Intelligent Evolution?

[six7s]

And once again you show yourself to be utterly lacking in any critical reasoning skills whatsoever.

How is a system that can modify successive iterations of its constituent information based on the success and failure of the information in previous iterations "the same from an information standpoint" as system that can modify successive iterations of its constituent information based only on the success of the information in previous iterations?

Hmmm...

For the sake of argument, let's assume mijo is right: 'I am utterly lacking in any critical reasoning skills whatsoever' - a statement which implies that mijo does possess at least a modicum of critical reasoning skills

How is it 'reasonable' for mijo to ask me 'How is a system that can modify successive iterations of its constituent information... etc etc ad nauseum' when I am 'utterly lacking in any critical reasoning skills'?



Perhaps its reasonable if mijo's intent is to reason using straw

 

[articulett]

Hmmm...

For the sake of argument, let's assume mijo is right: 'I am utterly lacking in any critical reasoning skills whatsoever' - a statement which implies that mijo does possess at least a modicum of critical reasoning skills

How is it 'reasonable' for mijo to ask me 'How is a system that can modify successive iterations of its constituent information... etc etc ad nauseum' when I am 'utterly lacking in any critical reasoning skills'?



Perhaps its reasonable if mijo's intent is to reason using straw

And truly this is exactly how "intelligent design proponents" argue... this is exactly like Behe argues. They never really say anything... they just have distracting questions designed to obfuscate the issue and imply their position in a way not subject to examination. Like the repeated inane question: "did I say evolution can't account for life on earth...?") Their whole tactic is to make themselves sound like experts to themselves and someone who can't see through the BS--but they just never ever say anything. There is never any point except that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

The analogy has clearly been shown to be useful and work for many people, but Mijo, insists that it can't. Has he ever added to anyone's understanding of anything on this forum? Nope, he just craps on the people trying over and over to simplify things, answer his loaded questions, and give him a clue. He can't learn, because he's convinced he knows all there is to know on the subject though he came here as a boob, and hasn't shown a modicum of learning since then. The ignore button was made for people like Mijo.

(And I suspect they argue this way, because they understand that the analogy does work...and their whole strategy involves making evolution incomprehensible by making sure no one understands exactly what natural selection is... how can someone who cannot successfully convey natural selection to anyone--who thinks it makes sense to call evolution "random"... even imagine that he's an expert on what sort of analogies are useful in conveying the information to others?? Where does his imagined expertise come from? Does anyone think he is good at explaining anything? --capable of learning new things? A person of valuable opinions and advice? Or are these just part of his self delusional blather?)

 

[jimbob]

Surely "memetic" evolution is more like Lamarkian evolution than Darwinian, and if so, isn't it misleading to equate it with Darwinian evolution without pointing out the essential differences?

 

[cyborg]

Surely "memetic" evolution is more like Lamarkian evolution than Darwinian,

Lamarckian evolution says that the phenotype of an object is what is inherited. Darwinian evolution doesn't rule this out as an inheritance mechanism. We know that in biological inheritance there is a genotype mechanism.

Since the "genotype" and "phenotype" of the meme are the same thing inheritance mechanisms aren't relevant as a difference.

Now the difference is in the mechanism by which things changed. Lamarckism says that it is by using some feature against the environment that the "needs" of the environment can be catered for and hence that feature is improved. Darwinian evolution says that it is that you see only those creatures with features that can confer them the ability to survive and it is by that mechanism that we see new features (to be naturally selected).

Neither specifies anything about random mutations or such because neither of them had an inheritance model - so how the new changes actually come about doesn't matter to Darwinian evolution either.

Lamarckian evolution isn't really that different in this regard. The real thing that is different in Darwinian evolution is the tyranny of numbers - you don't win because you are "better", you win because you had numbers.

I think the real shift in thinking here from Lamarckism and Darwinism is from thinking that things develop towards better abilities to realising that what "better" abilities are can only be decided by survivial.

So I think, to sum it up, in order to argue that memetic evolution is Lamarckian you have to ask:

1) Is there a way to say what "memes" are better than other "memes"
2) Can you do it without authority by popularity?

Can you say that Classical music is better than Pop if no one listens to Classical because they're all listening to Pop?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Hmmm...

For the sake of argument, let's assume mijo is right: 'I am utterly lacking in any critical reasoning skills whatsoever' - a statement which implies that mijo does possess at least a modicum of critical reasoning skills

How is it 'reasonable' for mijo to ask me 'How is a system that can modify successive iterations of its constituent information... etc etc ad nauseum' when I am 'utterly lacking in any critical reasoning skills'?



Perhaps its reasonable if mijo's intent is to reason using straw

Actually, six7s, no-one has answered the question that you note that I ask repetitively. Instead, they deny that the difference I see actually exist and ignore that the phenomenology of technological development (e.g., that information from failures in previous iterations can be incorporated into subsequent iteration, that a technology can be completely overhauled in one iteration, etc.) is fundamentally different than the phenomenology of biological evolution.

 

[six7s]

Actually, six7s, no-one has answered the question that you note that I ask repetitively. Instead, they deny that the difference I see actually exist and ignore that the phenomenology of technological development (e.g., that information from failures in previous iterations can be incorporated into subsequent iteration, that a technology can be completely overhauled in one iteration, etc.) is fundamentally different than the phenomenology of biological evolution.

Perhaps mijo, if you were to apply some critical thinking and reasoning to the problem domain you might understand why your 'objection' is ignored as being irrelevant

First off: what is (for you) the problem?

• Is it simply that the analogy is inconsistent with reality to the point where it will (or even just might) provide ammunition for the IDiots to counter the T of E?

• Or is it more complicated? (If so, try applying Occam's razor)

• Or is it something else entirely?

Then, identify (via suitable examples) what constitutes success and failure in both technological development and biological evolution

Although my understanding of evolution is limited to high school level biology, I work in a field of technological development and, despite your accusations to the contrary, my clients pay me because I apply my critical thinking skills in developing solutions to their problems. One key deliverable (for me) at the end of a project is what I and many other developers call LessonsLearned.doc; my 'findings' following an analysis of what was and what was not efficient and/or effective - the successes and failures.

However, perhaps because you and I see the analogy differently, I fail to see how such 'findings' are relevant to your objection. This is why I have not answered your repeated question (you might want to believe that I am here simply to persecute what I regard as your apologistical woo, but the prime reason for my presence on this thread, this forum and this site is to develop my critical thinking skills - and then get paid even more, more, more! Whoops, sorry, side-tracked!)

Anyhoo...

I have applied the steps I outlined above and, for me, the analogy works

Perhaps it might for you too

 

[jimbob]

Now the difference is in the mechanism by which things changed. Lamarckism says that it is by using some feature against the environment that the "needs" of the environment can be catered for and hence that feature is improved. Darwinian evolution says that it is that you see only those creatures with features that can confer them the ability to survive and it is by that mechanism that we see new features (to be naturally selected).

Maybe I should have said Lamarkian evolution vs "biological" evolution as opposed to Darwinian.

This is a different type of process to the process that actually created the variation in biological evolution; but the Lamarkina approach still seems popular*, and I suspect is how many people think evolution actually works. It is because it is popular, that it is so potentially misleading.


*My (real) 7-yr old son is keen on nature and dinosaurs, so was given a "walking with dinosaurs" DVD. Watching it, and thinking about this thread I noticed statements like "To overcome the searing heat these animals evolved to live in burrows". This gives a Lamarkian idea of evolution.

 

[cyborg]

This is a different type of process to the process that actually created the variation in biological evolution; but the Lamarkina approach still seems popular*, and I suspect is how many people think evolution actually works. It is because it is popular, that it is so potentially misleading.

This is probably because most people think that this is the "intelligent" thing to do (or how the intelligent thing is done)...

 

[articulett]

And in a way, evolution does learn from errors... a deformity in one context, can be a weapon or a camouflage in another... humans can purposely assimilate and tweak information whereas nature has to let it happen... but it still boils down information that is good at getting itself copied... whether humans are doing the copying for their important "reasons" or animals are doing the copying because they have survived long enough to have their primal reproduction genes activated. Information that is good at getting itself copied is the basis behind evolution.

 

[jimbob]

This is probably because most people think that this is the "intelligent" thing to do (or how the intelligent thing is done)...

Exactly. If we want people to understand biological evolution, as opposed to thinking that they understand it, then surely this difference needs to be emphasised. There are plenty of New Agers (non-creationists) who profess ideas along the lines of "intelligence being the goal of evolution".

I have just looked at the "Walking with Dinosaurs" DVD.

In the first five minutes, talking about Cynodonts:

"...this form of reproduction evolved to protect their young from the daylight predators outside"

I would have been happier with "...this form of reproduction evolved because it protected their young from the daylight predators outside"

 

[Belz...]

And once again you show yourself to be utterly lacking in any critical reasoning skills whatsoever.

How is a system that can modify successive iterations of its constituent information based on the success and failure of the information in previous iterations "the same from an information standpoint" as system that can modify successive iterations of its constituent information based only on the success of the information in previous iterations?

Well, there yo have it, folks. Mijo doesn't understand what "from an information standpoint" means, because he keeps talking from an intelligence standpoint. He doesn't understand that intelligence is just a tool for information to get itself copied, and he never will.

And in a way, evolution does learn from errors... a deformity in one context, can be a weapon or a camouflage in another... humans can purposely assimilate and tweak information whereas nature has to let it happen... but it still boils down information that is good at getting itself copied... whether humans are doing the copying for their important "reasons" or animals are doing the copying because they have survived long enough to have their primal reproduction genes activated. Information that is good at getting itself copied is the basis behind evolution.

See ? FROM an INFORMATION standpoint, Mijo.

Anyway, I give up.

 

[amb]

Great Apes, Dolphins, and Elephants all pass the mirror test of self recognition.

Information, by it's nature will spawn better information assimilaters and reproducers-- whether it's self conscious depends on whether there is a reproductive advantage to being self conscious... Evolution is sort of an "anti-entropy"... things fall apart... but matter can come together in increasingly complex ways so long as the information to assemble it can evolve via a selection process over time.

It depends what you mean by intelligence... but just as our computers get "more complex" and "smarter".... so to do all evolving forms of information-- if information can't be drafted into future uses... it dies out... same with DNA. Is our currency system "intelligent"--it's come a long way from bartering and claim trading. Much money is just represented by digital data--not any actual anything. We can understand how it evolved... but no one from even 50 years ago could project what we have today.

Information can branch off or die out... but it can't go backwards... in that way, "intelligence" is inevitable... or "progress" or increasing efficiencey/complexity/seeming design.

I agree with all you say.
The point I was making is that the ability for man to invent, or build the computer, has ceased with him/her. The great apes or dolphins intelligence seems to have stopped at their ability to survive. Man's intelligence far exceeds the need to survive stage.

 

[articulett]

I agree with all you say.
The point I was making is that the ability for man to invent, or build the computer, has ceased with him/her. The great apes or dolphins intelligence seems to have stopped at their ability to survive. Man's intelligence far exceeds the need to survive stage.

well--humans evolved intelligence that involved language which allowed us to form our own evolving information systems... to teach each other instead of having to evolve a tendency... But intelligence does evolve where it provides an evolutionary advantage... for example: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20071215/fob3.asp

Now it might not be our type of intelligence--

Apes and some birds do show tool use and language abilities... if this gives them a survival or reproductive advantage then they have some of the rudiments for developing human type intelligence. We don't really know what elephants or dolphins or apes will evolve into in the next eons if they survive... but if intelligence of the type we have confers a survival advantage upon them, then it will go in that direction. Whales already have some pretty complex social skills and advanced brain structures involved with empathy and social learning... much of what we call intelligence seems based in such structures... We don't really know what kind of intelligence can develop because at this point in our evolution we are the only ones defining intelligence and deciding which creatures have it. At one time there were other hominids who shared our planet who could have evolved similar levels of intelligence had they survived... Neanderthals, Homo Florensis, and others before them.

Yes... humans are special and the only things like them... but so long as intelligence provides a survival/reproductive advantage it's bound to occur on some level... and increasingly so to the extent that it increases that advantage. The same goes for cooperation, imitation, ruthlessness, empathy, nurturing, cheating, etc., better vision, faster running, flight, better camouflage, trickier behavior, etc.

So in some ways, it makes sense to say that increasing intelligence is inevitable... so long as it provides a reproductive advantage to those who have genes that encourage intelligence... as in the linked article.
The smarter birds are better thieves and have more time and food to nurture their young who are likely to carry the genes contributing to the smart thieving ways of their parent after surviving preferentially due to their having had better parenting.

 

[amb]

2 percent are thieves. That's higher than the human percentage, I think.
Then again, I would advise caution if you ever visit the city of Naples Italy.
The percentage there would be something of the order of 10-15 percent human thieves.
Again for survival reasons.

 

[articulett]

2 percent are thieves. That's higher than the human percentage, I think.
Then again, I would advise caution if you ever visit the city of Naples Italy.
The percentage there would be something of the order of 10-15 percent human thieves.
Again for survival reasons.

Yes... the traits in those that reproduce the most get passed on-- intelligence seems to have reached an end point in conferring reproductive success in humans... now the more intelligent tend to have fewer kids... and the more impulsive seem to have more and thanks to modern medicine most kids are likely to survive no matter how stupid they might be. But our technology gets smarter even if we are at our limits... (Thieves will have better technology with which to steal your stuff! Kidding. I hope.) To some people, I think thieving is sort of like "hunting". I'm sure birds aren't really thinking of themselves as stealing... I'm sure they feel perfectly entitled to whatever they can safely nab. Intelligence seems more about making your environment work for you (exploiting your environment to your advantage) instead of hoping you've evolved the right programming for your environment.

 

[amb]

Yes... the traits in those that reproduce the most get passed on-- intelligence seems to have reached an end point in conferring reproductive success in humans... now the more intelligent tend to have fewer kids... and the more impulsive seem to have more and thanks to modern medicine most kids are likely to survive no matter how stupid they might be. But our technology gets smarter even if we are at our limits... (Thieves will have better technology with which to steal your stuff! Kidding. I hope.) To some people, I think thieving is sort of like "hunting". I'm sure birds aren't really thinking of themselves as stealing... I'm sure they feel perfectly entitled to whatever they can safely nab. Intelligence seems more about making your environment work for you (exploiting your environment to your advantage) instead of hoping you've evolved the right programming for your environment.

For that very reason, I sometimes wonder what science is doing interfering in the natural evolution of the species by been able to prolong and save even the bad genes from extinction. I'm not postulating for one moment we should kill the deformed or mongoloid, just wondering what the future of mankind will be like because of our interference in nature for the good or for the bad of mankind/womenkind.

 

[mijopaalmc]

How is technological development, a process that can incorporate information from individuals that don't reproduce, "the same from an information standpoint" as biological evolution, a process that can't incorporate information from individuals that don't reproduce?

 

[Paulhoff]

Please, someone, show me where there is any need for a so-called intelligent designer, because if the human body with all its flaws is the best an all-powerful all-knowing so-called god can do, it sucks, fire it, get a new one quick.

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Please, someone, show me where there is any need for a so-called intelligent designer, because if the human body with all its flaws is the best an all-powerful all-knowing so-called god can do, it sucks, fire it, get a new one quick.

Paul

No-one is arguing that there is a need for an intelligent designer to explain the complexity or diversity of life. The contention is that the analogy between technological development and biological evolution may unintentionally lead some people to believe that their is and intelligent design of life just as their is an intelligent designer of technology.

 

[cyborg]

The contention is that the analogy between technological development and biological evolution may unintentionally lead some people to believe that their is and intelligent design of life just as their is an intelligent designer of technology.

So your point is that if you fail to understand the analogy you will think it supports your position?