Intelligent Evolution?

[Complexity]

In the spirit of Doctor Johnson : I refute your argument thus

Doctor Johnson
Doctor Spock
Doctor Smith
Doctor Who

Can you think of anyone else who is regularly called 'Doctor'?

Of course, Doctor Johnson absolutely wins any contest within the Doctors.

Doctor Who comes next. Can't worry about the other two very much.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's great to see that your teaching methods have 'evolved' ID, obviously for the better, the change agent being the environment in which you have operated. Congratulations!

And you have clearly missed how different the development of ID's teaching methods and biological different: ID learned from his/her mistakes (i.e., using analogies to teach science) while evolution cannot "learn" from its "mistakes", in the sense that identical deleterious mutations occur spontaneously in the same population over and over again. It is this ability (which may not always be used) to recognize the disadvantages to a certain approach and plan to modify one's approach in the future that make any sort of development, in the sense of change over time, involving human consciousness fundamentally different from biological evolution, which stumbles around blindly and only manages to optimize organisms because its stumblings are biased.

 

[Southwind17]

An entirely evoultionary approach would only be able work on the information that the design was a failure, not why.

So no different from the example of the soap powder nozzle above then, which I note those people against the OP analogy seem to be conveniently avoiding.

I understand and appreciate EVERYTHING that you and ID, in particular, have written, but can you not envisage a scenario whereby a known complex machine could have become what it is from its most meagre beginnings, just by the engineer (designer, if you like) saying:

"OK, I'll make some random changes to the length of that part, and/or to the composition of that material, and/or I'll introduce this additional basic component. I'll then trial it, and if it works better than before I'll retain that particular change. If not, I'll make a different random change and see what effect that has. Then I'll do the same again, repeatedly. Actually, I might even start with a number of basic prototypes and randomly change them all in parallel. If I get to a point where one 'model' is clearly increasingly lagging behind the others in terms of its functionality then I'll discard that one and just proceed with the others."

Can you not see how this, GIVEN TIME, could conceivably result in the creation of some of the complex machines we see around us today?

The only difference between this scenario and reality is that we have acquired the benefit of foresight, and we can SHORT CIRCUIT (and that's all it is) the evolutionary timeframe by predicting in advance what might or might not work better rather than by physically trialing it and seeing what the environment informs us works better. To my mind that's all that design does; it speeds up the time taken to create something that natural evolution could, given time, naturally create anyhow.

We all know the complete works of Shakespeare/monkey/typewriter analogy. Stretch that a little farther and it's not unreasonable to conclude that, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, every POSSIBLE physical scenario that could arise would eventually arise, including the creation of every possible alternative for every possible machine already and yet-to-be created through simple trial and error.

 

[Southwind17]

And you have clearly missed how different the development of ID's teaching methods and biological different: ID learned from his/her mistakes (i.e., using analogies to teach science) while evolution cannot "learn" from its "mistakes", in the sense that identical deleterious mutations occur spontaneously in the same population over and over again. It is this ability (which may not always be used) to recognize the disadvantages to a certain approach and plan to modify one's approach in the future that make any sort of development, in the sense of change over time, involving human consciousness fundamentally different from biological evolution, which stumbles around blindly and only manages to optimize organisms because its stumblings are biased.

I haven't 'clearly missed' how different the development of ID's teaching methods and biology are; I chose to ignore it as an irrelevance to the argument.

ID, upon identifying his teaching weakness, had three fundamental choices:

1. Carry on regardless
2. Change the method randomly to form different approaches (i.e. stumble around blindly, to use your phrase)
3. Change the method to one that is perceived or known to be better

What would the effects of these options be?

1. He would soon find himself out of a teaching job (i.e. extinct). The teaching environment would 'weed out' this inappropriate approach for a better one.
2. This would, time and patience permitting, eventually lead to the method that he adopted, or an equally effective method
3. This would lead to the method he adopted

You should clearly see that 1. is analogous to elimination of the unfit. 2. and 3. lead to exactly the same outcome, or equivalents, but over different timeframes.

 

[Southwind17]

But, I'm not sure you can or want to understand. It's not really that important. I just wanted to tell Southwind that I can confirm his/her analogies are valid and useful to many.
I don't think I'll be able to convey to you why many people find this type of analogy helpful, and I don't think it's a good use of my time to try. Clearly, for some people it's a poor analogy-- but I'm not sure if anything different would work for convey "natural selection" to such people. I have yet to see an explanation that works better or any that changes the mind of an "intelligent design proponent" over the age of 40.

Thanks for your understanding and support articulett. I agree that some people get so deeply entrenched in their thoughts that they can't see the wood for the trees. I think we're close, if not there already, to the point where no further reasoning is going to reveal the forest to such people. They'll happily just stumble around from tree to tree with no perception of where they've come from and where they're heading. But that's OK - we can leave this particular forest and pursue pastures new with clear, open minds.

 

[arthwollipot]

In the spirit of Doctor Johnson : I refute your argument thus

Keep your shield in front of you when you strike. You're uncovering yourself and trust me, you'll get a stab in the chest if you keep doing it that way.

 

[Henners]

In the spirit of Doctor Johnson : I refute your argument thus

...and yet my writing is still there, and the sword is slicing through empty space.

I think you should lay off the cartoons. At least the good Doctor managed to connect with something.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So no different from the example of the soap powder nozzle above then, which I note those people against the OP analogy seem to be conveniently avoiding.

I understand and appreciate EVERYTHING that you and ID, in particular, have written, but can you not envisage a scenario whereby a known complex machine could have become what it is from its most meagre beginnings, just by the engineer (designer, if you like) saying:

"OK, I'll make some random changes to the length of that part, and/or to the composition of that material, and/or I'll introduce this additional basic component. I'll then trial it, and if it works better than before I'll retain that particular change. If not, I'll make a different random change and see what effect that has. Then I'll do the same again, repeatedly. Actually, I might even start with a number of basic prototypes and randomly change them all in parallel. If I get to a point where one 'model' is clearly increasingly lagging behind the others in terms of its functionality then I'll discard that one and just proceed with the others."

Can you not see how this, GIVEN TIME, could conceivably result in the creation of some of the complex machines we see around us today?

The only difference between this scenario and reality is that we have acquired the benefit of foresight, and we can SHORT CIRCUIT (and that's all it is) the evolutionary timeframe by predicting in advance what might or might not work better rather than by physically trialing it and seeing what the environment informs us works better. To my mind that's all that design does; it speeds up the time taken to create something that natural evolution could, given time, naturally create anyhow.

We all know the complete works of Shakespeare/monkey/typewriter analogy. Stretch that a little farther and it's not unreasonable to conclude that, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, every POSSIBLE physical scenario that could arise would eventually arise, including the creation of every possible alternative for every possible machine already and yet-to-be created through simple trial and error.

Yes, it is possible to create a scenario whereby complex machines are made by a process similar to natural selection. However, there are still fundamental flaws in that comparison.

A) No machine has ever been made that way, so you have nothing tangible to compare.

B) You couldn't predict the results of a natural selection simulator. The output of a reproduction/selection system in simulations is always unpredictable, and in reality, it never ceases to amaze. If you tried to "evolve" a hammer from that process, you could wait through millions of generations without seeing what you want.

C) Human designers would have to deliberately create set the parameters, and set the process in motion. No one created the parameters of the evolution of life, and no one set it in motion. The parameters of your scenario are arbitrary, and set by humans for a purpose. The paramters of life after ambiogenesis are only the natural barriers encountered.

All in all, it's a useful application of the principles of Evolution (and some research into AI follows that route) but it's a miserible comparison for the Evolutionary origin of species.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, it is possible to create a scenario whereby complex machines are made by a process similar to natural selection. However, there are still fundamental flaws in that comparison.

A) No machine has ever been made that way, so you have nothing tangible to compare.

That's not a flaw, fundamental or otherwise. The scenario's already created, and stands on it own; you've admitted as much.

B) You couldn't predict the results of a natural selection simulator. The output of a reproduction/selection system in simulations is always unpredictable, and in reality, it never ceases to amaze. If you tried to "evolve" a hammer from that process, you could wait through millions of generations without seeing what you want.

As I said: GIVEN TIME. Thank you for at least acknowledging that; we might actually be getting somewhere now.

C) Human designers would have to deliberately create set the parameters, and set the process in motion. No one created the parameters of the evolution of life, and no one set it in motion. The parameters of your scenario are arbitrary, and set by humans for a purpose. The paramters of life after ambiogenesis are only the natural barriers encountered.

This doesn't alter what's observed, and what's ultimately produced. You never know, the end result might end up being a boat, instead of an aeroplane!

All in all, it's a useful application of the principles of Evolution (and some research into AI follows that route) but it's a miserible comparison for the Evolutionary origin of species.

Thank you again for at least some acknowledgement. Perhaps it is 'a miserable comparison for the Evolutionary origin of species', but that's not my intention here.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's not a flaw, fundamental or otherwise. The scenario's already created, and stands on it own; you've admitted as much.

You original scenario involved walking into a meuseum and pointing at things. What things are you pointing at in this modification?

As I said: GIVEN TIME. Thank you for at least acknowledging that; we might actually be getting somewhere now.

You don't understand. You might never see the results you want. Tigers, butterflies, and flesh eating bacteria arose through evolution, but if you rewound evolution to the earlier ambiogensis and started over, you'd get completely different results. You can't predict the outcome of an evolutionary process.

Thank you again for at least some acknowledgement. Perhaps it is 'a miserable comparison for the Evolutionary origin of species', but that's not my intention here.

Yes, it most certainly is. You said, in the OP, that you wanted to use the develoment of technology as an analogy to explain evolution to someone in the future. This comparison you've made is terrible.

 

[Southwind17]

You original scenario involved walking into a meuseum and pointing at things. What things are you pointing at in this modification?

I'm pointing at the things that your so-called 'natural selection machine' has produced.

You don't understand. You might never see the results you want. Tigers, butterflies, and flesh eating bacteria arose through evolution, but if you rewound evolution to the earlier ambiogensis and started over, you'd get completely different results. You can't predict the outcome of an evolutionary process.

'the results you want'? What 'results' did I say I 'wanted'?

Yes, it most certainly is. You said, in the OP, that you wanted to use the develoment of technology as an analogy to explain evolution to someone in the future. This comparison you've made is terrible.

I challenge you to point out where I've even used the word 'evolution' in the OP. I used the word 'evolved' exactly like that, in inverted commas, to make a distinction between the literal meaning of the word.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I challenge you to point out where I've even used the word 'evolution' in the OP. I used the word 'evolved' exactly like that, in inverted commas, to make a distinction between the literal meaning of the word.

If you're discussing the origin of living things, you're either talking about the Theory of Evolution or you're wrong.

 

[jimbob]

So no different from the example of the soap powder nozzle above then, which I note those people against the OP analogy seem to be conveniently avoiding.

I understand and appreciate EVERYTHING that you and ID, in particular, have written, but can you not envisage a scenario whereby a known complex machine could have become what it is from its most meagre beginnings, just by the engineer (designer, if you like) saying:
<snip>
Can you not see how this, GIVEN TIME, could conceivably result in the creation of some of the complex machines we see around us today?

The only difference between this scenario and reality is that we have acquired the benefit of foresight, and we can SHORT CIRCUIT (and that's all it is) the evolutionary timeframe by predicting in advance what might or might not work better rather than by physically trialing it and seeing what the environment informs us works better. To my mind that's all that design does; it speeds up the time taken to create something that natural evolution could, given time, naturally create anyhow.

We all know the complete works of Shakespeare/monkey/typewriter analogy. Stretch that a little farther and it's not unreasonable to conclude that, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, every POSSIBLE physical scenario that could arise would eventually arise, including the creation of every possible alternative for every possible machine already and yet-to-be created through simple trial and error.

Nobody is arguing that engineered systems do not develop; I (and I imagine ImaginalDisc) am simply aguing that their incremental development over time via human designers is not evolution.

The mechanism is completely different.

If you are showing that complex systems can (be deveolped/develop) from simpler ones, then your analgy is fine.

My question is whether anyone is actually contesting that? (Some extreme biblical literalists?)

I do know of Intelligent design proponents who say that evolution couldn't work, and the (obvious) incremental changes need (at least*) one designer.

I can not see how your analogy helps in this situation, as the examples given
had many designers contributing to the development of the systems.

*this is implicit, so they can pretend to not be putting forward a solely fundamentalist Christian viewpoint.

 

[cyborg]

am simply aguing that their incremental development over time via human designers is not evolution.

So in other words it absolutely does not matter to you one iota WHAT is done in development it is only important that, somewhere, somehow, an ape was involved.

I'm not that anthropocentric.

 

[jimbob]

So in other words it absolutely does not matter to you one iota WHAT is done in development it is only important that, somewhere, somehow, an ape was involved.

I'm not that anthropocentric.

If the design was altered intelligently then it is intelligent design.

I do consider myself to be self-aware and intelligent, so any of my designs are by definition products of intelligent design

It doesn't need a hominid in principle just deliberate design as oposed to evolution

 

[cyborg]

If the design was altered intelligently then it is intelligent design.

That is not a helpful tautology and it doesn't help the whole ID debate either - one just asserts, "god was involved, god is intelligent, therefore evolution is intelligent design."

I do consider myself to be self-aware and intelligent, so any of my designs are by definition products of intelligent design

Very good. But I am considering the intelligence, if you will, of the process, not the instigator of the process.

It doesn't need a hominid in principle just deliberate design as oposed to evolution

So if I deliberately design a computer program to use a evolutionary algorithm the end product is intelligently designed? You're getting dangerously close to Tai Chi territory here.

 

[Southwind17]

If you're discussing the origin of living things, you're either talking about the Theory of Evolution or you're wrong.

You're still stumbling into trees ID, but I think you might be heading towards a clearing! Thing is, I'm not discussing the origin of living things. For the purpose of this discussion I honestly couldn't care less about the origin of living things. What I'm discussing is the apparent similarity, purely from a casual observer's perspective, of how living things change over time and how man-made machines change over time, to the extent that said casual observer might well be led to conclude that irreducible complexity might not be considered such an amazing and impossible concept after all. That's all. Allow me to repeat, it's important: FROM A CASUAL OBSERVER'S PERSPECTIVE.

So, as you can now see (hopefully!), I'm neither talking about the Theory of Evolution nor wrong, as you claim. You, however, have usurped me here, as you are clearly both!

 

[Southwind17]

Nobody is arguing that engineered systems do not develop; I (and I imagine ImaginalDisc) am simply aguing that their incremental development over time via human designers is not evolution.

The mechanism is completely different.

I agree that it's different, but the effect is the same, namely incremental change leading to increased complexity.

If you are showing that complex systems can (be deveolped/develop) from simpler ones, then your analgy is fine.

Yes, I am. Thank you.

My question is whether anyone is actually contesting that? (Some extreme biblical literalists?)

I thought ID proponents were, but maybe we need to consider this further.

I do know of Intelligent design proponents who say that evolution couldn't work, and the (obvious) incremental changes need (at least*) one designer.

I can not see how your analogy helps in this situation, as the examples given
had many designers contributing to the development of the systems.

Focus on the end product, not the designer. Place yourself in the museum.

*this is implicit, so they can pretend to not be putting forward a solely fundamentalist Christian viewpoint.

 

[jimbob]

So if I deliberately design a computer program to use a evolutionary algorithm the end product is intelligently designed? You're getting dangerously close to Tai Chi territory here.

What I meant was that we are currently the only intelligences that we know about. Any other intelligence could also create intelligent design.

Evolutionary algorithms are closer to, but not completely, like evolution, as the goal is predefined

 

[cyborg]

What I meant was that we are currently the only intelligences that we know about. Any other intelligence could also create intelligent design.

Again this is an unhelpful tautology.

As I said earlier ALL abstractions lie. I am, therefore, not telling you that you are wrong, I am only telling you that your unwillingness to be flexible in your perspective means you will be unable to appreciate the problem from a different perspective: namely one where you disconnect the instigator of a process from the process.

After all, does it really matter how intelligent you or I am if we are faced with some problem where we can only solve it in a dumb way?

Evolutionary algorithms are closer to, but not completely, like evolution, as the goal is predefined

The ease as to which you can identify a goal does not affect the process. I don't want to rehash previous conversations too much but I don't have to define an explict goal in an evolutionary computational simulation. I can simply create a world model and see what happens naturally - in that world.

All a goal does is constrain the system so that implicit goals cannot arise.

Static vs dynamic goals.