Intelligent Evolution?

[Southwind17]

Except that is manifestly not true; the actual process of technological development, which is fundamentally effected by the involvement of an external intelligent agent, is what distinguishes it from biological evolution. Thus, intelligent design is not a good alternative to biological evolution because because it posits an extra component (i.e., and Intelligent Designer) evidence of which has never been found.

mijopaalmc - you don't seriously believe that the differences or otherwise between biological evolution and technological development can be debated here for over 1,800 posts then you just post a sweeping statement no different from what you've been positing right from the start and expect that it has any real value, and that people will sit up and take notice, do you?!

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind,

Simply put, to show "intelligence and/or design (one and the same?!) are not necessarily accountable for seemingly irreducible complexity that we see in human endeavours". You would not only need to show that akin to your robot works, but that it exists. Just as in order to show that evolution was not accoutable for what we see in nature, one would not only have to come up with a theoretical process with similar predictions, one would also have to find the physical reason for that process.

Intelligence/design are accoutable for complexity in human technology, because we see it operating.

I don't think you've really kept up with the debate Walt. We all know that 'intelligence/design' are 'accountable'. The question as to what, exactly, intelligence/design actually means, though, is crucial to our understanding whether there's really a difference between the two processes to the extent that the analogy is invalid.

 

[cyborg]

Yes, it is all very well saying, "Y was caused by A, X was caused by B, A is not B, therefore the causes of Y and X are different," but it lacks any meaning without analysis of the nature of the causal relationships.

We are all fairly clear on what evolution is - until one is clear on what intelligence is it is unenlightening to attribute it as a cause.

And the argument I am putting forth fundamentally links evolution and intelligence in terms of how the producers and consumers of information - in physical representation - must interact with each other in order for certain consequences to arise.

 

[Apathia]

Allow me to polish my sweeping statement.

The fundamental error of Intelligent Design is most easily debunked when we see evolution in the light of human technological developments, where we can demonstrate that these product changes came about without any teleological direction.

(No actual intent or direction was used in the writing the above paragraph.
This poster denies any mischief in the contribution of these posts to this thread. )

 

[jimbob]

Any chance of progressing this branch of the debate jimbob (Post #1745)?:

Originally Posted by Southwind17
OK, I'm prepared to accept the notion of an organism beginning the process of [self-]replication at inception. I'm not entirely sure, and whether it matters, what you mean exactly by 'inception', but I'll assume it to signify the time at which the organism begins to form. Please feel free to correct me if that's wrong, and it matters. I'm also prepared to accept the notion of the default scenario being that unless the organism is 'culled' as it 'runs along the path', i.e. de-selected, it will inevitably reproduce. Let's contrast that now with the AA:

So, each electronic device begins the process of [self-]replication at inception, i.e. the automaton starts to assemble each electronic device following the instructions for the previous one it assembled. Once assembled (complete with random 'mutations'), the electronic device is despatched (born, let's say) to the marketplace (environment), where it 'runs along the path' following its inherent behaviours (sits in the showroom, or on a shelf somewhere, with its features and characteristics prominently displayed for all to see). Let's assume that it will inevitably sell, meaning that proceeds are received, which are read as a signal that the device has outperformed the competition (survived), such that additional components are purchased, and the automaton is instructed to repeat the process, unless, of course, it is 'culled', i.e. it doesn't sell, denoting that the competition has outperformed it, just like you've assumed the organism will enivitably reproduce unless it is 'culled' by the competition.

There is, as we can plainly see, absolutely no difference between the two! The 'arbitrarily' defined trigger in the AA patently is NOT the proceeds of sale, as you erroneously believe. Inception, as in your biological description, can equally denote the starting point of the [self-]replication process.

We can also plainly see that you are clearly wrong in asserting that the AA 'can only work with an actual trigger to instigate the copying process'. The copying process can be considered an inevitability, unless 'interrupted' by 'culling', just like in your biological example. Again, absolutely no difference!

If it's the lines of communication that are confusing you jimbob, let's introduce a few wires and cables, plus a bit of hardware, that automate the process whereby the selling of the device is automatically registered back at the production plant and sets the automaton in motion. Hell, it could even operate like the mini-bars in up-market hotels which register removal of a product by a pressure sensor and send a signal to the computer system which automatically bills you (and, no doubt, instructs Housekeeping to [self-]replicate the product, sorry, replace the product by placing another in the fridge!).
__________________

Isn't the actual reproductive "strategy" and process something that evolves?

In your analogy how is the number oc fopies determined?

If you sell one, do you make one replacement, or do you make many?

How do you cull off the "failed" designs. Or do you just leave them wasting showroom resource?

Maybe they aren't failed, just "slow breeders", maybe they might sell less frequently, but at a higher price?

There is room in your syystem for a self-replicating version to arise: Suppose a variant subverted the pressure sensor to say that it had been sold, when it hadn't.

Then that would be self-replication...

 

[President Bush]

Yes, it is all very well saying, "Y was caused by A, X was caused by B, A is not B, therefore the causes of Y and X are different," but it lacks any meaning without analysis of the nature of the causal relationships.

We are all fairly clear on what evolution is - until one is clear on what intelligence is it is unenlightening to attribute it as a cause.

Is the consequence of evolution its cause?

Is the consequence of design its cause?

 

[Southwind17]

Isn't the actual reproductive "strategy" and process something that evolves?

Do you think so? In what sense do you see the 'strategy' and process having 'evolved'? Do you consider this relevant to the validity of the analogy? If so, how?

In your analogy how is the number oc fopies determined?

Do you think that matters? So long as at least one copy emerges evolution will occur.

If you sell one, do you make one replacement, or do you make many?

Do you think that matters? The number of copies simply determines the rate of evolution, not whether evolution occurs per se.

How do you cull off the "failed" designs. Or do you just leave them wasting showroom resource?

They're culled off by virtue of the fact they haven't sold. It doesn't matter how long you give them to sell. Once you've decided they've been 'culled off' you disregard them. It's the ones that survive that matter. Evolution doesn't arise through failures, you should know that by now! Where the 'culled' ones remain or end up is completely irrelevant.

Maybe they aren't failed, just "slow breeders", maybe they might sell less frequently, but at a higher price?

Doesn't matter. How fast they sell simply determines the rate of evolution; not whether evolution happens per se.

There is room in your syystem for a self-replicating version to arise: Suppose a variant subverted the pressure sensor to say that it had been sold, when it hadn't.

You are joking?!

This line of questioning by you indicates to me either that you've turned into a troll, or that you not only misunderstand but have absolutely no perception of the purpose of the analogy. These question, and the answers thereto, are all completely ancilliary to the main issue, and have absolutely no relevance to it.

 

[cyborg]

Is the consequence of evolution its cause?

Is the consequence of design its cause?

Does not parse.

 

[mijopaalmc]

mijopaalmc - you don't seriously believe that the differences or otherwise between biological evolution and technological development can be debated here for over 1,800 posts then you just post a sweeping statement no different from what you've been positing right from the start and expect that it has any real value, and that people will sit up and take notice, do you?!

It's not that I'm not up with the debate (because I am); it's that I haven't found a single argument about why we should completely disregard the involvement of an intelligent agent or the existence of intelligence itself put forward thus far convincing. Basically, the possession of intelligence (which is a completely natural and evolved trait) changes the way the agent can effect the causality of the system, because the agent can recognize mistakes and and try to prevent them in the future.

 

[President Bush]

Is the consequence of evolution its cause?

Is the consequence of design its cause?

Does not parse.

Is the consequence of evolution its cause? HINT- did wings evolve for flight?

Is the consequence of design its cause? HINT- did McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace engineers design the Harrier Jump Jet to be capable of vertical takeoffs and landings?

 

[cyborg]

Is the consequence of evolution its cause? HINT- did wings evolve for flight?

Failure.

Is the consequence of design its cause? HINT- did McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace engineers design the Harrier Jump Jet to be capable of vertical takeoffs and landings?

Failure.

The argument template:

"Y was caused by A, X was caused by B, A is not B, therefore the causes of Y and X are different"

The argument:

"Wings were caused by evolution, VTOL was caused by intelligence, evolution is not intelligence, therefore the causes of wings and VTOL are different."

The consequences of "evolution" and "intelligence" are the products they can entail.

The cause, "evolution" or "intelligence", is the explanation for the product existing.

When the consequences of the set "evolution" and "intelligence" fully overlap one cannot label the cause as "evolution" or "intelligence" based on the product alone - which is so far the only argument that has been presented - at all - to differentiate that which is "intelligently" designed from that which is "evolutionarily" designed.

But hell, it's not like you've absorbed anything else during this thread, why start now?

A is not B - keep chanting your mantra.

 

[President Bush]

The argument template:

"Y was caused by A, X was caused by B, A is not B, therefore the causes of Y and X are different"

The argument:

"Wings were caused by evolution, VTOL was caused by intelligence, evolution is not intelligence, therefore the causes of wings and VTOL are different."

The consequences of "evolution" and "intelligence" are the products they can entail.

The cause, "evolution" or "intelligence", is the explanation for the product existing.

When the consequences of the set "evolution" and "intelligence" fully overlap one cannot label the cause as "evolution" or "intelligence" based on the product alone - which is so far the only argument that has been presented - at all - to differentiate that which is "intelligently" designed from that which is "evolutionarily" designed.

What do you intend to signify by the words fully overlap?

 

[cyborg]

Namely that the products that either mechanism can produce - in the same context (before you most assuredly say something unenlightening such as "biology isn't technology") -are identical.

i.e. if a wing is producible by intelligence and not evolution then the wing is an example of a product that can be identified unambiguously as being the product of intelligence. In biology an IDer would argue this demonstrates evolution cannot be responsible.

 

[President Bush]

i.e. if a wing is producible by intelligence and not evolution then the wing is an example of a product that can be identified unambiguously as being the product of intelligence.

Show me a fixed-wing aircraft that can lift off vertically not produced by intelligence..

 

[cyborg]

Ugh. What is the point?

 

[President Bush]

i.e. if a wing is producible by intelligence and not evolution then the wing is an example of a product that can be identified unambiguously as being the product of intelligence.

Please allow me to paraphrase:

i.e. if a fixed-wing aircraft that can lift off vertically is producible by intelligence and not evolution then the fixed-wing aircraft that can lift off vertically is an example of a product that can be identified unambiguously as being the product of intelligence.

 

[cyborg]

I must be an idiot for attempting to explain your folly again.

Show me a fixed-wing aircraft that can lift off vertically not produced by intelligence..

Show me a wing not produced by intelligence.

Birds you say? Evolution? Random change? Natural selection? Nonsense - the wing is irreducibly complex! An intelligence did it.

The VTOL needed human engineers - it weren't produced by no stinkin' randomness! You expect me to believe bird wings can be produced by it?

Look at the VTOL - the parts, the design! It's so complex! So intricate! Look at all the engineers needed! The time! The money!

You must think I'm an idiot to believe that RANDOMNESS and NATURAL SELECTION could possibly produce something so complex as a wing! You've proven it!

Congrats!

 

[President Bush]

i.e. if a fixed-wing aircraft that can lift off vertically is producible by intelligence and not evolution then the fixed-wing aircraft that can lift off vertically is an example of a product that can be identified unambiguously as being the product of intelligence.

You must think I'm an idiot to believe that RANDOMNESS and NATURAL SELECTION could possibly produce something so complex as a wing!

Not talking about just a wing here, are we?

"Wings were caused by evolution, VTOL was caused by intelligence, evolution is not intelligence, therefore the causes of wings and VTOL are different."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL

 

[cyborg]

Not talking about just a wing here, are we?

So your contention is that VTOL is so complex it cannot be produced by randomness?

**** - even the tornado in the junkyard idiots at least acknowledge it's possible if ridiculously unlikely.

Not talking about just a wing here, are we?

Just a wing! Just a wing he says!

The miracle of flight required the miracle of intelligence! You proved that! Pat yourself on the back!

Oh and I forgot some pointless smilies to really add nothing new to the discussion.

 

[President Bush]

So your contention is that VTOL is so complex it cannot be produced by randomness?

Show me an example of VTOL that wasn't designed by human intelligence.