Intelligent Evolution?

[mijopaalmc]

cyborg-

Oh, but I do understand the analogy: you think that because technological development and biological evolution are both processes where the information that get itself copied persists, they are essentially the same process, and all other differences can be "abstracted away".

 

[Paulhoff]

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

I understand any analogy, but it does not make it true.

Paul

 

[cyborg]

Oh, but I do understand the analogy: you think that because technological development and biological evolution are both processes where the information that get itself copied persists, they are essentially the same process, and all other differences can be "abstracted away".

The point is that they can.

Now are you going to choose to model them as a process created by an ultimate guider or as an ad hoc process created by simpler mechanisms?

 

[Paulhoff]

Oh, but I do understand the analogy: you think that because technological development and biological evolution are both processes where the information that get itself copied persists, they are essentially the same process, and all other differences can be "abstracted away".

They are not the same process, evolution has no goal.

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

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.

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

It is telling that you left out the first sentence in the post you quoted. Intelligent design is not my position; nor is it the position of jimbob, ImaginalDisc, quixotecoyoite, or the poster PresidentBush.

How would you answer the question what the analog in biological evolution to the engineer in technological development is?

 

[mijopaalmc]

They are not the same process, evolution has no goal.

Paul

And that has been my point: the goal- and intelligence-directed nature of technological development makes it fundamentally different than biological evolution.

 

[cyborg]

It is telling that you left out the first sentence in the post you quoted. Intelligent design is not my position; nor is it the position of jimbob, ImaginalDisc, quixotecoyoite, or the poster PresidentBush.

And yet you argue intelligence exists as a thing!

How would you answer the question what the analog in biological evolution to the engineer in technological development is?

Randomness.

You still don't understand how it works do you?

 

[articulett]

They are not the same process, evolution has no goal.

Paul

What's the goal of the internet?
What's the goal of a city?
What's the goal of religion?
What's the goal of your posting here...

Information evolves because it can... lots of human inputs with assorted reasons or goals can and do influence the results... just as the "goal" of getting laid influences the results of biological evolution...

Information just has to be good at getting itself copied... one way is by fitting with human goals... but that's just one way...

 

[hammegk]

Does the evolution of spider web building involve goal directed behavior,

Yes.

reasoning from causes,

Likely no.

and imagination...?

We'll never know, will we?

I think you can extrapolate those things right out of the equation and the analogy is complete.

Two out of three seems a bit of a problem.

Information that is good at getting itself copied (via whatever mechanisms--human or not-- intentional or not) is information that becomes part of evolving systems.

What is the "information", and where does it reside?

Think of humans (and spiders) as ways that information gets itself copied into the future to become a part of evolving information systems.

Could be, if we can determine what your "information" actually means.

I suspect most of you will deny a spider possesses "intelligence", although I'd say that is more conjecture than fact.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And yet you argue intelligence exists as a thing!

It is an emergent property of large systems like temperature, pressure, viscosity, etc., so unless you want to claim that believing that emergent properties do not exist, I suggest you stop with the straw man that using emergent properties to distinguish betweens systems somehow means that one believes in intelligent design.

Randomness.

You still don't understand how it works do you?

Not agreeing and not understanding are two completely different things. I don't agree the analogy is valid but I nonetheless understand it. Unless you would like to tell me what is wrong with my most recent description:

[Y]ou think that because technological development and biological evolution are both processes where the information that get itself copied persists, they are essentially the same process, and all other differences can be "abstracted away".

 

[cyborg]

It is an emergent property of large systems like temperature, pressure, viscosity, etc., so unless you want to claim that believing that emergent properties do not exist, I suggest you stop with the straw man that using emergent properties to distinguish betweens systems somehow means that one believes in intelligent design.

I am arguing that emergent properties do not exist. I am arguing that emergent properties are just that: emergent properties.

Unless you would like to tell me what is wrong with my most recent description:

I told you what was wrong with it. You said it could not be abstracted. It can. Deal with it.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I am arguing that emergent properties do not exist. I am arguing that emergent properties are just that: emergent properties.

So why can't they be used to distinguish among different systems?

I told you what was wrong with it. You said it could not be abstracted. It can. Deal with it.

You are not abstracting; you are ignoring. The emergent properties are essential differences among systems, and you therefore remove something essential to the description of each system.

 

[Paulhoff]

What's the goal of the internet?
What's the goal of a city?
What's the goal of religion?
What's the goal of your posting here...

Information evolves because it can... lots of human inputs with assorted reasons or goals can and do influence the results... just as the "goal" of getting laid influences the results of biological evolution...

Information just has to be good at getting itself copied... one way is by fitting with human goals... but that's just one way...

That is silly, the internet, a city, religion etc do not have a goals, but the people behind those things do, even if those goals are as many as the people behind them. Evolution has no goal, evolution is a function of life, not a thought, not a design.

And I have many thoughts and goals, even if you think I don't.

Paul

 

[articulett]

That is silly, the internet, a city, religion etc do not have a goals, but the people behind those things do, even if those goals are as many as the people behind them. Evolution has no goal, evolution is a function of life, not a thought, not a design.

And I have many thoughts and goals, even if you think I don't.

Paul

I don't think you don't have goals... I'm saying that all the assorted goals of humans are just means of information getting copied... it can be extracted out of the analogy... just like a sex drive is a way for genes to get copied... genes contributing to better spiderweb building survive preferentially whether it's the goal of the spider or not... When you copy information you do it for assorted reasons... some you may not be aware of... the same as when you use products or pass on an idea or recombine information to make a post-- all of these things hone and select and copy information in evolving systems... you have your assorted goals in posting.... as do other people... and there's computer viruses, advertisements, pirating, and all sorts of things that are all are making the internet evolve-- but it's all bottom up... a million designers just taking information further, recombining it, and copying it... that's the same as biological evolution...

Nothing is built from scratch... the information that goes into making things whether animals or the latest computers is information that has been assimilating, being copied, being recombined, and tweaked over time.

Human intentions and goals are important to humans... but information gets copied whether humans purposely do so or not. Every time you use language, you are contributing to the evolution of language... information that gets copied drives the process more than any particular human or overall plan... and that is exactly what is going on in evolution. If you remove yourself and humans from the equation and follow the path of information from the first airplane to assorted airplanes we have today it is an analgous process to following the information from a primitive equine to the varieties of horses, zebras, and donkeys we have to day. It's the information that evolves-- giving the appearance that the animals are evolving... but each animal lives and dies the same species that it is-- the only thing that is being passed into the future is the information.

 

[articulett]

Once again, Paulhoff-- I know you have goals... but your goals and everyone's goals can be extracted out of the equation when understanding how this forum evolves or the internet or life itself. If you looked at it backwards and said, "gee, the internet seems so well suited for me--I can get on it any time I want and find out any thing I want to know and talk to anyone anywhere in the world-- who could have made this marvelous magical thing"-- then you wouldn't know anything about how it actually came to be. That's, in essence, what people are doing whenever they see something that looks amazingly designed... or seems to fit together so well-- all complex things start small and evolve-- a goal isn't necessary... just information that can get itself copied...because that begets better information copying and greater information storage and recombination and spreading and assimilation of matter etc. Any human designing anything fantastic has years of technology, language, math, science, and prototypes on which to draw information from... nothing is top down... not even our own "intelligent designs". Moreover, things that evolve together, seem amazingly well suited and "designed" to go together.

 

[Paulhoff]

the only thing that is being passed into the future is the information.

Right, but there is no goal, it is passed on or isn't, and don't forget so-called luck, just because the information is good doesn't mean it will be passed on, like the spider that you just stepped on had genes for a better web.

Paul

 

[articulett]

Right, but there is no goal, it is passed on or isn't, and don't forget so-called luck, just because the information is good doesn't mean it will be passed on, like the spider that you just stepped on had genes for a better web.

Paul

Yes... the same goes for technology, Paul. Beta vs. VHS.

The winner is the one that gets copied into the future... not the one's that any particular person thinks is "fitter'. The internet isn't necessarily the best an internet can be... the stuff that gets posted and copied and spread have just a little bit to do with assorted peoples goals and reasons... there's lots of randomness... things that people just "happen upon" that inspire them in some way and so forth...

Yes... people are necessary for people generated information to evolve just as computers are necessary for computer generated information to evolve.... but spiders are necessary for spiderweb gene making to evolve. It's all about information "utilizing" it's environment to play a role in future evolving systems... from the perspective of information--we are just "environmental means of copying and selecting"...

It's just a way of looking at things to aid understanding... to extract out things like goals and intent and human defined terms so you can grasp what is going on. At it's core, the processes are the same.

If you cannot understand it, it's not because the analogy is bad... it's because you can't place yourself and your intelligence out of the equation and look at it from the point of view of INFORMATION.

Things don't evolve... the information that makes things evolves based on how the things it codes for perform in the environment they're in. This is true whether the information is DNA or directions... and whether the thing is a creature or a widget.

 

[Belz...]

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?

How is the moon, something that ISN'T a flat surface, act like a mirror, something that IS ?

 

[Belz...]

cyborg-

Oh, but I do understand the analogy: you think that because technological development and biological evolution are both processes where the information that get itself copied persists, they are essentially the same process, and all other differences can be "abstracted away".

Please, someone explain to mijo that the FACT that they both copy information makes them analogous insofar as the information copying is concerned! Please!

 

[Belz...]

Not agreeing and not understanding are two completely different things.

And yet you consistently demonstrate that you DON'T understand it.

You are not abstracting; you are ignoring. The emergent properties are essential differences among systems, .

Again, as far as the analogy is concerned, they are NOT emergent properties. And intelligence is not being ignored since we specifically identified it as PART of the analogy.

Troll on.