Intelligent Evolution?

[Southwind17]

This is a guy who thinks that poker is as random as roulette and it makes sense to call them both random games as though strategy in in the former didn't distinguish it.

Now that is a debate I'd like to have with mijo. Bring it on!

 

[Southwind17]

Pretty much, it is an accepted part of engineering now.

First one defines the fitness criteria, then one makes (pseudo)random changes to the design parameters, and sees which results have the best fitness. Then one applies a selection algorithm based on the fitness criteria (this often has a (pseudo)random weighting) and repeat the process, using the selected parts as the parent population for the next generation.

Often the design parameters are arranged in arranged in "genes" in such a way that the mutation can happen in any of the bits that make up this number.

There are also analogues of sexual reproduction used, with two sets of parameters with 50% from one "parent design" and 50% from another. Unsurprisingly, which sets of design parameters consist of the 50% is also set (pseudo)randomly.

In the sexual-reproduction analogue, there is the additional step of "crossbreeding" the selected iterations.

This is very much like evolution, except that the selection criteria have been defined by an intelligent agency. Because of this, although the engineer doesn't know what form the design wil finally take, the same designer does know what it will do because the designer implimented the specification in the defintion of the fitness criteria.

This process is thus very similar to that posited by some ID proponents who say that God worked through evolution so that self-aware worshipers would arise. "God wrote the spec".

This is the fundamental difference from evolution where there is no specification. That which reproduces, reproduces, and the dumb universe performs the selection.

This lack of specification is what separates Evolutionary biology from many IDers.

Thanks for the information jimbob, which leads me to believe that my analogy does not rely on the invocation (non-religious meaning) of an evolutionary algorithm. I see design with intent and/or forethought simply as circumventing the alternative option in the primary interests of time and cost savings, that alternative, default option being the making of entirely random design changes with no specification and then trialing them 'in the field' (or 'dumb universe', if you like) to see what survives and what doesn't.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Now that is a debate I'd like to have with mijo. Bring it on!

Here's the gist of the debate: there are no degrees of randomness; something is either random in the there is a set of outcomes described by a probability distribution or not random in the sense that there is only one outcome in existence. Thus, it doesn't make any sense to say that poker is "more random" than roulette. They are both based of probability distributions and are therefore both random, but are given their unique flavor by the nature of their respective distributions.

I suggest that perhaps we continue this discussion on a separate thread though.

 

[Southwind17]

Here's the gist of the debate: there are no degrees of randomness; something is either random in the there is a set of outcomes described by a probability distribution or not random in the sense that there is only one outcome in existence. Thus, it doesn't make any sense to say that poker is "more random" than roulette. They are both based of probability distributions and are therefore both random, but are given their unique flavor by the nature of their respective distributions.

I suggest that perhaps we continue this discussion on a separate thread though.

Good idea. Go ahead and start a thread, and let us know.

Meantime, suffice to say that I agree that there are no degrees of randomness, but because something is not random doesn't necessarily mean there's only on possible outcome. Take a horse race, for example.

You do seem to contradict yourself though, in saying that both roulette and poker are random. The outcome of the spin of a roulette wheel clearly is; the 'strength' of a complete 5-card poker hand (I'm talking Texas Holdem) clearly isn't. I'm not sure this is what you're getting at though.

Perhaps if you start the new thread and set out your claim then we can see whether there's really something worthy of debate here.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You do seem to contradict yourself though, in saying that both roulette and poker are random. The outcome of the spin of a roulette wheel clearly is; the 'strength' of a complete 5-card poker hand (I'm talking Texas Holdem) clearly isn't.

Yes, it most certainly is. You are dealt a random hand. Even if you card count and know the probability that you will be dealt a certain card, it's still random.

That said, in statistics "random" has other, narrower meanings. Let's not start abusing that word, too.

 

[cyborg]

Yes, it most certainly is. You are dealt a random hand. Even if you card count and know the probability that you will be dealt a certain card, it's still random.

Not this crap again.

The randomness of the cards IS IRRELEVANT - I could carefully, purposefully and orderly select each and every card for every person and the game would progress in the same way.

The important factor here is the IGNORANCE the players have about the state of the game.

You guys seem to think randomness affords magical possibilities - it doesn't.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Not this crap again.

Again? Have we discussed this previously in this thread?

The randomness of the cards IS IRRELEVANT - I could carefully, purposefully and orderly select each and every card for every person and the game would progress in the same way.

The important factor here is the IGNORANCE the players have about the state of the game.

You guys seem to think randomness affords magical possibilities - it doesn't.

You're just putting words in my mouth, now. What a terrible shame, since you seem unable to put words in your own.

The cards are randomly sorted before distribution. When you request a card, you are randomly dealt a card from those remaining. It would make no difference to the game if the deck of remaining cards was only shuffled before the initial hands are dealt, or if they are shuffled between dealing each card.

I would very much like to hear what "magical possibilities" I have claimed randomness grants.

Here is a form.

ImaginalDisc believes randomness affords ___________________________, ___________________________, & _________________________ and these are "magical possibilities." (continue on back of page if needed.)

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, it most certainly is. You are dealt a random hand. Even if you card count and know the probability that you will be dealt a certain card, it's still random.

That said, in statistics "random" has other, narrower meanings. Let's not start abusing that word, too.

I might have confused you ID - sorry. I was alluding to the fact that a poker player has two opportunities to fold before receiving five cards. Therefore, if you were to compare the five cards that a particular (sensible) poker player holds with any five cards dealt at random from a full pack of cards over a representative sample of poker hands, then the average 'poker hand' will be 'stronger' than the average randomly dealt hand. And that's the key difference between poker and roulette. The player has absolutely no control of the outcome in roulette, but in poker he does. He can influence the strength of his average five-card hand compared to randomly dealt cards because of the opportunities to fold.

Start a new thread ID. Let's have the debate, unless this clarification ends the 'debate'.

 

[cyborg]

I would very much like to hear what "magical possibilities" I have claimed randomness grants.

I don't know - but since you kept on talking about the randomness of the shuffle as if that mattered to how the game is played I've got to assume you think it does something special.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't know - but since you kept on talking about the randomness of the shuffle as if that mattered to how the game is played I've got to assume you think it does something special.

So, the answer is "nothing." You were running off at the mouth accusing me of something you cannot substantiate.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I might have confused you ID - sorry. I was alluding to the fact that a poker player has two opportunities to fold before receiving five cards. Therefore, if you were to compare the five cards that a particular (sensible) poker player holds with any five cards dealt at random from a full pack of cards over a representative sample of poker hands, then the average 'poker hand' will be 'stronger' than the average randomly dealt hand. And that's the key difference between poker and roulette. The player has absolutely no control of the outcome in roulette, but in poker he does. He can influence the strength of his average five-card hand compared to randomly dealt cards because of the opportunities to fold.

Start a new thread ID. Let's have the debate, unless this clarification ends the 'debate'.

Oh, then they're not "random" in the statistical sense, since the samples of hands at the end of the game will be significantly different, on average, from the population of randomly dealt hands at the begining, true.

 

[cyborg]

So, the answer is "nothing."

No. (Oh and: "You guys seem to think randomness affords magical possibilities..." Since it seems to require clarification that I am repeatidly having WTF moments with you guys.)

You were running off at the mouth accusing me of something you cannot substantiate.

No. I was asking you a question which you still haven't answered.

Much like all the previous questions so nothing new there I suppose.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No. (Oh and: "You guys seem to think randomness affords magical possibilities..." Since it seems to require clarification that I am repeatidly having WTF moments with you guys.)



No. I was asking you a question which you still haven't answered.

Much like all the previous questions so nothing new there I suppose.

Please find the question you claim you have asked.

Not this crap again.

The randomness of the cards IS IRRELEVANT - I could carefully, purposefully and orderly select each and every card for every person and the game would progress in the same way.

The important factor here is the IGNORANCE the players have about the state of the game.

You guys seem to think randomness affords magical possibilities - it doesn't.

 

[cyborg]

Please find the question you claim you have asked.

It was a question that was being begged ID - not one being followed by a question mark.

Since you need it spelt out:

Statement 1:

"The cards are randomly sorted before distribution. When you request a card, you are randomly dealt a card from those remaining. It would make no difference to the game if the deck of remaining cards was only shuffled before the initial hands are dealt, or if they are shuffled between dealing each card."

Statement 2:

"The cards are sorted before distribution. When you request a card, you are dealt a card from those remaining. It would make no difference to the game if the deck of remaining cards was only shuffled before the initial hands are dealt, or if they are shuffled between dealing each card."

Describe the different consequences entailed by these two statements - i.e. explain what difference the 'randomness' entails.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It was a question that was being begged ID - not one being followed by a question mark.

Since you need it spelt out:

Statement 1:

"The cards are randomly sorted before distribution. When you request a card, you are randomly dealt a card from those remaining. It would make no difference to the game if the deck of remaining cards was only shuffled before the initial hands are dealt, or if they are shuffled between dealing each card."

Statement 2:

"The cards are sorted before distribution. When you request a card, you are dealt a card from those remaining. It would make no difference to the game if the deck of remaining cards was only shuffled before the initial hands are dealt, or if they are shuffled between dealing each card."

Describe the different consequences entailed by these two statements - i.e. explain what difference the 'randomness' entails.

The sorting. Who, or what is sorting them in scneario 2? Unless pains are taken to randomize them, patterns will emerge over long periods. It is on repeating patterns in ostensible games of chance that fortunes have been made by clever people able to deduce the pattern.

 

[cyborg]

Unless pains are taken to randomize them, patterns will emerge over long periods.

Yes. They will.

But it's not the randomness that is important.

It is on repeating patterns in ostensible games of chance that fortunes have been made by clever people able to deduce the pattern.

And what would this be? Ah yes, it would be a reduction in the ignorance about the state of the game.

Is a game of Poker still random if you know the card configuration?

Who was it who said something silly about 'random is random' mijo?

You can't formulate effective strategies for games for which you cannot gain knowledge about the state of play. Epistemology is the order of the day here. You guys have been missing this since the beginning of the thread by worrying about randomness.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes. They will.

But it's not the randomness that is important.



And what would this be? Ah yes, it would be a reduction in the ignorance about the state of the game.

Is a game of Poker still random if you know the card configuration?

Who was it who said something silly about 'random is random' mijo?

You can't formulate effective strategies for games for which you cannot gain knowledge about the state of play. Epistemology is the order of the day here. You guys have been missing this since the beginning of the thread by worrying about randomness.

Firstly, I objected to the comparison between the development of machines and the Evolution of living things and many grounds, none of which were "randomess." Secondly, even if your point were well made (a large assumption) how does it show that the analogy between the origins of machines and living things is valid?

 

[cyborg]

Firstly, I objected to the comparison between the development of machines and the Evolution of living things and many grounds, none of which were "randomess."

So you wouldn't object to calling human design random?

Secondly, even if your point were well made (a large assumption) how does it show that the analogy between the origins of machines and living things is valid?

ORIGINS?

I will waste no more text on someone who does not read a damn thing I say.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So you wouldn't object to calling human design random?

Fallacy of no middle ground. Mutation is random, but Natural Selection is demonstrably non-random. Being non-random, however, does not mean it necassarily leads to higher degrees of complexity, efficiency, or functionality. Your question betrays a complete lack of understanding of Evolution.

ORIGINS?

Yes. The OP is concerning teaching a person about Evolution by analogy. That's the topic. Is this news to you? Now, the matter of origins is also important, because living things and machines have dramatically different qqualitied which they to their differing origins.

I will waste no more text on someone who does not read a damn thing I say.

I read your posts, there's just little in them.

 

[cyborg]

Words posted by someone who does not read.

I will waste no more text on someone who does not read a damn thing I say.