Intelligent Evolution?

[mijopaalmc]

Even if you're right... so what? You're obsession with constructing strawmen might impress and/or fool you, but not me.

Again, you don't seem to actually know what a straw man is.

Nope. I mean debunked by countering your nonsense with common sense:

It is so mind-numbingly obvious that you really don't understand analogies

What doesn't make sense is how someone who can (almost) type in full sentences can so stubbornly ignore the ad-nauseum repetitions of this salient fact and, instead, persist in posting such utter drivel

What you call "debunking" is really just contradiction, as you demonstrated by quoting my exchange with Belz. The processes are not "the same from an information standpoint", because the information can be changed in different ways when an intelligent agent is involved. Most importantly, information about failures, which is irrecoverably lost in processes without the involvement of an intelligent agent, can be used to improve further interations of individuals.

 

[six7s]

Again, you don't seem to actually know what a straw man is

Oh for crying out loud mijo, get real! You are fooling no-one but yourself

What you call "debunking" is really just contradiction, as you demonstrated by quoting my exchange with Belz

No mijo: What I call debunking is debunking

You routinely post unsubstantiated twaddle and it is routinely debunked

Debunking it is easy

Understanding that it is debunking is simple

The only complicating factor is you and the nonsense you spout

 

[mijopaalmc]

six7s-

It is acutally very clear that you do not know what debunking is. Belz simply contradicted what I said about the differences between the processes of biological evolution and technological. As I explained in the post you just quoted, the processes are in fact not "the same from an information standpoint", so my critcism iof Belz' argument is completely valid.

 

[six7s]

In your dreams

 

[mijopaalmc]

In your dreams

Yet you won't bother to explain it.

 

[six7s]

What?!?

 

[mijopaalmc]

What?!?

You haven't bothered to explain why you think I am wrong and why Blez is right. In fact, the only thing that comes through in your post is your utter loathing for me, making your disagreement with me looking petty and emoitional rather than rational.

 

[six7s]

You haven't bothered to explain why you think I am wrong and why Blez is right

I haven't explained why I and any sane adult that can read English knows that you are wrong mijo, simply because it is so bloody obvious: read the posts mijo

the only thing that comes through in your post is your utter loathing for me

Please, don't flatter yourself

I loathe the woo

You, I couldn't care less about

making your disagreement with me looking petty and emoitional rather than rational.

If this idea makes you happy then, by all means, knock yourself out

 

[amb]

While the central nervous system does have a large number of control functions, it is not alone, and it is not the puppet master.
You have a complex endocrine system that influences the brain. Your intestines have their own assemblage of nerve cells to control digestion.
Yes, the bain is a very important organ in human intelligent behavior thanks to the frontal lobes of the human brain. But in the end, mind is not the Decider (In the W sort of way). Our decisions arise systemically.

And as Cyborg points out, this process isn't bounded by your skin but is integral to your envioronment as well. It's an ecological dynamic, our decisions alter the environment, and the environment alters our decisions.

The piece of useful fiction we get hung up on is "mind."

I understand that's like a five star General giving orders [brain] to his subordinates [nerves] the subordinates give the orders to their subordinates and so on until the order is carried out. One can not do without the other. Amputees brains also give the same orders to various parts of the body which can not carry out the orders because they are missing a vital body part. [leg, arm, ect.] Of course the envioroment is integral to the whole process. Our bodies evolved to the conditions prevaling in our envioroment.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I haven't explained why I and any sane adult that can read English knows that you are wrong mijo, simply because it is so bloody obvious: read the posts mijo

The fact is that I have read the posts and people are still denying that intelligence has any relevance to the analogy simply because it is inconvenient to the analogy. Walter Wayne has explained how intelligence effect the process of technological devlopment in a way that differentiates it from biological evolution using the example of a video card and a fan in a computer. So far no-one has addressed this post except for Southwind17 who blathered something about "macro-mutations", comepletely ignoring that ther presence of macro-mutations in technological development further distinguishes it from biological evolution.

 

[six7s]

good

 

[amb]

The fact is that I have read the posts and people are still denying that intelligence has any relevance to the analogy simply because it is inconvenient to the analogy. Walter Wayne has explained how intelligence effect the process of technological devlopment in a way that differentiates it from biological evolution using the example of a video card and a fan in a computer. So far no-one has addressed this post except for Southwind17 who blathered something about "macro-mutations", comepletely ignoring that ther presence of macro-mutations in technological development further distinguishes it from biological evolution.

I am probably out of order here. But if I understand your posts, you are going around the world to put your point that there must have been intelligence in the universe to kick things along before our intelligence came along. Like I said, I may have completely misread your post.
Intelligence became a reality when our brain developed enough to realize self conciousness. All of a sudden man understood the ''I am'' state.

 

[Southwind17]

The fact is that I have read the posts and people are still denying that intelligence has any relevance to the analogy simply because it is inconvenient to the analogy.

I don't recall people (and by 'people' you seem to be including everybody) denying that intelligence has any relevance to the analogy 'simply because it is inconvenient to the analogy'. Would you care to point out which people have done so?

Walter Wayne has explained how intelligence effect the process of technological devlopment in a way that differentiates it from biological evolution using the example of a video card and a fan in a computer. So far no-one has addressed this post except for Southwind17 who blathered something about "macro-mutations", comepletely ignoring that ther presence of macro-mutations in technological development further distinguishes it from biological evolution.

I can't actually think of a more ill-fitting analogy than Walter's 'video card'. What he described was nothing like technological development of computers, as we know it. The fact that you refer to my response as 'blathered' strongly suggests that you haven't really read my response and/or considered it carefully. You certainly didn't see fit to comment at the time! The fact that you've effectively misquoted me and suggested that I 'completely' ignored the presence of macro-mutations in technological development, whereas I was actually discrediting Walter's macro-mutation example as even remotely viable, essentially goes to validate this suggestion.

 

[cyborg]

Beetamax - superior technology, inferior marketing.

People really still think intelligence decides which designs are "good" and "bad"?

 

[Apathia]

I understand that's like a five star General giving orders [brain] to his subordinates [nerves] the subordinates give the orders to their subordinates and so on until the order is carried out. One can not do without the other. Amputees brains also give the same orders to various parts of the body which can not carry out the orders because they are missing a vital body part. [leg, arm, ect.] Of course the envioroment is integral to the whole process. Our bodies evolved to the conditions prevaling in our envioroment.

Let me roll back and state what I wanted to say another way.
What we generally call our "mind" is not the executive decider we think it is. Even when it says it's going to apply the veto pen, the hand has already reached for it on its own.

Of course we shouldn't belittle the more complex way we humans do interact with our environment.

 

[Apathia]

I am probably out of order here. But if I understand your posts, you are going around the world to put your point that there must have been intelligence in the universe to kick things along before our intelligence came along. Like I said, I may have completely misread your post.
Intelligence became a reality when our brain developed enough to realize self conciousness. All of a sudden man understood the ''I am'' state.

Ambnp,

First I apologise for responding to a post written for Mijopaalmc.

Mijopaalmc isn’t trying to say anything esoteric. (You can accuse me of that.). he’s saying something conventionally obvious.
Humans have evolved a sentience in our tool making that has enabled the rapid creation of amazing gadgets. While our cousin chips are still breaking nuts open with rocks, we have invented clever electric nutcrackers and do the Nutcracker Suite every Christmas.
He’s simply saying that this special degree of cleverness must be acknowledged in the development of human technology in contrast to evolutionary biology where it does not play a role in the origin of the species.

Response to him flops about between:
“Yeah, so what!” to “You’re wrong!”

It’s not that he’s wrong about conventional intelligence. It’s just that Southwind, Cyborg, and Articulett want to get at the wider sense of evolutionary process that mindlessly underlies and supports what we call intelligent behavior.

ID assumes an ontological/metaphysical Intelligence calling all the shots from its own independent existence. The radical thing about Evolution is that there is no central or independent Intelligence. It is remarkably Free Market or Democratic, so to speak.
It knows no Authority. And this may, in the end, be why dogmatic religionists find it offensive.

 

[Belz...]

Do you even pay attention to the discussion?

Yes. I also pay attention to the analogies and their purpose, how they are similar to the thing they represent and why.

We were dsicussing the develpoment of Christianity as an example of a system that invovled an intelligent agent. The point is that the Nicene Creed did not just "write itself"; it was a very specific response to Arianism's denial of Jesus' divinity.

Indeed. Just like Christianity managed to spread better than the other religions of its time and became dominant. It didn't happen "by itself", but then neither does the evolution of a particular population of organisms, does it ?

In biological evolution, a mutation may persist because of the reproductive advantage that it confers on the individuall

Yes, just like Christianity survived by being more appealing to the masses and, eventually, to the emperor.

however, the reverse (an organism making a change in response to an environmental stressor) is at best a very controversial process.

And at worst, a discarded theory called Lamarckism.

Doesn't MS Word "know" the rules of English grammar in so far it can often tell when a string of words is ungrammatical?

No, it doesn't. It's programmed to respond to this because otherwise the product didn't sell and its information wasn't passed on.

 

[Belz...]

This type of spcific response to the environment has not been proven to exist in biological evolution.

That's actually pretty funny.

First, you DO know that this "intelligence" you keep mentioning was the result of biological evolution, right ? Intelligence is simply another method that information found to propagate itself. And this is why the analogy works.

Second, a lot of things respond to their environment. In fact, everything responds to its environment. In fact, mutations aren't only caused by copying errors, but by a great numbers of external factors.

If by "debunked" you mean "contradicted with out offering evidence"

What "evidence" would you expect ? We're discussing an analogy, an abstraction.

The processes are not "the same from an information standpoint", because the information can be changed in different ways when an intelligent agent is involved.

Mijo. Please read that quote of yours back to yourself.

Really. Twice or thrice will do.

What part of "from an information STANDPOINT" did you not understand ?

The fact is that I have read the posts and people are still denying that intelligence has any relevance to the analogy simply because it is inconvenient to the analogy.

Then not only did you not understand the analogy, but you also did not understand the objections to your criticism.

 

[Belz...]

Beetamax - superior technology, inferior marketing.

People really still think intelligence decides which designs are "good" and "bad"?

Excellent point, cyborg.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It’s not that he’s wrong about conventional intelligence. It’s just that Southwind, Cyborg, and Articulett want to get at the wider sense of evolutionary process that mindlessly underlies and supports what we call intelligent behavior.

I would that the biggest problem with this "generalization" is that it is essentially meaningless because it can be used to describe any process of change that has a selective component. However, that is not all one needs to consider when looking at biological evolution and technological development from an "information standpoint", because how, for lack of a better term, metainformation (i.e., information about information) changes with and is implemented differs fundamentally in the two processes. For instance, technological development can incorporate information from failures in previous iterations and biological evolution can't.