• 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?

Jimbob, jimbob - wherefor art thou, jimbob? Has he devolved into obscurtiy from whence he came?! Gee - this whole Shakespeare thing's getting to me too now! ;)
 
Southwind is there anything in post#1200 that hasn't been answered in post#1152?

Sam wants to sell stuff. When he sells stuff he copies that design.

Another way of looking at it is that with self replication, natural selection stops something from replicating, whilst without self-replication, something has to choose what to copy, and then instigate the copying.

Otherwise why shouldn't the copying process copy a coathanger, of lump of mud, instead of Sam's electronics?

There doesn't need to be much intent, but there still needs to be some.

Sam liked the fact that he sold something, so he copied it. That is the intent.

Predators are another part of the environment, they are not selectively breeding their prey.

Domestication on the other hand is. I would argue that farm animals still are subject to evolution and natural selection, it is just that they are also subjected to artificial selection, which typically allows a far more intense selective pressure than natural selection.
 
Last edited:
When life forms go about doing what they are programmed to do that can't help but replicate information and act as selective forces on other information systems. Intent is as irrelevant to the process--

When animals modify genomes via what they eat and who lives and what their sex drive programs them to do-- it has the same affect as "intent"-- it's a byproduct of their program... they have evolved to do the stuff that hones the information systems within them and in their environment. They can't avoid it. It happens whether there is any "intent" or not.
 
jimbob said:
Southwind is there anything in post#1200 that hasn't been answered in post#1152?
Click to expand...

Jimbob - your Post #1152 doesn't even come close to answering the problem you're having in reconciling 'self-replication' and 'intelligent agents' with the OP analogy - a problem which my Post #1200 seeks to address by developing the debate. I think your response here is symptomatic of and demonstrates why you're having these problems jimbob - you're either not reading and objectively considering what people are trying to explain to you by using alternative explanations or developing previous arguments, or your mental barrier is not even allowing the possibility that your notions and reasoning might be flawed, if not completely wrong.

In my Post #1200 I have introduced the notion of a 'trigger' as the prompt for replication in both the natural world and technological environment. This trigger, which is pulled at a pre-determined point in time IN BOTH CASES removes any notion of intent. Sam has no more intention of replicating his electronics devices than the cheetah does of replicating itself. Both Sam and the cheetah are simply prompted to reproduce when the trigger is pulled. In the case of the cheetah the trigger is whatever suddenly possesses it to mate, which I guess is hormonal (the details don't matter), but that trigger cannot be 'pulled' until the cheetah reaches sexual maturity, which is directly determined by its ability to survive its environment long enough. In the case of Sam the trigger is receipt of cash from the sale of his latest device. He has no intent. He's not sitting there thinking: "I hope my latest device is successful enough to sell so that I receive some cash that enables me then to go out and buy additional components that will enable me to make an identical device" any more than the cheetah cub is sitting around thinking: "I hope I am equipped to survive long enough to reach sexual maturity so that I can mate and create another one of me."! Without the cash Sam simply cannot 'reproduce' the device, and such cash 'injection' is analogous with the hormone 'injection' that the cheetah receives. Both are simple triggers that can only be 'pulled' by the exertion of external factors. Once Sam has completed his latest electronics device and offered it for sale the rest, i.e. whether it ends up being reproduced, is completely outside his control, just like the suitability of a cheetah's features and characteristics that it happens to be born with. The cheetah cannot determine its ability to ensure reproduction. Nature will 'decide'.

I'm not sure what part of your Post #1152 you believe addresses the notion of 'intelligent agents' in the context in which I have countered it in my Post #1200. Whatever 'arguments' you might have put forward in Post #1152 are weak and ill-considered, at best, and certainly don't fit with what I've now clarified in Post #1200.

You really need to read this and my Post #1200 SLOWLY, CAREFULLY AND THOUGHTFULLY jimbob if you're going to 'get it', and if you do you should see the obvious irrelevance of what you're saying regarding the erroneous importance of 'self'-replication and 'intelligent agents'.

jimbob said:
Sam wants to sell stuff. When he sells stuff he copies that design.
Click to expand...

Sam only 'wants' to sell stuff in the same sense that the cheetah 'wants' to breed. No intent is necessary. Sam could be completely oblivious to the notion of 'selling'. His only prompt to 'reproduce' his stuff is when he receives more cash. He could be completely ignorant of where the cash has come from. All it tells him when he receives cash is that it's a message showing that his last device 'succeeded' (whatever 'succeed' means!). He then blindly proceeds to make another the same. Can you really not see the elegant simplicity of this notion jimbob?

jimbob said:
Another way of looking at it is that with self replication, natural selection stops something from replicating, whilst without self-replication, something has to choose what to copy, and then instigate the copying.
Click to expand...

No jimbob. If Sam's device doesn't sell then that stops it from replicating. Sam has no cash; he has nothing to go and buy the additional components with!

jimbob said:
Otherwise why shouldn't the copying process copy a coathanger, of lump of mud, instead of Sam's electronics?
Click to expand...

There are still copying instructions jimbob, even in Sam's little world. He might write them down or keep them in his head; that's not important. Sam doesn't have any instructions for making a coathanger or lump of mud, and his resources, i.e. his electronics components, don't allow him to make these alternatives, just like a cheetah cannot 'breed' a coathanger or lump of mud. Why are you suddenly introducing this concept, that something completely different could be made? We all know why that cannot and does not happen!

jimbob said:
There doesn't need to be much intent, but there still needs to be some.

Sam liked the fact that he sold something, so he copied it. That is the intent.
Click to expand...

No jimbob. He doesn't have to 'like' anything to copy it; he could blindly just go ahead and do so ONCE HE RECEIVES HIS TELL-TALE CASH! Why do you think children in third-world sweatshops sit there all day long 'replicating' garments for Gap or Nike? Do you think it's because they 'like the fact' that they're sold some place? Of course not. They don't even understand what happens when the garments go out of the factory. All they know is that if they keep on replicating they'll get fed. They have absolutely no notion that the replication is completely dependent upon the garment selling, and it has to compete in the cruel marketplace against the likes of Adidas and Reebok - survival of the 'fittest'. They don't appreciate that if the garment doesn't sell then all of a sudden the food train stops (unless, of course, the manufacturer recognizes the signs and 'evolves' a new garment better suited to 'survive' the environment!)

jimbob said:
Predators are another part of the environment, they are not selectively breeding their prey.

Domestication on the other hand is. I would argue that farm animals still are subject to evolution and natural selection, it is just that they are also subjected to artificial selection, which typically allows a far more intense selective pressure than natural selection.
Click to expand...

Predation has nothing to do with this jimbob. I'm talking about the cheetah's ability to survive as compared to Sam's electronics devices' ability to 'survive'. What's 'selective' breeding and 'domestication' got to do with any of this? I've already clearly shown how Sam does not apply selective pressures in determining how to evolve his devices.
 
That's exactly right, Southwind. That's evolution. The design for the widget Sam makes has a way of getting itself copied... it rewards it's copier with cash... That's exactly what is going on in biological evolution... mutations that have a way of getting themselves copied-- do so preferentially and drive the process. The information (design, code, DNA, recipe, etc.) lives on after it's replicator is gone. It's the information that evolves. What we "see" is snapshots of what that information codes for over time.

I always hope Jimbob can get this... (he comes the closest out of the people who think they understand evolution better than they actually do)--but he just never seems to make the leap... so, don't get your hopes up. I don't know why it is. But your analogy IS good-- both of them. Those who say otherwise just don't understand evolution as well as they imagine they do.

But it IS a cool thing to understand, isn't it? It's a powerful perspective.
 
Southwind17 said:
I don't give a flying f*** which way you care to look at it. If you wanna stay hung up in your topsy turvy little world Mr President that's up to you. :boggled:
Click to expand...


It's a chatterbot (chatbot)... it's gotta be. The non-sequiturs... the failure to notice when others are talking about him...

Here's my favorite chatterbot story: http://drrobertepstein.com/downloads/FROM_RUSSIA_WITH_LOVE-Epstein-Sci_Am_Mind-Oct-Nov2007.pdf

The thing is... they evolve too... they "learn"... they are info. processors and replicators... so they fit the analogy... they are "bottom up" evolvers... even the corny screen name... it gives a reason for us to expect someone to misspeak. But It's pretty good.

Some hackers make chatbots that start flame wars... it's kind of an underground turing test... The screen name... the avatar.... the non-sequiturs... the vagueness.... it HAS to be. At least you can insult them freely...
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
It's a chatterbot (chatbot)... it's gotta be. The non-sequitars... the failure to notice when others are talking about him...
Click to expand...


A robot arguing for human agency... :D

You seem to regularly come up with false characterizations of others. This makes you look stupid, articulett.

Though it does allow you to avoid having to deal with others pointing out the errors in your reasoning.
 
8:00pm PBS 120min 2007 TV-PG
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a 2005 federal law suit that successfully challenged the mention of intelligent design in a Dover, Pa., public-school ninth-grade science class as a violation of church-state division, is recalled. Included: trial reenactments; comments from participants, including parents, scientists, teachers and town officials.
Click to expand...

Tonight 11/13/2007

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
That's exactly right, Southwind. That's evolution. The design for the widget Sam makes has a way of getting itself copied... it rewards it's copier with cash... That's exactly what is going on in biological evolution... mutations that have a way of getting themselves copied-- do so preferentially and drive the process. The information (design, code, DNA, recipe, etc.) lives on after it's replicator is gone. It's the information that evolves. What we "see" is snapshots of what that information codes for over time.
Click to expand...
Is information/intelligence the natural outcome of the interaction of matter and energy?
 
Southwind, the problem is that the trigger is still arbitary.

In the case of Sam the trigger is receipt of cash from the sale of his latest device. He has no intent. He's not sitting there thinking: "I hope my latest device is successful enough to sell so that I receive some cash that enables me then to go out and buy additional components that will enable me to make an identical device"
Click to expand...
Sam explained that he’d simply connected wires to components and wires to batteries in a thoughtless fashion, and that he’d taken his ‘creations’ to school to try to sell them
Click to expand...

Self-replicating systems self-replicate if the environment allows. Mating is a means of self replicating, and not a "trigger". Should an organism not reproduce, because it dedn't mate, even if it had the chance to, then that particular "self-replicating" system wasn't. The "trigger" for a self replicating system is at its inception.

What happens when Sam gets the cash, he buys more stuff. This could be automated. The random alterations could also be automated. So could the selling.

If Sam has no cash he can't make copies, true. If Sam has cash he still has to decide to make copies.

In fact you can remove Sam completely from the story.

"I have two sons and an imperfect copier of electronic thingimys. "

The entire process could be automated, just making copies when cash is availiable. But still someone would need to set that system going, and set the parameters to choose what to copy. If the first variant didn't sell in one day, is it left until it does, or is it returned to make a new one?

The analogy is getting further from both the OP, and from real technological development, and it still requires an intelligent agent to set the system up.


Any ‘bad’ changes were quickly eliminated through extinction, i.e. zero sales
Click to expand...

Zero sales over what timescale and at what price? In the initial setup, "insufficiant sales" have to be defined. It might seem picky, but it is in the implimentation where the difference lies between self-replication and evolutionary algorithms requiring intelligent input.


There are still copying instructions jimbob, even in Sam's little world. He might write them down or keep them in his head; that's not important. Sam doesn't have any instructions for making a coathanger or lump of mud, and his resources, i.e. his electronics components, don't allow him to make these alternatives, just like a cheetah cannot 'breed' a coathanger or lump of mud. Why are you suddenly introducing this concept, that something completely different could be made? We all know why that cannot and does not happen!
Click to expand...

If something sells, how does the system know what has sold? I presume that they are identifiable, and then Sam decides to copy the variant that has sold as opposed to one that hasn't. He could decide to copy a previous "generation" if he wanted to. How does he choose? With an alogorithm?

Without self replication, something has to choose what is to be copied.

I really don't see your point about sweatshops.


Predation has nothing to do with this jimbob. I'm talking about the cheetah's ability to survive as compared to Sam's electronics devices' ability to 'survive'. What's 'selective' breeding and 'domestication' got to do with any of this? I've already clearly shown how Sam does not apply selective pressures in determining how to evolve his devices.
Click to expand...

I assumed from this part below that you were arguing that the predators were concious agents of selection:
Well, when a cheetah is stalking a group of antelope patiently observing and waiting for some tell-tale sign of apparent weakness that inherently informs the cheetah that it might have just identified dinner, how, in principle, does that differ from a school boy at the bring-and-buy fare perusing all of the alternative novelties on offer just waiting for one to catch his eye because of something about it that informs him that he's likely to get the most enjoyment from it?
Click to expand...
Rereading that, I can see you're saying that both are "selecting". I would argue that in the example of the market that the choice of varuiant is only the first part of the selection process. Somehow the information, that this variant is to be copied, has to make it back to the copier. With self-replication it doesn't. If it copies itself, it is an evolutionary success; if it doesn't, it is a failure.
 
jimbob said:
Rereading that, I can see you're saying that both are "selecting". I would argue that in the example of the market that the choice of varuiant is only the first part of the selection process. Somehow the information, that this variant is to be copied, has to make it back to the copier. With self-replication it doesn't. If it copies itself, it is an evolutionary success; if it doesn't, it is a failure.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. So long as life forms are doing what they are "programmed to do", information gets copied.

Just think of the information. How does the information that makes a horse ancestor evolve to become a horse. Just think it terms of how the information changes--the genome. Now think about the design of the first airplane-- the blueprint.... and think about how that design changed over time to give rise to the 747... Information does not "self replicate"-- it gets itself replicated via "replicators". You keep confusing this. The eohippus (horse ancestor) lives and dies an eohippus, but the parts of her genome is passed on... how does that eventually code for the horse? I maintain that it's the same way that the blueprint information of the first successful airplane, became todays successful offshoots. The information that allowed that first plane to fly-- was information that was good at getting itself copied. Just like the little butterfly mutation that conferred parasite resistance.

You are confusing getting self -replication (from a bit of informations perspective) with the thing it codes for copying itself. That isn't what is happening. Until you understand this, you cannot understand what is being said.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That's a... nice... "argument".
Click to expand...


Follow the narrative line:


cyborg said:
If you don't insist on the primacy of English to convey that meaning then there suddenly becomes a hell of a lot more ways for "Hamlet" to appear out of the mists...
Click to expand...


President Bush said:
I assume the monkey would need to remain consistent.

For example... Spanish (I speak Spanish fairly well). There are three additional letters in Spanish compared to English: rr, ll, and ch. I doubt this makes it more likely a monkey types Hamlet in Spanish than English.

Not to mention other languages (here on earth... or elsewhere?). Nothing like a random letter in another random language to suddenly muck up a perfectly good line of text. :)
Click to expand...


cyborg said:
Teh ting bout uman etxrtacion ov maening is tat errs aer corected by unterpretateon.
Click to expand...


President Bush said:
cyborg... I have read Hamlet. I have heard all 29,551 words of Hamlet spoken onstage. I have quoted a few of these words from Hamlet at times in my life. Those 4,042 lines of Hamlet are a friend of mine.

cyborg, you're no Prince Hamlet!
Click to expand...


One of the infinite number of monkeys coming close enough that something like the text of Hamlet might be discerned through the gibberish ain't the text of Hamlet.

cyborg addressed the situation as though it would be.

With the tenor of this thread simply dreadful at times I attempted to be light-hearted in pointing out the error. :)


Quayle: Three times that I've had this question — and I will try to answer it again for you, as clearly as I can, because the question you are asking is, "What kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have to be president," "What kind of qualifications do I have," and "What would I do in this kind of a situation?" And what would I do in this situation? [...] I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur.

Judy Woodruff: Senator Bentsen.

Bentsen: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.(Prolonged shouts and applause)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you_are_no_Jack_Kennedy
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom