Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

No-one has read all the backlog

Nor should they... just some insight as to the imperviousness of the naysayers ... I just don't want Southwind to get the notion that something will give them a clue. That's the thing about these guys... they sound smart enough so that you think you are just about to get them to go "aha"-- but it just never happens. Never. At first you wonder if it's you-- but after a while you realize it's them-- they just never know it's them.

p.s. good youtube graphics-- bravo

 

[jimbob]

Uh-huh. Now, what does that remind me of ?

Ignoring the discussion about the OP for a while, and talking about generalities:

Both are iteritive processes, and thus both show "improvement" over time.

However in evolution, a failure to reproduce is negative information (there isn't really even the instruction "don't try that again". It is just that successes are all that are copied).

In engineering, people often make test structures that are designed to test particular aspects of their designs, these failures are then analysed, and then future designs are altered in light of the information received from these experiments.

Also, if an engineering artifact fails in use, often (usually), this failure is analysed to determine why it failed, so that remedial action can be taken.

This is not analogous to any process in evolution.

Similarly, if a set of experiments are designed with the express purpose of finialising particular design parameters, then I wouldn't class the [process determining the] resulting parameters as having any similarity to [a process that leads to] informaton that has arisen due to random mutation.

Of course evolutionary algorithms are analogous to much of evolution, however, I would argue that one has to be clear about the fundamental differences beween the selection algorithms used in these algorithms and the process of natural selection.

The difference is self-replication, which means that one doesn't need any slection algorithm, as the mere act of reproduction or not is the selection procecss.

In brief:

Evolution requires the equivalents of both variation and natural selection.

Variation arises in any process where imperfect copies are made.

Natural selection arises in any process where (perfect or imperfect) self-replication occurs.

Evolutionary algorithms, because the products are not self-replicating, require some imposed selection process, either intelligent choice or algorithmic.

However, they can demonstrate the power of evolutionary approaches.

 

[Southwind17]

You're right. It doesn't have to be.

Prepare to be dragged down the illogical and futile 'does not means cannot, does means must' line of argument that mijo sought to rely on earlier in the thread, i.e. the infamous 'ID's List' (not quite up to Spielberg's splendid 1993 offering)!

 

[Southwind17]

No-one has read all the backlog

Except those of us here from the get go! Articulett's reference is to an earlier thread, anyhow!

 

[cyborg]

Your intent, then, (in posting at all) is to say what you say is random... one can intend to say there is no "intention"?

As ever you apply randomness incorrectly - it is not simply infinite monkeys.

 

[Belz...]

Also, the Dover trial was recently broadcast and multiple links were provided. If someone wanted to discuss how ID actually argues-- there was plenty of evidence to do so. But instead they presume they know. They have no curiosity in regards to current knowledge on the topic. I believe Kleinman ignored the watch link also. Actions (or non-actions) speak louder than words.

Why would a person pretend to have expertise in an area he has no interest in or curiosity about-- something he doesn't keep up on?

That's one of the things I don't understand. When new information challenges my beliefs, I find that exciting and intriguing. For some reason, to many people it's anathema.

 

[Belz...]

The result is actually very predictable as soon as you see his selection criteria of drawing three, and tossing the worst one.

It says nothing that is contested by anyone here, and is irrelevant to the point made. Oversimplification of models is a fun way to prove a point, any point.

Of course, it's a simple simulation, but it shows how things can work in a mutation-selection context. You can add complexities, if you want, but the point is, it can work. If you've followed the Kleinman thread you may understand what I mean.

But hey! No matter how simple or complex the simulation would be, y'all would find some reason to ignore it.

 

[Belz...]

However in evolution, a failure to reproduce is negative information (there isn't really even the instruction "don't try that again". It is just that successes are all that are copied).

In engineering, people often make test structures that are designed to test particular aspects of their designs, these failures are then analysed, and then future designs are altered in light of the information received from these experiments.

Also, if an engineering artifact fails in use, often (usually), this failure is analysed to determine why it failed, so that remedial action can be taken.

This is not analogous to any process in evolution.

I genuinely don't understand you, Jim. Haven't you read the whole thread ? If you did, how can you continue to use this line of argument ? Haven't we established that intelligence is irrelevant to the analogy ?

 

[cyborg]

I would say most modernn products.

Really!??!?

How do we make that leap to other types of chips like galium-arsenide or indium-phosphide?

Abstraction - we ignore the physical dissimilarities of the system to note that which is similar: namely the act of computation.

It is a bridging act - not a design act.

 

[Southwind17]

It says nothing that is contested by anyone here, and is irrelevant to the point made. Oversimplification of models is a fun way to prove a point, any point.

Not sure what 'point made' refers to(?).

I might be wrong here, but doesn't it serve to counter these contentions:

As an aside, I have no idea how fast your robot is working, but if you expect it to duplicate sat. nav. systems, radar installations, mass spectrometers, MRI scanners, etc. you are going to end up confirming the ID'ers arguments about evolution being fantastically unlikely in the time frames involved. You might get a working circut or two, but expecting highly specialized machines from basic building blocks would be like watching a bacteria and expecting it to morph into a duck. The timeframe just isn't there.

I would go further, and say that his robot probably wouldn't create it ever, not unless its "mutation" rules were unrecognizable when compared to biological mutation.

You have to remember that the AA, and the video link, are very simple analogies used to make a point. That point can then, where appropriate, be logically extended and/or multiplied for comparison with the complex process under discussion, in this case biological evolution.

For example, the AA can be multiplied by a very large number to simulate the natural world, and it can run at a replication speed that enables evolution to be accelerated over time. Admittedly, that might itself lead to complications in reconciling the time/number of generations allowed for evolution, but that can be addressed at the time for each simulation. Also, you need to envisage a supply chain with the AA whereby individual components, and individual components of components, right back to the materials used, are all evolving separately and independently. The (each!) automaton in the AA is only the final assembler, and in reality the choice and diversity of components available to it could be increasingly vast.

What's particularly notable about the video link is the relatively small number of iterations necessary to derive the, admittedly pre-selected, output by random assembly from a huge number of possible permutations.

 

[articulett]

That's one of the things I don't understand. When new information challenges my beliefs, I find that exciting and intriguing. For some reason, to many people it's anathema.

Behe was shown article after article disproving his irreducible complexity and he dismissed them without having read them. Kleinman is totally uninterested in new discoveries as to how new genes emerge (he's obsessed with his point mutation theory of evolving genomes...)

It's a big clue isn't it?--when someone pretends to have interest or expertise in a subject, and yet they show no curiosity about current events in the area or new and exciting development. They don't even check out links that directly answer the questions they ask... they just ignore them... they are too busy trying to win an imaginary game in their heads rather than trying to clarify, understand, explain, and further information. A conversation about whether an analogy works or not or whether it makes sense to call evolution "random" etc. turns into a win/lose battle as though an ultimate truth were at stake instead of just developing tools to understand the truth that is the same for everyone.

Suddenly you feel like you are in Tangent lLnd fighting non sequiturs, answering loaded questions, and being distracted with ad homs, digressions, backwards reasoning, logical fallacies, and an endless loop of general cluelessness. You wonder if it's you... but the more you try to pin them down or clarify or get back on target, the more you are confused about their points, goals, aims, etc. You feel like you are in the Twilight Zone. So you try to be more clear... stay on track... focus the conversation-- but NOTHING WORKS. Why? It's them. And they don't know it's them. They imagine themselves the King of Experts (despite all evidence to the contrary) explaining things to simpletons (not realizing who the actual simpletons are.) When they start putting down people whom I know to be honest, informed, and knowledgeable on a topic... and/or stalking such peoples threads-- then I take that as a sign that I've encountered yet another example of:

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


It's also one of the clueless incompetents referred to in my sig. And it appears to be very difficult to fix. I try to give a heads up to new posters I like so they don't get the wrong impression of the wealth of good information and discussion this forum can offer. The blowhards can give the impression that there make up a larger percentage of JREF than they do.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Of course, it's a simple simulation, but it shows how things can work in a mutation-selection context. You can add complexities, if you want, but the point is, it can work. If you've followed the Kleinman thread you may understand what I mean.

I agree, it does show how things can work in a mutation-selection context. If the argument had been whether things work by selection of mutations, that point would be relevant. Since everyone here is on the same side of that particular issue, it isn't relevant. Thus my confusion over articulett being mystified that no one commented, and southwind insisting people need to see it.

But hey! No matter how simple or complex the simulation would be, y'all would find some reason to ignore it.

All I need for me not to ignore a simulation is for it to show me something that I hadn't known since high-school.

Walt

 

[Belz...]

I agree, it does show how things can work in a mutation-selection context. If the argument had been whether things work by selection of mutations, that point would be relevant. Since everyone here is on the same side of that particular issue, it isn't relevant. Thus my confusion over articulett being mystified that no one commented, and southwind insisting people need to see it.

So what IS your problem with it, then ?

 

[President Bush]

Your intent, then, (in posting at all) is to say what you say is random... one can intend to say there is no "intention"?

As ever you apply randomness incorrectly - it is not simply infinite monkeys.

A non sequitur... how poetic.

 

[cyborg]

A non sequitur... how poetic.

You don't understand.

 

[Walter Wayne]

So what IS your problem with it, then ?

No problem with it.

I am confused as to why one person was shocked when it garnered no comments in another thread, and one person seem to think it was required reading for this thread. It is relevant to the issues under contention in either.

Walt

 

[Walter Wayne]

Really!??!?

Ya, really.

Abstraction - we ignore the physical dissimilarities of the system to note that which is similar: namely the act of computation.

It is a bridging act - not a design act.

I was discussing how Southwinds 'evolution' robot won't design things that resemble our current technologies. Does biological evolution 'ignore the physical dissimilarities of the system to note that which is similar'? If so I will concede the point.

Walt

 

[President Bush]

You don't understand.

I never understood the Grateful Dead, either.

You seem to be suggesting your mind is running an evolutionary algorithm.

 

[Walter Wayne]

You have to remember that the AA, and the video link, are very simple analogies used to make a point. That point can then, where appropriate, be logically extended and/or multiplied for comparison with the complex process under discussion, in this case biological evolution.

For example, the AA can be multiplied by a very large number to simulate the natural world, and it can run at a replication speed that enables evolution to be accelerated over time. Admittedly, that might itself lead to complications in reconciling the time/number of generations allowed for evolution, but that can be addressed at the time for each simulation. Also, you need to envisage a supply chain with the AA whereby individual components, and individual components of components, right back to the materials used, are all evolving separately and independently. The (each!) automaton in the AA is only the final assembler, and in reality the choice and diversity of components available to it could be increasingly vast.

What's particularly notable about the video link is the relatively small number of iterations necessary to derive the, admittedly pre-selected, output by random assembly from a huge number of possible permutations.

So if you have enough 'offspring' in each generation, and combine with the enumerable 'offspring' of many other components, one of them will work. Is that a good comparison to biological evolution? In each generation are 30 different legs, connected 30 different torsos, 30 different heads and so on in order to come up with the next generation human?

Human components, and components of components are not evolving seperately.

Walt

 

[Belz...]

I never understood the Grateful Dead, either.

You seem to be suggesting your mind is running an evolutionary algorithm.

Why, yes. It is.