Intelligent Evolution?

[cyborg]

I intend no harm and I am genuinely curious about what the hell you mean.

Then how does the snark help? I have spent some 30 odd pages now trying to explain. I even provided a mathematical model as per your request which you showed little interest in.

Don't be disingenuous and pretend otherwise.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, if engineers blindly stumble around in the dark like natural selection does, why does one have to go to school for at least foru years to become one?

 

[articulett]

Mijo, why don't you run along and play checkers with the other children and let the grown ups talk. (Does anyone other than you consider you informative and knowledgeable on the subject of evolution...?) As I recall, you came here without understanding the "discontinuity in the fossil record". Do you understand it yet?

 

[articulett]

duplicate

ETA: Walter Wayne hasn't a clue.

 

[President Bush]

A system with no regards to what something should mean is unable to take advantage of random change of the sequence that leads it closer to the target. This is the situation which is correctly analysed by pure probabilities and leads to the probabilities of monkey's typing Hamlet as astronomically small.

Got it. The infinite monkey theorem.

Introducing a system where Hamlet is meaningful allows random changes to converge upon Hamlet. In this case the former probability assessment is completely wrong.

Has this been described elsewhere? Some sort of external link to what you are describing here might help to illustrate what you are referring to.

I hoped to exemplify this with my mangled sentence since the human mind is well attuned to extracting the meaning of written language rather than being concerned with typographical exactness. It is a sophisticated example of error correction where it is not simply the symbols alone that lead the correction process: in fact it is what those symbols represent in the "real world" that is far more important.

Now of course there is no "Hamlet" out there waiting for its meaning to be uncovered but much the same thing is at work in nature.

Got it... logical and mathematical truths. Right?

In nature the target is ever shifting because what constitutes correcting 'errors' is also dependant on how other things corrected their 'errors' - it is a highly entangled system without a clearly defined target because that target is always shifting.

You seem to be to attributing human form or attributes to nature here. That is known as anthropomorphizing. Don't know why anyone shouldn't think your example commits the fallacy of reification.

Though I doubt you intend this... how else is one to interpret it?

 

[Walter Wayne]

duplicate

Why not just say "deleted" or "nevermind", instead of lying.

 

[articulett]

Why not just say "deleted" or "nevermind", instead of lying.

Because it was a duplicate of a post I intended to go elsewhere.

Why not add something intelligent to the conversation-- oh that's right... nevermind....

And President Bush... the monkey analogy was answered... repeatedly... and this link.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html

It's just that you, like Walter, and Mijo imagine yourself an expert on a subject that no one else thinks you have a clue about.

Cyborg is right. So is this link. You could learn. But you can't learn when you assume you already know everything there is to know on the topic. Who, other than you, thinks that you understand or can convey an understanding of natural selection? Who, other than you, thinks that any of the naysayers are good at describing evolution or have enough of a clue to offer insight on the topic that others might find useful?

 

[Walter Wayne]

Why not add something intelligent to the conversation-- oh that's right... nevermind....?

Because post 12 summed it up ... 32 pages ago.

 

[articulett]

Because post 12 summed it up ... 32 pages ago.

How sad that none of the intelligent people agree with you. Now, I'm just going to have to put you on ignore-- I'm sure one of the intelligent folks who actually understand natural selection and have kept current on the topic will quote you if you or your bozoface friends say something enlightening-- but, as far as the evidence goes, I don't think anyone finds the naysayers quite as insightful as they find themselves. The general audience understands the analogy fine. Those who seem to think of themselves as evolutionary experts, despite any one else sharing that conclusion, don't understand it. The major geniuses in the field and outside the field-- get it and use similar analogies. But the arrogant and self-important think that the problem is the analogy-- and it's unfixable-- because the problem is them... but they are too sure of themselves to see that they are the one's without a clue.

I think most of the people on this forum know who to go to for information about evolution-- and they are learning who the blowhards are who think they understand the topic, but sound dumber than a box of hair.

If you sound like the woo-- you are probably a woo too.

 

[President Bush]

And President Bush... the monkey analogy was answered... repeatedly... and this link.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html

You might not get Hamlet, because something like Hamlet requires huge sophistication and the evolution of societies, etc

Yup.

 

[Walter Wayne]

How sad that none of the intelligent people agree with you. Now, I'm just going to have to put you on ignore-- I'm sure one of the intelligent folks who actually understand natural selection and have kept current on the topic will quote you if you or your bozoface friends say something enlightening-- but, as far as the evidence goes, I don't think anyone finds the naysayers quite as insightful as they find themselves. The general audience understands the analogy fine. Those who seem to think of themselves as evolutionary experts, despite any one else sharing that conclusion, don't understand it. The major geniuses in the field and outside the field-- get it and use similar analogies. But the arrogant and self-important think that the problem is the analogy-- and it's unfixable-- because the problem is them... but they are too sure of themselves to see that they are the one's without a clue.

I think most of the people on this forum know who to go to for information about evolution-- and they are learning who the blowhards are who think they understand the topic, but sound dumber than a box of hair.

If you sound like the woo-- you are probably a woo too.

Ignored again.

As usual, your response to disagreement is insult, and ascribing characteristics to others which they may not have, but your post exemplify in spades. Arrogant? Self-important? Too sure of themselves? Put your posts up to a mirror.

As for the analogy, the fault lies in how superficial it is. Any complex system that changes over time in response to environment can be compared to biological evolution in a superficial way. The value of an analogy is measured in how important the differences of the subjects matter to a discussion. If the differences are irrelevant to the matter at hand, it is a good analogy.

But in this case, the underlying process is what is so brilliant and important about natural selection. There were other theories of evolution put forward, may of them would be analogous to technological evolution in the same way that current biological evolution is. One of the keys to understanding biological evolution is in understanding how it differs from technological evolution. Over-stating the similarity of the two only obscures the beauty of the theory.

Walt

 

[mijopaalmc]

The biggest problem with the analogy is that it requires that one denies that humans are intelligent, meaning that they can perceive causal relationships and understand them well enough to obtain a specific out come by inputting specific initial conditions. Thus mat not be a uniquely human characteristic, but it does distinguish human from, for example, bacteria or viruses. Moreover, it how most humans perceive themselves, so analogy is immediately stymied because it asks people to think of themselves in a way that is completely unfamiliar.

 

[Southwind17]

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"

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

Self-replicating systems self-replicate if the environment allows.

And Sam's electronics devices replicate if their environment allows too. Put another way, if the environment disallows then they don't get copied. It's the operation of the environment to which Sam's devices are exposed that determines whether he receives cash (the trigger) that enables him then to replicate his devices, just like it's the operation of the environment to which the cheetah is exposed that determines whether it reaches sexual maturity (the trigger) that then allows it to breed. The 'self' part is a complete red herring.

Mating is a means of self replicating, and not a "trigger".

So what, instead, can we consider the trigger to be then? Maybe 'trigger' is not the best word, maybe 'catalyst' or 'prompt' or 'enabler' might be better. But it doesn't really matter. What I'm identifying to you is that in both cases replication is not a given - something needs to occur to enable it. In the cheetah's case it's the attainment of sexual maturity; in Sam's case it's the proceeds of sales. Either way, that thing that needs to occur is a direct measure of the entity's ability to survive its environment and be 'selected' to replicate.

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.

I don't think we should confuse the discussion with irrelevancies, such as organisms that had the chance to mate but somehow didn't. I think we need to pre-suppose for the purpose of the debate that the whole driver of evolution, whether natural or technological, is a 'desire', conscious or otherwise, to reproduce and develop. In any event, I don't see how an organism not reproducing adds to your argument; it's just an aside.

The "trigger" for a self replicating system is at its inception.

By 'inception' I assume you mean 'birth', in the case of an organism. If so then you're using the word 'trigger' in a different sense from what I am. As amplified above, I'm using it to denote the point in time at which replication is allowed to occur, i.e. the point in time when an entity has effectively proven itself capable of surviving its environment, which is a pre-requisite to evolution.

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.

We touched on this principle earlier in the discussion as furthering the strength of the OP analogy. If it could all be automated then, by definition, no human intelligence is present, but evolution continues. What are you now arguing jimbob?

But still someone would need to set that system going ...

Like 'something' needed to set the natural evolutionary system going too. I don't see how that concept serves to help invalidate the analogy. The catalyst for instigation, in both cases, has to be a given. The thrust of the OP is increased complexity over time, not how it all started.

... and set the parameters to choose what to copy ...

No. We've already established that Sam (or the automaton now, if you like) does not choose what to copy. It only copies what it last made, just like in nature, and the trigger for the copying process is the proceeds from sales, which, by definition, form the proof for the device's success.

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?

