Intelligent Evolution?

Belz... said:
Please, someone explain to mijo that the FACT that they both copy information makes them analogous insofar as the information copying is concerned! Please!
Click to expand...

He's impenetrable. He believes he knows all there is to know and that he's right and that is that. The analogy doesn't work for him and so in his mind it can't work for anyone else.

On planet real world, of course, it works quite well for a majority of people... especially with a little bit of information. Actually, there is a kind of brain damage where people cannot understand analogies or metaphors--they just cannot. I don't think it's fixable. I'm not saying that Mijo has such damage, but I'm not sure he'd know it if he did.

Needless to say, I've never seen Mijo change his view in any of his endless posts... he asks questions, ignores the answers, and then goes back to insisting his usual position, which, oddly enough sounds very much like the nothingness of "intelligent design" proponents. In fact, I can honestly say, I've never seen him add useful information to any thread... it's always Mijo trying to shove Mijo's obfuscating viewpoints down anybody's throat who will listen in an effort to prove to himself just how right he is about whatever points he thinks he's making.

I'd consider him as admitting that the analogy works as far as information is concerned... he just isn't able to abstract out the magical wonderfulness of intelligence because it makes him feel so special.
 
mijopaalmc said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by reproduce

To paraphrase:
  • technological development is a process that can incorporate information from individuals that don't reproduce

Please clarify what you mean by 'reproduce'

I assume you're not talking about individuals (who are in some way connected to the technological development of 'widget X') who do not get lucky ;)

Are you talking about individuals who don't pass on information (e.g. views, opinions, facts, figures, etc, etc) about previous iterations of the product?

If so... I don't understand what relevance this has to the discussion and I would (most sincerely) welcome clarification
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Please, someone explain to mijo that the FACT that they both copy information makes them analogous insofar as the information copying is concerned! Please!
Click to expand...

But having one point of correspondence does not necessarily make the analogy good. For instance, diamond, fullerenes, and graphite are all the same in so far as they contain only carbon, but that doesn't to describe any of the compounds in a useful way.
 
Because we have evolved to the prevailing conditions on Earth, we think and perceive design where there is none. If you land in Antarctica or the Sahara Desert with the conditions there, would we still perceive design? The living hell of such places would suggest otherwise, methinks.
 
Because we have evolved to the prevailing conditions on Earth, we think and perceive design where there is none. If you land in Antarctica or the Sahara Desert with the conditions there, would we still perceive design? The living hell of such places would suggest otherwise, methinks. :D
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Yes... the same goes for technology, Paul. Beta vs. VHS.

The winner is the one that gets copied into the future....
Click to expand...
You perceive a winner, there are no winners, only those who are still around.

And Beta is superior to VHS in picture, HiFi Stereo, in the design of the heads for reading and writing to the tape that caused less wear on the tape and having a bigger diameter drum that allows for higher head speed and so for a larger frequency bandwidth etc. Americans mainly looked only at the time limit not the quality of the picture and sound, no intelligence there.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You perceive a winner, there are no winners, only those who are still around.
Click to expand...

The winners are the ones who are still around. It is the nature of the game.

And Beta is superior to VHS in picture, HiFi Stereo, in the design of the heads for reading and writing to the tape that caused less wear on the tape and having a bigger diameter drum that allows for higher head speed and so for a larger frequency bandwidth etc.
Click to expand...

Well I guess I'll just watch one of my many Betamax videos on one of my modern models of a Betamax player.

Oh wait - I don't have any copies of any Betamax videos and no one has made Betamax players for years.

Well at least I know Betamax is the "winner"!

Americans mainly looked only at the time limit not the quality of the picture and sound, no intelligence there.
Click to expand...

And yet you would lead me to believe the Betamax was an entity designed by intelligent beings who wanted to sell it?

Why, they thought the finery of the picture quality and the design of the heads would make a machine that won!

"Intelligent" designers would have looked at the market-place in America and put the design time into making a longer play time rather than higher quality information...
 
Last edited:
Yea, all those movies over 3 hours.
Click to expand...

You've not quite grasped this, "it doesn't make a difference to the fact Betamax lost," thing have you?
 
cyborg said:
You've not quite grasped this, "it doesn't make a difference to the fact Betamax lost," thing have you?
Click to expand...
Oh yea, this is so deep. You don't grasp the evolution thing of having no design and/or intelligence behind it.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Oh yea, this is so deep.
Click to expand...

It's not deep, it's very simple.

You don't grasp the evolution thing of having no design and/or intelligence behind it.
Click to expand...

You still seem to think you can tell us what the most intelligent design is!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom