Intelligent Evolution?

mijopaalmc said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do point out a real contrast.

It's sort of like digesting fruits and vegetables. In detail the process of the digestion of each is different as per enzymes and timing. You can still illuminate the bulk of the digestive process by descibing the digestion of either.

But some people can't stomach them in the same meal. A mixed salad of carrots and citrus is a real gut buster for me.
I think you and others who have objected to Southwind's Analogy have illustrated in concrete that some cannot digest its mixed salad of biological and technological evolution.

What I would be fascinated by would be an explication of the selection process that gives rise to human intelligence and self-consciousness.
We don't know that yet. You're right that merely saying it's a selection process is rather shallow, but I suspect that a selection approach to the problem would yield more understanding than an algorithmic one.
 
Apathia said:
What I would be fascinated by would be an explication of the selection process that gives rise to human intelligence and self-consciousness.
We don't know that yet. You're right that merely saying it's a selection process is rather shallow, but I suspect that a selection approach to the problem would yield more understanding than an algorithmic one.
Click to expand...

Mijo and jimbob persist in arguing that the technological selection process is necessarily driven by 'intelligence'. I have shown, using different examples, that whilst selection might be made by an 'intelligent' being, all that being is doing is assessing the particular device under consideration in relation to his requirements and by comparison to the competing alternatives. This whole selection (decision making) occurs within an 'environment' analogous to the natural World. To my mind, whether one particular TV gets 'selected' by a potential purchaser over all the others on offer is no different, in principle, from which particular animal the cheetah chooses to pursue and take down. In both cases, the merits of the TV/animal under consideration are assessed against the alternatives, whether consciously, instinctively or a combination of both, and the selection then made based thereon. It has nothing to do with 'intelligence' and everything to do with survival of the 'fittest' (or demise of the 'unfittest', if you prefer).
 
Southwind17 said:
Mijo and jimbob persist in arguing that the technological selection process is necessarily driven by 'intelligence'. I have shown, using different examples, that whilst selection might be made by an 'intelligent' being, all that being is doing is assessing the particular device under consideration in relation to his requirements and by comparison to the competing alternatives. This whole selection (decision making) occurs within an 'environment' analogous to the natural World. To my mind, whether one particular TV gets 'selected' by a potential purchaser over all the others on offer is no different, in principle, from which particular animal the cheetah chooses to pursue and take down. In both cases, the merits of the TV/animal under consideration are assessed against the alternatives, whether consciously, instinctively or a combination of both, and the selection then made based thereon. It has nothing to do with 'intelligence' and everything to do with survival of the 'fittest' (or demise of the 'unfittest', if you prefer).
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no idea how either consumer markets or ecosystems work.
 
six7s said:
Nope

What is shown though is that you mijo have no idea what 'in principle' means
Click to expand...

And what you have shown is that you don't understand that the processes that the supporters in the anlogy are saying are the same in principle actually differ in the very same principle.
 
Nope

What you have shown is that you only want to see that you are right and any/all views that challenge your distorted word view are wrong
 
six7s said:
Nope

What you have shown is that you only want to see that you are right and any/all views that challenge your distorted word view are wrong
Click to expand...

Look, the "evidence" that people have presented in this and other threads has by and large rested on redefining terms so that their arguments work. The argument that technological development and biological evolution are the same process works if you deny the existence of intelligence or its involvement in technological devleopment. I just don't see how doing either is necessary or helpful in explaining biological evolution and "combatting Intelligent Design (ID) theory". Most people will reject analogy that denies the existence of intelligence because it clashes with their pre-existing view of the world.
 
Last edited:
OK mijo, I'll play your game on one condition: you describe (concisely and coherently) what intelligence is
 
Biological evolution has been able to re-start numerous times after the many exterminations that have plagued this planet throughout it's 4.5 billion history.
If the conditions are right, life will flourish, and eventually intelligence will make an appearance. Whether it's self conscious intelligence such as we posses, or to certain levels as in the animal kingdom. I believe the latter is common in the universe, but the former, very rare but not impossible given the myriads of galaxies out there.
 
Most people will reject analogy that denies the existence of intelligence because it clashes with their pre-existing view of the world.
Click to expand...

Er, McFly, hello McFly? Anyone at home?
 
Southwind17 said:
all that being is doing is assessing the particular device under consideration in relation to his requirements and by comparison to the competing alternatives.
Click to expand...

But then she tinkers with it, goal in mind to alter it to an image she thinks has more market value. It's in the tinkering that the process is a bit more convoluted. It brings an appearence of teleology into the mix that we don't see in strict biological evolution.

In my opinion this goal informed tinkering comes from an underlying selection process that the average Jane is as unconscious of as she is the processes of her digestion.

Again, you don't need a full one to one corresspondance of all elements for an analogy to be useful. (Yours certainly is.) And no one analogy covers all the bases or works for every listener. I'm reminding myself again that arguing from an analogy is perilous ground. But we do it anyway. We can't help ourselves.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Look, the "evidence" that people have presented in this and other threads has by and large rested on redefining terms so that their arguments work. The argument that technological development and biological evolution are the same process works if you deny the existence of intelligence or its involvement in technological devleopment.
Click to expand...

So, mijo, are you saying that you don't agree with the various hypothetical examples of technological development that I've provided previously that rely on random variation rather than intent and forethought (intelligence) for their advancement and increased complexity, or do you simply contend that we cannot allow hypotheses to enter into the analogy? Please justify your answer.
 
ambnp said:
Biological evolution has been able to re-start numerous times after the many exterminations that have plagued this planet throughout it's 4.5 billion history.
If the conditions are right, life will flourish, and eventually intelligence will make an appearance. Whether it's self conscious intelligence such as we posses, or to certain levels as in the animal kingdom. I believe the latter is common in the universe, but the former, very rare but not impossible given the myriads of galaxies out there.
Click to expand...
With the intense interest intelligent life here has for the rest of the universe, it seems certain that it will find a way spread life to wherever it can. The question is, will it be following the dicates of the process that it is a part of, or is it its own idea?
 
Belz... said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3279649&postcount=2037

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3279670&postcount=2038

Well, Mijo ?
Click to expand...

Those post don't show your powers of "rebuttal" or "debunking" as much as they show your uncanny ability to ignore and deny. Biological evolution and technological developement are not "the same from an information standpoint" because the information in each of the processes is changed in different ways. The biggest difference is that the information derived from failures of a specific iteration (other than that it was a failure), which is completely lost in biological evolution, can be used to inform changes made to future iterations in technological development.
 
six7s said:
OK mijo, I'll play your game on one condition: you describe (concisely and coherently) what intelligence is
Click to expand...

This is just proof that you don't actually pay attention to the discussion except to insult what you perceive as my "woo". I have offered a working defintion of "intelligence" four times in the last two months (#1292, #1300, #1804, #1862).
 
mijopaalmc said:
Those post don't show your powers of "rebuttal" or "debunking" as much as they show your uncanny ability to ignore and deny. Biological evolution and technological developement are not "the same from an information standpoint" because the information in each of the processes is changed in different ways.
Click to expand...

Mijo, at this point, considering the number of times you've been told that this is irrelevant, I think it can be safely argued that you're just being stubborn.

Let's take another analogy. Let's say that someone says that "the moon is like a mirror, reflecting the light from the sun back at us." Would you be justified in saying that it's a bad analogy because the moon ISN'T a mirror, or because it isn't made of the same stuff as a mirror or because the moon isn't a flat surface, or whatever ?

Of course not. The analogy is valid because the shape or composition of the object in the analogy isn't important. It's what it does. That's the whole point of this analogy.

Any analogy on works on a certain level. If it worked on all levels, it would cease being an analogy and would become the thing itself.

In the case of biological evolution vs technological evolution, the thing we're concerned about is the survival, transformation and transmission of information. Any means by which the information achieves these goals are merely tools, including intelligence, and make no difference whatsoever in the analogy because they are not important to it. I repeat: all that matters to the analogy is that the survival, transformation and transmission of this information, because that's the point of the analogy.

From this point of view, biological evolution, technological development, and even religion, all fit with the analogy, because the agent or tools used to attain the aforementioned goals are irrelevant.

The biggest difference is that the information derived from failures of a specific iteration (other than that it was a failure), which is completely lost in biological evolution, can be used to inform changes made to future iterations in technological development.
Click to expand...

That's a very good observation, of course. However, there could be, hypothetically, a process in nature that allowed failures to be accounted for so that the same mutations never occured again (I can think of one or two ways), without the help of an intelligent agent. And, in any case, it isn't particularily relevant to the analogy, either, for the reasons I mentioned above.
 
mijopaalmc said:
I have offered a working defintion of "intelligence" four times in the last two months (#1292, #1300, #1804, #1862).
Click to expand...

Post #1292
mijopaalmc said:
The biggest problem with the analogy is that it requires that one denies that humans are intelligent, meaning that they can perceive causal relationships and understand them well enough to obtain a specific out come by inputting specific initial conditions. Thus mat not be a uniquely human characteristic, but it does distinguish human from, for example, bacteria or viruses. Moreover, it how most humans perceive themselves, so analogy is immediately stymied because it asks people to think of themselves in a way that is completely unfamiliar.
Click to expand...

Alas, your 'working definition', although what might generously be described as concise, is neither coherent nor pertinent to your assertion that:
mijopaalmc said:
The argument that technological development and biological evolution are the same process works if you deny the existence of intelligence or its involvement in technological devleopment
Click to expand...

That you are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge that your definition is irrelevant to the discussion illustrates, to me at least, that it is you who is not paying attention to the discussion. Instead, you are merely using this thread as yet another opportunity to promote your distorted world-view (aka your peculiar brand of woo) that contends that you have insights worthy of consideration by others interested in evolution

However, this discussion is NOT about you, it is about an analogy; an analogy that you steadfastly fail to comprehend, despite repeated attempts from those who do understand it to explain it in terms simple enough to be understood by anyone willing and able to think in analogous terms
 
I suggest you review the fallacy of false (or weak) analogy. The presence (or absence) of intelligence fundamentally effects the relation between the two analogs to the extent that it invalidates any analogy that doesn't that property of the analogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom