• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Evolution?

jimbob said:
No, self-replication is nescessary but not sufficient for life. A virus is not usually considered to be alive, but viruses self-replicate and evolve.


I am using "reproduction" simply because that is more common in biology than self-replication, but when biologists talk about reproduction they are talking about self-reporduction i.e. self-replication
Click to expand...

Again you show that you don't get the analogy.

Information does not self-replicate. It USES other things to get itself replicated.
 
Belz... said:
Again you show that you don't get the analogy.

Information does not self-replicate. It USES other things to get itself replicated.
Click to expand...

Exactly. DNA uses cells to get itself replicated... even DNA in viruses. Some DNA uses gametes that have to unite with other gametes to even begin replicate. Sperm aren't even real cells... they need the mitochondria, DNA, and other stuff in the much larger egg cell to even begin getting the DNA inside themselves replicated.

Information needs to get itself copied... the information that does so--via whatever means is the only information that can become part of an evolving system. Information doesn't care if the replicators are "intelligent" or believe they are doing things for intelligent reasons--

When replicators have goals that aid in their replicating information, that is a bonus to the information getting replicated. Life forms and ecosystems and cities and languages and technology and market economies evolve whether the entities involved are engaging in "goal directed" behavior or not. When life forms do what they evolved to do... and languages do what they evolved to do and computers do what they evolved to do-- information is replicated... it evolves making more efficient replicators to assimilate, store, tweak, amend, and evolve more information more efficiently...
 
Last edited:
martillo said:
Or one could consider bottom-up rather than top-down.

In our macro world ants do nicely with distributed intelligence.
Click to expand...
Ants do NOT posses intelligence. They act on the instincts of survival pure and simple. In a way they also worship a deity, their queen, whom is protected at all cost. Thousands of ants act as one entity, for survival purposes only.
 
ambnp said:
Ants do NOT posses intelligence. They act on the instincts of survival pure and simple. In a way they also worship a deity, their queen, whom is protected at all cost. Thousands of ants act as one entity, for survival purposes only.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. At what point does "instinct" become "intelligence"? Does a pride of lions, for example, ambush its prey instinctively or intelligently?
 
ambnp said:
Ants do NOT posses intelligence. They act on the instincts of survival pure and simple. In a way they also worship a deity, their queen, whom is protected at all cost. Thousands of ants act as one entity, for survival purposes only.
Click to expand...

Consider a slight rewording:

"Neurons do NOT posses intelligence. They act on stimulus/response pure and simple. Billions of neurons act as one entity, for survival purposes only."

The "intelligence" of ants, if it can be called that, is an emergent property of the colony.
 
articulett said:
Exactly. DNA uses cells to get itself replicated... even DNA in viruses. Some DNA uses gametes that have to unite with other gametes to even begin replicate. Sperm aren't even real cells... they need the mitochondria, DNA, and other stuff in the much larger egg cell to even begin getting the DNA inside themselves replicated.

Information needs to get itself copied... the information that does so--via whatever means is the only information that can become part of an evolving system. Information doesn't care if the replicators are "intelligent" or believe they are doing things for intelligent reasons--

When replicators have goals that aid in their replicating information, that is a bonus to the information getting replicated. Life forms and ecosystems and cities and languages and technology and market economies evolve whether the entities involved are engaging in "goal directed" behavior or not. When life forms do what they evolved to do... and languages do what they evolved to do and computers do what they evolved to do-- information is replicated... it evolves making more efficient replicators to assimilate, store, tweak, amend, and evolve more information more efficiently...
Click to expand...
Would the elements then be using the stars to replicate their information?
 
aggle-rithm said:
"Neurons do NOT possess intelligence.
Click to expand...

in·tel·li·gence
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6. Government. a. information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b. the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c. an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8. Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9. (often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.
Click to expand...
A neuron has
1. capacity for learning,
3. the faculty of understanding (i.e. message recieved),
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information,
5. the gathering or distribution of information,
7. interchange of information.

Not too bad, although a single neuron is a highly complex entity in its' own right.

They act on stimulus/response pure and simple.
Click to expand...
And of course, for physicalists, either determinately, or randomly, with points 8. and/or 9. deemed to have 0.00% probability.

Billions of neurons act as one entity, for survival purposes only.

The "intelligence" of ants, if it can be called that, is an emergent property of the colony.
Click to expand...
That's one way to see reality.

Perhaps you can help out here; what is difference between "emergent property" and "goddidit"? ;)
 
aggle-rithm said:
The "intelligence" of ants, if it can be called that, is an emergent property of the colony.
Click to expand...

That's sorta the problem here in discussing the analogy: at least one supporter of the analogy sees emergent properties as having a different form of existence from non-emergent properties and therefore can be "abstracted away" when they are inconvenient to the analogy.
 
lightcreatedlife@hom said:
Would the elements then be using the stars to replicate their information?
Click to expand...

The elements are matter that comes from stars... matter uses physics to form things like galaxies, planets, solar systems, water, ice, minerals, mountain, and the elements that come together to form living things. The only information going into a non replicating system, can only serve to shape the "things"... but as you evolve directions for making more things (reshaping the elements into more organized forms) you start life... and once you have information that can get itself copied to make more information copiers you have evolution... and evolution is all about information that can get itself copied into the future to organize the matter that is exists (cannot be created or destroyed) into increasingly (anti entropy) organized life forms... that evolve brains that evolve languages that evolve tools that evolve technology that evolve fast, more, efficient data replication transfer copying storage recombing tweaking... etc.

A seed becomes a sapling becomes a tree, bears fruit that becomes more trees becomes a forest...

Elements don't "replicate their information". Elements are just atoms. Atoms combine in increasingly organized ways becoming such things as "iving things" and computers and airplanes based on the evolution of information. The atoms that make up these things have "always" been a part of our planet... but it takes information to accumulate (evolve) over time before they come together and form complex forms of like mammals and humans and brains and computers. Although the atoms that make up your computer have been on this planet for eons... why didn't your computer exist before now?...

Information needed to evolve over time...

I know it sounds like a counter intuitive way of looking at things because we are used to seeing how own goals and purposes as being the "be all".

But the foundation of the complexity on our planet is based on matter (the elements), energy (mostly from the sun), and other physical forces (gravity, magnetism)... These inputs shape the matter (glaciers, mountains, etc.)... and then the matter began containing directions for more matter just like a mirror contains a copy of what looks into it... this began the "template"--the replication of information on which all increasing "organized" forms of matter are based.

Information evolves to build increasingly organized (or complex) (or efficient) forms of matter... and also better information processors. It can't NOT do that. From the point of view of the "information", humans are just vehicles that replicate, recombine, and select information and send it into the future for further evolution (or not) as we evolved to do.
 
articulett said:
Information needed to evolve over time...

I know it sounds like a counter intuitive way of looking at things because we are used to seeing how own goals and purposes as being the "be all".

But the foundation of the complexity on our planet is based on matter (the elements), energy (mostly from the sun), and other physical forces (gravity, magnetism)... These inputs shape the matter (glaciers, mountains, etc.)... and then the matter began containing directions for more matter just like a mirror contains a copy of what looks into it... this began the "template"--the replication of information on which all increasing "organized" forms of matter are based.

Information evolves to build increasingly organized (or complex) (or efficient) forms of matter... and also better information processors. It can't NOT do that. From the point of view of the "information", humans are just vehicles that replicate, recombine, and select information and send it into the future for further evolution (or not) as we evolved to do.
Click to expand...

This is a religious attitude, a faith, without real world evidence. What information "needs" seems to be satisfied on earth only. What about the other planets of the solar system? They contradict your faith.

The argument is flawed because it's based on a probabilistic judgment over a statistical ensemble of magnitude one: the earth. To become credible somehow, we must compare the development of a huge number of earth-like planets, say 10.000. It might turn out, that only 2 have developed steady life. Apart from earth, there might be one more planet with life, on the level of bacteria slime. What then?

OK, looking at earth and its biological evolution I don't see a shred of evidence for a trend towards higher complexity. Biomass is mostly on bacteria level, still, isn't it? Complexity of certain organisms evolved randomly and might be destroyed easily. An atomic war, a colliding meteroid and life might be back to level zero. Actually, we are pretty lucky because one of the mass distinctions in the past might have very well erased any form of life "above" the protozoan level.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
lightcreatedlife@hom,

Am I correct in recalling that you do/did (?) think that the goal of evolution was intelligence?
Click to expand...
I think I did. No I think it is the natural result of the process. Intelligence/consciousness is just one of its latest developments towards ... towards creating more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.
 
Herzblut said:
This is a religious attitude, a faith, without real world evidence. What information "needs" seems to be satisfied on earth only. What about the other planets of the solar system? They contradict your faith.
Click to expand...

In the context of the Universe, and the circumstances and environment necessary for life to develop and evolve, expecting to look at other planets in the Solar System to validate theories about what happens here on Earth is like expecting to find a pet cat that's been missing for 10 years lying under the bed.

Herzblut said:
The argument is flawed because it's based on a probabilistic judgment over a statistical ensemble of magnitude one: the earth. To become credible somehow, we must compare the development of a huge number of earth-like planets, say 10.000. It might turn out, that only 2 have developed steady life. Apart from earth, there might be one more planet with life, on the level of bacteria slime. What then?
Click to expand...

And there might, and probably would, be significantly more, if we're only considering planets that are already "Earth-like". What then?

Herzblut said:
OK, looking at earth and its biological evolution I don't see a shred of evidence for a trend towards higher complexity.
Click to expand...

Do you see evidence of the reverse? The trend has to go one way or the other, but you're not denying that all species surely started off at the bacterial level, are you?

Herzblut said:
Biomass is mostly on bacteria level, still, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but given that's where all life started the trend can only go in one direction. "Trend" and "majority" don't need to equate.

Herzblut said:
Complexity of certain organisms evolved randomly and might be destroyed easily.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's correct to say that complexity evolved "randomly", as though there were alternatives avenues. Changes have occurred essentially randomly, but that's different from analysing the direction in which those changes have collectively travelled.

Herzblut said:
An atomic war, a colliding meteroid and life might be back to level zero.
Click to expand...

True. So?

Herzblut said:
Actually, we are pretty lucky because one of the mass distinctions in the past might have very well erased any form of life "above" the protozoan level.
Click to expand...

What's "lucky" about that? I would guess that, statistically, evolution followed by extinction is a contunually repeating cycle.
 
Southwind17 said:
In the context of the Universe, and the circumstances and environment necessary for life to develop and evolve, expecting to look at other planets in the Solar System to validate theories about what happens here on Earth is like expecting to find a pet cat that's been missing for 10 years lying under the bed.
Click to expand...
Oh, all these 'needs' and 'beliefs' of information and what it 'cares about' is restricted to terrestrial information! And I thought information on, say, Mars would have the same kind of feelings and needs! But no! Martian information is much more frugal, correct?

Southwind17 said:
And there might, and probably would, be significantly more, if we're only considering planets that are already "Earth-like". What then?
Click to expand...
My statement is

A's argument is flawed because it's based on a probabilistic judgment over a statistical ensemble of magnitude one: the earth. To become credible somehow, we must compare the development of a huge number of earth-like planets, say 10.000.

Just say "agree" to show you're on the same page.

Southwind17 said:
Do you see evidence of the reverse? The trend has to go one way or the other, but you're not denying that all species surely started off at the bacterial level, are you?
Click to expand...
Trend, what trend? There isn't any. There's diversification, such that also some complex species evolve. Not to the same degree, species being prokaryotes diversify, of course. Oh, btw, a huge part of this 'higher' diversification took place within a very small time. Climatic change? Meteoritic impact? Whatever.

Southwind17 said:
Changes have occurred essentially randomly, but that's different from analysing the direction in which those changes have collectively travelled.
Click to expand...
Your anthropocentric illusions are really cute.

Southwind17 said:
True. So?
Click to expand...
What about the needs of information after the blast? I feel so sad about poor, poor information. #snief#

Southwind17 said:
What's "lucky" about that? I would guess that, statistically, evolution followed by extinction is a contunually repeating cycle.
Click to expand...
Making up non-existent statistics again? Like that man jumping down from fifth floor, thinking "Hey! Reached fourth floor and nothing happened .. third floor and I'm still OK..." :D

EDIT: I knew this false analogy could only emerge and prosper in highly anthropocentric and anthropomorphistic minds. Oh dear.
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
This is interesting. At what point does "instinct" become "intelligence"? Does a pride of lions, for example, ambush its prey instinctively or intelligently?
Click to expand...
Instinctively. It's prey is their food for survival purposes for themselves and their cubs.
Instinct is often mistaken for intelligence. I consider intelligence as an ability to build or use tools. Primates have just enough intelligence to survive in their environment. Only man is capable of building a computer, a satellite to orbit his planet, ect, ect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom