• 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?

As long as biological entities reproduce imperfectly in environments with selection pressures, they DO have to 'stick' to evolution.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the abstract process:

Design Encoding -> Realisation
Realisation -> Environmental Test
Test Survival -> Propagation
Progagation -> Design Encoding Modification

I'm just flummoxed at your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the difference between the process of a human designing and modifying an object and evolution.
Click to expand...

Then you have not undestood what I have been saying: YOU are saying the differences represent a fundamental PROCESS difference, I am saying they represent a process CONFIGURATION difference.

Now the different thing you might identify in the human design process is the use of a priori models to reason about the effect of a design change before that change is realised. It is, however, still sub-ordinate to the consequences of that design in the wider world and that's because we use models that abstract away many of the details in order to reason about a change of fewer variables. Nature doesn't abstract - it doesn't care about abstractions - as such if some variable you didn't consider was actually consequential then your design will not behave as expected. This happens all the time in engineering.

When it does either we accept the fundamental limits of our abstraction or we try to formulate a new abstraction to better deal with that particular variable configuration and change so we can reason about the consequences in a computationally efficient manner.

This is why I said earlier that an evolutionary algorithm represents a highly general problem solver: its power come from its ability to 'consider' all variables in whatever 'world' it is placed in. It's weakness is the time penalty and the lack of guaruntees of optimal solutions. Deterministic problem solvers can produce certain guaruntees and if they're P class they're fast. Which is good - but it's not always possible and generally the difficulty of finding such algorithms increases with the complexity of the problem domain.

Now it's because of the way our intelligence works that we seek to solve problems in the later way and, futhermore, we tend to evaluate solutions by working backwards to try and synthesise simlpe and modular explanations. So, as has previously been explified, a human engineer probably wouldn't design the mammalian eye as it is - but he might do it like the squid eye. The problem if you want to assert that human design processes achieve things evolution cannot is that you will occasionally see things that, to a human, appear to be evidence of 'intelligent' design because they are congruent with how a human would design them.

The way you guys are going about it you cannot explain these things evolutionarilly so you are leaving the door wide open for ID guys to find examples of such things and then bark out, "SEE!? This must have been designed by an intelligence!"
 
cyborg said:
The way you guys are going about it you cannot explain these things evolutionarilly so you are leaving the door wide open for ID guys to find examples of such things and then bark out, "SEE!? This must have been designed by an intelligence!"
Click to expand...

There is nothing we are failing to explain, except what the Theory of Evolution makes no attempt to explain; the Theory of Evolution is an explanation for the origin of species. As machines have intelligent designers, the only role Evolution plays in explaining a machine is in explaining its designer.

Please stop trying to use a Theory that was constructed to explain the peculiarities of living things, using the unique constraints and qualities of living things, to explain machines, with which they have nothing in common.
 
You sure do talk about Evolution but it would appear to you that there is no more understanding of it than that the IDer has about their God.

You keep defending the words though as if they were important.
 
Evolution has no end product, evolution is simply change, no more and no less, and if that change helps or not, it might be passed on or lost.

Now is there really a need to used thousands of words that will say no more about it.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
cyborg said:
You sure do talk about Evolution but it would appear to you that there is no more understanding of it than that the IDer has about their God.

You keep defending the words though as if they were important.
Click to expand...

That is because you are using them incorrectly. The words have a specific meaning in the subject of Evolution, and you are making the mistake of using the common meaning. That's equivocation, and it's a logical fallacy. You cannot build a sound argument on a logically fallacy, and you certainly should never teach a logical fallacy.
 
That is because you are using them incorrectly.
Click to expand...

No.

The words have a specific meaning in the subject of Evolution, and you are making the mistake of using the common meaning.
Click to expand...

No. You are making the mistake. I am not using a common meaning. I am using a specific meaning that I have outlined. Your refusal to accept this doesn't entail my equivocation - only your insistance of it.

You cannot build a sound argument on a logically fallacy, and you certainly should never teach a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

The only fallacy here is the one you engage in by continually focusing on the words and ignoring the clearly outlined processes I associate with them. By boiling it down to "you say evolution and design are the same because of the words you use!" you show your underlying inability or refusal to consider what is being outlined here. And all because you are upset with the words used. You choose to read any word you like: it isn't important. You are not responding to the algorithmic arguments.
 
cyborg said:
No. You are making the mistake. I am not using a common meaning. I am using a specific meaning that I have outlined. Your refusal to accept this doesn't entail my equivocation - only your insistance of it.
Click to expand...

If so, that's even worse. You're deliberately using them entirely wrong, and you are openly admitting that you are not using them with the meaning they have in the Theory of Evolution.

You have admitted that you are equivocating.
 
You're deliberately using them entirely wrong,
Click to expand...

ID - the terminology Nazi. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that I have used both a specific AND already understood meaning but I already went over this several pages ago.

I get that you don't like it. I also get that you don't like it because of ID. What I don't get is why you let these people emotionally manipulate you so in a discussion where no-one is entertaining the existence of deities.

and you are openly admitting that you are not using them with the meaning they have in the Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...

ID you really are not paying attention to ANYTHING I am saying are you?

You have admitted that you are equivocating.
Click to expand...

And now you are contradicting yourself.

I can see you have no other way to respond to what I have outlined other than to pick at terminology and irrelevent fallacies. I do not know what you hope to achieve by this.
 
cyborg said:
ID - the terminology Nazi. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that I have used both a specific AND already understood meaning but I already went over this several pages ago.

I get that you don't like it. I also get that you don't like it because of ID. What I don't get is why you let these people emotionally manipulate you so in a discussion where no-one is entertaining the existence of deities.



ID you really are not paying attention to ANYTHING I am saying are you?



And now you are contradicting yourself.

I can see you have no other way to respond to what I have outlined other than to pick at terminology and irrelevent fallacies. I do not know what you hope to achieve by this.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the mechanisms of the Theory of Evolution, the terminology used to describe it, the peculiar qualities of living things or the constraints under which they opperate.

You are redefining terms left and right to mean what you want them to mean, utterly unaware of how far you've drifted from any similiarity to Evolution, and are objecting when I and other posters correct your misuse.

What I hope to achieve is to show that you are not talking about anything which might be confused with a correct understanding of Evolution.
 
I don't think you understand the mechanisms of the Theory of Evolution, the terminology used to describe it, the peculiar qualities of living things or the constraints under which they opperate.
Click to expand...

I understand all these things perfectly well. I have even demonstrated certain areas you have been ignorant of with regards to assertions you made about certain features you said would not be expressed in biological systems. You also have an expert in the domain who disagrees with you - namely articullett.

You are redefining terms left and right to mean what you want them to mean, utterly unaware of how far you've drifted from any similiarity to Evolution, and are objecting when I and other posters correct your misuse.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly aware of what I am doing: I am considering a higher level of abstraction to widen the domain of discourse to consider all configurations of physical manifestations with regards to their functionality and origination and propagation thereof.

What I hope to achieve is to show that you are not talking about anything which might be confused with a correct understanding of Evolution.
Click to expand...

Then you still don't understand what is being discussed here. I am running out of ways to try and explain.
 
cyborg said:
I understand all these things perfectly well. I have even demonstrated certain areas you have been ignorant of with regards to assertions you made about certain features you said would not be expressed in biological systems. You also have an expert in the domain who disagrees with you - namely articullett.



I'm perfectly aware of what I am doing: I am considering a higher level of abstraction to widen the domain of discourse to consider all configurations of physical manifestations with regards to their functionality and origination and propagation thereof.



Then you still don't understand what is being discussed here. I am running out of ways to try and explain.
Click to expand...


What you are discussing is a vain attempt to abstract the principles and mechanisms of Evolution into systems which are neither bound by the contraints of living things, nor able to autonuously reproduce, making the abstraction unwarranted.
 
What you are discussing is a vain attempt to abstract the principles and mechanisms of Evolution into systems which are neither bound by the contraints of living things, nor able to autonuously reproduce, making the abstraction unwarranted.
Click to expand...

I give up. You do not understand.
 
cyborg said:
Yes. You simply disagree. That is the problem.
Click to expand...

Could you then explain on what ground you are attempting to abstract the Throery of Evolution to systems that do not reproduce, do not have heritable traits, do not mutate, and arose without any intelligent actors being involved to the development of machines?
 
I have done so numerous times ID. Unfortunately since you do not understand that when you formulate a higher level abstraction you do so by removing a bifurcated distinction there is no way for me to communicate these concepts to you.
 
cyborg said:
I have done so numerous times ID. Unfortunately since you do not understand that when you formulate a higher level abstraction you do so by removing a bifurcated distinction there is no way for me to communicate these concepts to you.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is not the case. You may have attempted to, but since the Thoery of Evolution seeks to explain living things using the pueciliar constraints and abnilities of living things, your attempt to abstract it to explain something which it does not is a failure.
 
Yes ID, I went over this before. Biological evolution is Evolution with a capital 'e'. The concept has been more widely applied. In fact, it existed before the biological theory was developed.

So I say again: you DO NOT understand.
 
cyborg said:
Yes ID, I went over this before. Biological evolution is Evolution with a capital 'e'. The concept has been more widely applied. In fact, it existed before the biological theory was developed.

So I say again: you DO NOT understand.
Click to expand...

The premise of the OP was to convince a theoretical future person of the validity of evolution through mechanical development, a non-starter. You've been elaborating on incorrect usages of "evolution," generalizing terms into uselessness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom