Intelligent Evolution?

[articulett]

Yes, Mijo... if evolution can account for amazing things like birds, and spiders, and spider webs, and coral reefs... then the same process can account for all sorts of amazing and complex things-- they are all bottom up... they all emerge based on information honed in the environment over time. And most people who understand one use that one to understand the other.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, Mijo... if evolution can account for amazing things like birds, and spiders, and spider webs, and coral reefs... then the same process can account for all sorts of amazing and complex things-- they are all bottom up... they all emerge based on information honed in the environment over time. And most people who understand one use that one to understand the other.

But that doesn't mean that there are no top-down processes.

What are your opinions on the fact that technological development can incorporate information from the failure of previous iterations whereas biological evolution cannot? Or that technological development can Lamarckian whereas biological evolution is purely Darwinian and never Lamarckian?

 

[Apathia]

I think though that the problem is that, regardless of whether "intellect", "intelligence", or "intent" can be said to exist, biological evolution and technological evolution has such different phenomenologies from a information standpoint that any analogy between them would have to contain a long list of caveats for its applications.

I don't feel like hauling around any caveats at the moment. The ID Guy needs to get the unqualified low down on the process of evolution in the natural world. Get spider webs and birds nests first before leaf blowers. Then he'll be able to appreciate the wider embrace of the evolution of of all the varied systems of information.

For Articulett's students, she can present the big picture first, then haul out caveats as needed.

 

[fishkr]

The designer and intent isn't as important as the stuff that "sticks" around to be built upon. If you wanted to understand the evolution of airplanes for example, intelligence and intent aren't as important as the steps that produced products of the next generation.... the stuff that "worked"-- And the same is true for understanding the evolution of equine-- Both are about information being honed through time via environmental selection and replication of the "best".

This is a good point that may be opaque to many, but as a product designer the reality of "iteration' rather than "creation" is a constant reminder of how things work in the real world. It may be memetic rather than genetic, but as an old boss once said, (holding a scary timeline to my head), "You solve this (product related) problem in two weeks or 1200 people will be on welfare". The product evolved.

If I could have intended the second generation in the first place I would have. Even in my little corner of the world, it took trial and error (natural selection) to make the next thing happen.

 

[fishkr]

What makes you think that I am arguing that the Theory of Evolution can't account for life as it exists today?

development.

Say again, if you can't provide for any failure of ET to account for how things are, then end of discussion: ID = Big Bird

 

[mijopaalmc]

Say again, if you can't provide for any failure of ET to account for how things are, then end of discussion: ID = Big Bird

Where did I say (or imply) that the Theory of Evolution couldn't account for any extant evidence we have today?

What I object to is likening biological evolution to technological development, because the former is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists not to involve an intelligent agent whereas the latter is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists to involve an intelligent agent.

 

[fishkr]

Where did I say (or imply) that the Theory of Evolution couldn't account for any extant evidence we have today?

What I object to is likening biological evolution to technological development, because the former is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists not to involve an intelligent agent whereas the latter is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists to involve an intelligent agent.

So I can take this to mean, by your addmission, that biological evolution as we know it has no need of a designer?

Quit dancing around, a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So I can take this to mean, by your addmission, that biological evolution as we know it has no need of a designer?

Quit dancing around, a simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes, I believe that "biological evolution as we know it has no need of a designer", but the analogy in the OP does not explicitly preclude such a supposition of an intelligent designer.

 

[fishkr]

Yes, I believe that "biological evolution as we know it has no need of a designer", but the analogy in the OP does not explicitly preclude such a supposition of an intelligent designer.

Blah blah blah. Next subject.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Blah blah blah. Next subject.

It is telling that you don't consider the fact that the analogy in the OP doesn't achieve its stated goal significant.

 

[fishkr]

I'm not refuting your point based on the analogy of the OP, I'm denying the validity of your reasoning, period. If you can't show evidence of the the failure of ET to describe the nature of things as they are, then shut the **** about I.D. Simple as that. The IDea is superfluous.

 

[six7s]

It is telling that you don't consider the fact that the analogy in the OP doesn't achieve its stated goal significant.

It is telling that you don't understand what an analogy is, yet you don't hesitate to pretend that you are too clever to accept the repeated explanations of those who do

Blah blah blah. Next subject.

Hear hear!

 

[mijopaalmc]

It is telling that you don't understand what an analogy is, yet you don't hesitate to pretend that you are too clever to accept the repeated explanations of those who do.

You know, this claim is getting old. I understand what an analogy is; therefore, I also understand that one cannot pick any old property of two analogs and claim that the analogy formed is a good analogy. Specifically, while both technological development and biological evolution are examples of systems in which the information that gets copied the most persists, the process by which the information is conveyed to the next iteration of the system differs between them in such a way that it is not sensible to lump the two systems together as analogous.

 

[fishkr]

You know, this claim is getting old.

You're like a cheerleader for a non-existent football team. The Boise Troutlickers. Give me one example of how ET fails in describing how nature seems to be? Analogies are not relevant here, it's just the hard, un-metaphorical stuff of science and reality.

 

[six7s]

...the process by which the information is conveyed to the next iteration of the system differs between them in such a way that it is not sensible to lump the two systems together as analogous.

Let A equal the number of times have you made this (irrelevant) point

Let B equal the number of times that you have had it clearly, concisely yet comprehensively explained that you are talking bollocks

Note:

A > lots
B ≥ A​

 

[amb]

Evolution is a process, and it had to produce intelligent life. As for something new, it is going to take time, these books are hard with very few pictures. I have "Dreams of a Final Theory" "The Spirit Molecule" and "Longing For The Harmonies." The Authors of the last book seem to think that in the beginning there was just "electric charges and energy," though I figure I am going to have to read them twice to get half their meaning.

Why do you feel evolution ''has to produce intelligence''?. Nothing could be futher from the truth. If homo sapiens were to suddenly disapear form the face of the Earth, which other creature next in line has any intelligence? By that I mean Self Concious Intelligence.
Do we know if dolphins are self concious? Or perhaps whales? The point is. Self concious intelligence may be very, very rare in the universe.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Let A equal the number of times have you made this (irrelevant) point

Let B equal the number of times that you have had it clearly, concisely yet comprehensively explained that you are talking bollocks

Note:

A > lots
B ≥ A​

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?

 

[mijopaalmc]

You're like a cheerleader for a non-existent football team. The Boise Troutlickers. Give me one example of how ET fails in describing how nature seems to be? Analogies are not relevant here, it's just the hard, un-metaphorical stuff of science and reality.

Give me one example of where I actually claimed that "ET fails in describing how nature seems to be". Seriously, for a person that aligns him/herself with people who self-identify as skeptics, you seem to like straw men a lot.

 

[Apathia]

Just a note of reminder here. We are discussing an an analogy and to what extent it's useful in garnering understanding. We all know that anaolgies have this power, but also that they can be thin ice to stand on.

Mijo finds Southwind's anaolgy misleading and useless. He does so because he looks at it through the eyes of ID advocates and responds with what they would say in counter. He's not an IDer himself, he's just measuring the anaolgy against the mind set of IDers and finds it would be unconvincing to them. I think he has shown how problematic it is in that context. Trying to tell an ID advocate that there are no intelligent agents involved in human tool making and technology falls flat.

On the other hand, those of us, and anyone else who understands the "Blind Watchmaker" process of natural selection find Southwind's anaolgy and various forms of it an overarching way to illustrate the evolution of information in diverse systems. Some details that contrast how information is processed in human activity exist, but the target is evolution via Selection.
Furthermore driving the anaolgy calls our attention to the process of selection that underlies even those elements unique to human information processing and cognition. (my "Headless Watchmaker")

The OP's desire to have an overarching vista of evolution is not unique.
Evolution is now an interdisciplinary concept with not just Evolutionary Biology, but Evolutionary Social Science, Evolutionary Economics, and Evolutionary Psychology. Soutwind's anology is by no means a dead end.

With any anaolgy, you consider what will work with your target audience.
With most anyone in this thread, I could mix metaphors in an Adam Smith sort of way and talk about the "Invisible Hand" in Evolutionary Biology.
If I used that phrase most anywhere else, there would be individuals who would thing I meant "God" by saying "Invisible Hand."
But if there was an economist in the room, he'd get the irony. and he might even say, "Looking at it that way, Darwin makes more sense to me now."

So folks, please chill a little. It's just an analogy.

 

[articulett]

Why do you feel evolution ''has to produce intelligence''?. Nothing could be futher from the truth. If homo sapiens were to suddenly disapear form the face of the Earth, which other creature next in line has any intelligence? By that I mean Self Concious Intelligence.
Do we know if dolphins are self concious? Or perhaps whales? The point is. Self concious intelligence may be very, very rare in the universe.

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.