You make precisely the same mistake that is repeated countless times on this thread on a variety of properties: you extend their relevance beyond that where it is relevant.

The fact that the process in question was "intelligently" formulated is irrelevant. It is the process itself that is being analysed.

How you guys think we're making an argument for ID when you come out with stuff like this is beyond me.

If you look at an evolutionary algorithm solely in terms of the process itself, and the process operates the same way as biological evolution, then you've handed the ID'ers and creationists a victory as you've said evolution works the same as a designed system. eta: Those algorithms are designed to mimic evolution and in terms of the process alone can be a valuable teaching tool. However the arguments you are trying to use far overstep the relevant applications.

It's much better to look at it from another perspective. Most technological innovation is created through intent and forethought (thanks Southwind) UNLIKE evolution which relies on randomness and selective pressures UNLIKE the majority of human invention.

 

[cyborg]

Your mastery of NUH_UHH will be unprecedented if you keep in practice. We all have to have goals, I suppose.

And your ignorance will grow if you hold onto your treasured notions in the face of a reality that does not agree.

Only for bizarre and unconventional definitions of evolution.

Hardly.

Defined as random changes with selective pressures, evolution is not like most technological development.

I conclude from this statement:

1) You assume you know what the importance of randomness is.
2) You assume you know what the qualities of selection entail.

Unfortunately since no one is actually willing to toe the mathematical line I can't actually explore these consequences.

Of course, I don't remember anyone claiming that environment input was absent.

I don't remember claiming that was claimed.

Please quote where anyone suggests intelligence has "god-like qualities to magically produce results with no computational effort whatsoever." I smell just another dishonest debate tactic.

Yes - it's a dishonest debate tactic to point out your opponents are making you go "WTF?"

If you look at an evolutionary algorithm solely in terms of the process itself, and the process operates the same way as biological evolution, then you've handed the ID'ers and creationists a victory as you've said evolution works the same as a designed system.

Still looking at things back to front I see.

It's much better to look at it from another perspective. Most technological innovation is created through intent and forethought (thanks Southwind) UNLIKE evolution which relies on randomness and selective pressures UNLIKE the majority of human invention.

Intent. Forethought.

These "things" exist do they?

I would also like some evidence that the majority of human invention is reliant on intent and forethought especially in the context of anything that would be difficult to "evolve" by "random" change. We're trying to distinguish intelligence remember so it's no good pointing out "trivial" applications of intelligence where the change in design is incremental. We've been over that - not that you'd know of course. That point has been capitulated.

 

[Southwind17]

That is not similar to your arguments here.

But if the pack on your back was a jetpack rather than a parachute, you could rocket to safety. Therefore we should consider skydiving as an activity involving jetpacks.

That is more similar to what you are saying here.

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

Differences between natural evolution and typical technological development have been proven insofar as that word is meaningful outside mathematics.

Here neither. What 'word'?

I asked you once how it is possible to conceptualize a design once you have removed intelligence and you responded with your sam and ollie story remixed with an explanation of how it is possible to produce a complex result through a pre-made system with no intervening intelligence.

Which of course doesn't answer the question.

Why not?

It is possible to design a system in which complex results can be produces automatically. It is even possible to create a system to mimic evolution.

That of course doesn't help the argument against ID at all because, snark about telescopes aside, it is not a typical property of technological innovation or design.

OK, that seems like a fair comment. So how about we focus on the two systems to which you allude? Do they differ, in principle, from Sam's 'system'?

Apart from that the most you have done is demonstrate there is no absolute need for intelligence to produce a complex result. This is not a typical situation and it by no means indicates that intelligence is ever absent from that process, especially as at some point in your examples someone created the randomization system.

Ignoring the last point, on which cyborg has taken up the mantle, why does the 'situation' need to be 'typical', and why does it matter that intelligence may, in most cases, be present? What's wrong with focusing on the exceptions? Are they not equally valid arguments?

Your analogy consists of comparing evolution to technological innovation.
ID'ers analogies consist of comparing evolution to technological innovation.
Your interpretation is that in some instances of technological innovation, it functions like evolution.
Their interpretation is that in most instances of technological innovation, it functions like evolution.

Given that the majority of instances of technological innovation fall into the ID'ers interpretation, the analogy is not useful for countering that.

It is if we concentrate on and highlight the fundamental and critical differences that differentiate my 'some instances' from their 'most instances'! As I wrote earlier in the thread: You only need to build one aircraft that flies to prove that man can fly, even if the thousands of other attempts crash and burn!

You have indeed demonstrated that it is possible to design a system where intelligent intervention is not necessary to produce an increasingly complex product, but you cannot handwave away the two biggest problems with that.

1. Most systems of tech development aren't like that, meaning your analogy will actually highly the opposite.

See above.

2. Even your systems that do not need intelligent intervention are designed via intent and forethought. Even Sam's system, of randomly placing together components was a method he designed.

No he didn't. Do babies 'design systems' when they suddenly 'discover' that they can assemble building blocks and Lego and derive satisfaction from it?

Even if I dropped all my other objections, this should show that the most your analogy could do is abstract the ID'ers arguments back a level.

What exactly are your 'other objections' now? You seem to have moved a little closer.

 

[Belz...]

I have NO ****ing idea what it is you guys think intelligence is but you all seem to be imbuing it with god-like qualities to magically produce results with no computational effort whatsoever.

Well, that's the crux of the problem, isn't it ?

 

[quixotecoyote]

And your ignorance will grow if you hold onto your treasured notions in the face of a reality that does not agree.

ad-hom / NUH_UHH

Hardly.

Another NU-UHH

I conclude from this statement:

1) You assume you know what the importance of randomness is.
2) You assume you know what the qualities of selection entail.

Unfortunately since no one is actually willing to toe the mathematical line I can't actually explore these consequences.

Oh please, I'm not going to led down a trail of "Teh mathematics proves my position" from a person who hasn't posted any math in response to my arguments. I see enough of that in the Annoying Creationists thread. It's a pointless strategy there and it's a pointless strategy here.

If you have an argument, make it. So far you've engaged primarily in NUH-UHH responses, misquotes, ad-homs, and non-argumentative insult.

Even if I am ultimately wrong, which I doubt, I attempt to express my view with logic and evidence. I would appreciate it if you did the same.

I don't remember claiming that was claimed.

Allow me to assist you.

you guys seem to like to pretend that pure human intelligence would magically come up with new technological developments sans environmental input.

You say that I like to pretend intelligence can do things without environmental input.

I say that no one has claimed that input is absent.

You deny your statement from two posts earlier.

If you continue with this dishonesty, I cannot debate with you.

Yes - it's a dishonest debate tactic to point out your opponents are making you go "WTF?"

Attributing a position to me that I do not hold, such as intelligence having "god-like qualities to magically produce results with no computational effort whatsoever" is dishonest. Please stop.

Still looking at things back to front I see.

Sheer contradiction, no content.

Intent. Forethought.

These "things" exist do they?

In a relevant sense, yes. Unless you claim that no one can intend anything and forethought is impossible, it is the only reasonable position to hold.

I am current writing scripts for a game I'm making. I intend to create it a certain way. I foresee some methods working better than others. I do not bang on my keyboard repeatedly, attempt to compile, and see if it works.

I would also like some evidence that the majority of human invention is reliant on intent and forethought especially in the context of anything that would be difficult to "evolve" by "random" change.

Fair enough. What kind of evidence are you prepared to accept?

We're trying to distinguish intelligence remember so it's no good pointing out "trivial" applications of intelligence where the change in design is incremental. We've been over that - not that you'd know of course. That point has been capitulated.

Intelligence only can exist in a mind (which I would call a phenomenon of the brain, but you may differ). Design defined as Southwind did as intent and forethought requires intelligence. Outside of that, I see nothing to disagree with in this quote besides the mild yet pointless insulting behavior.

I am not sure why you think it opposes my arguments.

 

[President Bush]

Intent. Forethought.

These "things" exist do they?

They do under criminal law. Unless, of course, you're insane.

 

[cyborg]

They do under criminal law.

God exists under Christianity.

 

[cyborg]

ad-hom / NUH_UHH

You apparently don't know what an ad hom is.

Another NU-UHH

Apparently you are unable to consider more than one sentence at a time.

Oh please, I'm not going to led down a trail of "Teh mathematics proves my position" from a person who hasn't posted any math in response to my arguments.

Yet again: YOU CAME LATE.

I see enough of that in the Annoying Creationists thread. It's a pointless strategy there and it's a pointless strategy here.

Unlike kleinman I can actually program. Unlike kleinman I am actually producing a program to demonstrate the things I wanted to earlier.

If you have an argument, make it. So far you've engaged primarily in NUH-UHH responses, misquotes, ad-homs, and non-argumentative insult.

Yet again: YOU CAME LATE.

Even if I am ultimately wrong, which I doubt, I attempt to express my view with logic and evidence. I would appreciate it if you did the same.

Yet again: YOU CAME LATE.

Is this pattern being picked up by this supposed "intelligence" I hear so much about?

If you continue with this dishonesty, I cannot debate with you.

If you continue with your poor interpretation I certainly cannot debate with you:

you guys seem

Do you comprehend the difference between an assessment and an assertion?

Attributing a position to me that I do not hold, such as intelligence having "god-like qualities to magically produce results with no computational effort whatsoever" is dishonest. Please stop.

Do you comprehend the difference between an assessment and an assertion?

Sheer contradiction, no content.

Reverse your statement. Tell me why it does not apply:

If you look at an evolutionary algorithm solely in terms of the process itself, and the process operates the same way as biological evolution, then you've handed the evolutionists a victory as you've said design works the same as an evolved system AND OCCAM SAYS YOU SHOULD NOT UNNECESSARILY REPLICATE ENTITIES.

Uh, can you guess which unnecessary entities those would be?

In a relevant sense, yes. Unless you claim that no one can intend anything and forethought is impossible, it is the only reasonable position to hold.

I am current writing scripts for a game I'm making. I intend to create it a certain way. I foresee some methods working better than others. I do not bang on my keyboard repeatedly, attempt to compile, and see if it works.

I see. You ability to write a script, your intention, your foresight are all magical results that just occur Oracle like as fully formed realities.

"You" are definitely responsible.

Fair enough. What kind of evidence are you prepared to accept?

Evidence that novel inventions are the results of an intelligent process that requires no iterative development or accumulated a priori knowledge that arises from the a posteriori.

No learning. No experiment. Just pure "whole cloth" (as jimbob put it) design please.

Intelligence only can exist in a mind

Pointless tautology.

I am not sure why you think it opposes my arguments.

Yes. That would be the problem.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

It was an example of an invalid analogy as my attempt to share how I see your analogy as invalid. You can ignore it, it wasn't crucial.

Here neither. What 'word'?

Proven. The differences are readily apparent but absolute proof is impossible for anything. Just preempting possible word-games.

Why not?

Because nothing in your Sam and Ollie story nor in the explanation of how it is possible to produce a complex result through a pre-made system with no intervening intelligence explains how it is impossible to conceive of design without intelligence. Intelligence is required for conception, thus no intelligence = no conception of design or anything else. I intended it originally as a rhetorical question.

If Sam was a vegetable he could not have designed his random methodology as doing so would require intelligence. Similarly, the automaton we agreed sorting Sam was equivalent to could not have designed the procedure without being programmed. It could perform the procedure but not design either the creative process nor the standards of success.

This goes back to why I think a process where you need intent and forethought to design the mechanics of the process and the standards for success is a bad comparison to evolution where those things happen without intent and forethought.

OK, that seems like a fair comment. So how about we focus on the two systems to which you allude? Do they differ, in principle, from Sam's 'system'?

I'm not sure that they do in any significant way, but if you come up with something that changes my mind, I'll let you know.

Ignoring the last point, on which cyborg has taken up the mantle, why does the 'situation' need to be 'typical', and why does it matter that intelligence may, in most cases, be present? What's wrong with focusing on the exceptions? Are they not equally valid arguments?

As arguments they are completely valid.

As analogies they are not useful, just as focusing on the one skydiver who happens to be carrying a jetpack when his parachute doesn't open is not useful. Focus on that and you will not successfully communicate what happens when a skydiver's chute doesn't deploy.

It is if we concentrate on and highlight the fundamental and critical differences that differentiate my 'some instances' from their 'most instances'! As I wrote earlier in the thread: You only need to build one aircraft that flies to prove that man can fly, even if the thousands of other attempts crash and burn!

Even if you specifically limited your references to those specific differing instances, in using the instances that are different you must first explain the aspects of how they are like evolution that differentiate them.

As it is the aspects of evolution that you are trying to express through the analogy, the exercise is pointless. You may as well simply explain the aspects of evolution and leave analogies out of it altogether.

No he didn't. Do babies 'design systems' when they suddenly 'discover' that they can assemble building blocks and Lego and derive satisfaction from it?

Sam knew what he wanted to do. He wanted to sell electronic toys for a profit. To accomplish this he did not begin finger painting, hopping backwards in a circle, or spontaneously farting the tune to Kansas City as sung by Wilber Harrison (as far as I know). He foresaw that in order to sell electronic toys he would need to use the kit you gave him, and he decided that the metric of success would be his sales volume.

The baby is not making those kinds of decisions, it's on a simple "feel good <--> do it" feedback loop with no thought necessarily involved.

What exactly are your 'other objections' now? You seem to have moved a little closer.

I was referring to the other arguments I had made in that post.

Nutshell:

Human tech development usually requires design.
Evolution does not.
Therefore analogous comparison between the two is more likely to mislead than enlighten.

Everything else is gravy.

 

[quixotecoyote]

cyborg:

I am not going to respond to content free one-liners, doctored quotes, or misrepresentations of my arguments. You are free to continue to make them, but you needn't spend the time.

Plus, as I've been in the thread since page 5, your attempts to weasel out of argument on those grounds are factually incorrect as well as fallacious.

I see. You ability to write a script, your intention, your foresight are all magical results that just occur Oracle like as fully formed realities.

Of course not, I never claimed it did.

"You" are definitely responsible.

Of course I am responsible. It didn't just write itself, now did it?

Evidence that novel inventions are the results of an intelligent process that requires no iterative development or accumulated a priori knowledge that arises from the a posteriori.

No learning. No experiment. Just pure "whole cloth" (as jimbob put it) design please.

Such evidence would not be relevant to support my point, only your distortion of my point, thus I will not provide it.

 

[cyborg]

I am not going to respond to content free one-liners, doctored quotes, or misrepresentations of my arguments.

You felt more than free to generate them.

Plus, as I've been in the thread since page 5, your attempts to weasel out of argument on those grounds are factually incorrect as well as fallacious.

I have no need to "weasel" out of anything. If you have been here since page 5 then you really have no excuse to pretend I have not shown the things I've already shown.

Of course not, I never claimed it did.

Then on what things do you contend that your abilities to achieve these things rely?

Of course I am responsible. It didn't just write itself, now did it?

Ah - your "I" just magically generates these things does it?

Such evidence would not be relevant to support my point, only your distortion of my point, thus I will not provide it.

Then you have no argument: human design is evolutionary on two levels.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Then on what things do you contend that your abilities to achieve these things rely?

As I have said explicitly before, my abilities are the result of evolutionary processes leading to the species that I happen to be a member of. Yet the exercise of the abilities resulting from evolution is not evolution itself!

 

[cyborg]

Yet the exercise of the abilities resulting from evolution is not evolution itself!

You have not understood the argument.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You have not understood the argument.

NUHH-UHHH!! YOU haven't understood the argument

/cyborg


Well congratulations, you succeeded in trolling me into responding to the kind of post I said I wouldn't.

I'll have work on my resolve for the future.

 

[cyborg]

Well congratulations, you succeeded in trolling me into responding to the kind of post I said I wouldn't.

You failed to understand.

You do not understand the argument. You are fighting a strawman because of this. The argument is not what you contend. The argument is not that your actions are evolution because you evolved. The argument is that the results of your actions can equally be seen as contributing to an evolutionary process.

Do you understand now?