Admittedly, there has to be a timeframe, but there does in nature too. The longer the cheetah goes without breeding after reaching sexual maturity the lower its chances of replication become, until it dies. The automaton in the analogy could be programmed either with an arbitrary timescale for sales or it could choose randomly, until a beneficial situation emerges, like in nature. Alternatively, it could monitor the environment somehow to see what else is selling instead, and elect to make the latest device 'extinct' based on some pre-set parameters, similar to nature. In any event, again, I don't see how the notion of a timescale, be it arbitrary or otherwise, serves to help the argument against the validity of the thrust of the analogy.

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.

The reason it's got further from the OP is because it's an extraction of the original analogy, and the reason that it's been extracted is because it has had to be broken down further to try to get you and the likes of mijo and ID to see how it can work. If you were to accept these extractions, like the Sam & Ollie story, then I can show how they can be traced right back to the analogy in the OP, although that should be pretty apparent to you anyhow. All you need to do is recognize how intent and forethought (intelligence, if you like) are simply the inevitable extension of what Sam was doing, and that they've developed simply to short-circuit the otherwise convoluted process of technological development by chance. Sam & Ollie, as we have seen, would end up developing equally complex devices if time wasn't a factor. The same could have happened with the aeroplane or the computer or the motor car, but it didn't, and we can easily see why it didn't. That doesn't make the design development processes that we now see happening around us any more special than following Sam's approach, in the context of what emerges from it.

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

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.

I've addressed timescale above. As for price, each device simply needs to sell at a price that enables slightly better components to be purchased. This is exactly how it is for Mercedes Benz (except that they need sufficient funds for R&D too, which Sam didn't). But price is just one of many environmental factors that distinguish one device's characteristics from another. You could equally have questioned the device's ability to withstand heat, or moisture, or impact resistance. Price is just one of many factors that contributes to determining its probability of replication, just like claw length, lung capacity, eyesight, etc. are for the cheetah.

Price, like timescale, could initially be determined arbitrarily, indeed at random, through trial and error, until such time as the device succeeds, i.e. sells at a price that enables it to out-compete the competing devices, and such that additional, slightly more complex, components can be bought. This, to a degree, is what happens in the real world, and what happens in nature. How was the 'selling price' for primitive organisms determined in nature? By chance, that's how - no different from Sam's devices.

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!

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?

The automaton (formerly Sam) only makes and sells one particular device (a 'species', if you like). The question as to what has sold, therefore, is not applicable. As explained previously, if a random variant is introduced which does not lead to decreased sales then that variant is retained. It has, by definition, proven itself to be not detrimental. If a particular variant leads to increased sales then that enables more and/or much better components to be bought, leading to an increased 'population' (in principle). Just like if the cheetah suddenly undergoes a beneficial macro mutation then it's population will also increase.

The automaton is not programmed to revert to previous generations; it just blindly goes on copying and randomly varying the current device. The only time it might be allowed to revert to a previous generation is if the device becomes extinct and it is decided not to start a new device from scratch, but to start with something that proved useful before (there's no saying that it will be a good starting point for what the market requires now, though!). In any event, what impact does the possibility of reversion to a previous generation have on the validity of the analogy?

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

As explained above, only the latest device is copied. I thought that was clear from the Sam & Ollie story! This is, therefore, tantamount to self-replication.

I really don't see your point about sweatshops.

You claimed that Sam could choose to replicate his devices simply because he 'likes' them. I drew a comparison with a sweatshop to prove in a very simple way that things don't need to be 'liked' by the replicator to be copied. They can be copied just by following instructions, which is what Sam did. The scenario I set up in the Sam & Ollie story has absolutely no reference to 'liking' or otherwise. I'm actually very surprised that you missed the point of the sweatshop comparison. It really does make me wonder how your mind works, or doesn't, as the case may be!

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.

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?

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.

The information, that the variant is to be copied, makes it back to the copier by way of cash proceeds. This is the 'trigger' that I've discussed above, that proves the device's 'success' in its environment. A similar 'trigger' is also required with self-replication. Whether a cheetah will self-replicate or not is not determined at birth. The cheetah doesn't inevitably self-replicate. It has to survive its environment long enough to reach sexual maturity then find or attract a mate. I think you're getting confused over the mistaken belief that self-replication is a given because no external agent is necessary. The environment is the external agent that conspires against replication!

 

[cyborg]

Has this been described elsewhere? Some sort of external link to what you are describing here might help to illustrate what you are referring to.

Not that I know of specifically relating to the IMT but this all relates to evolutionary algorithms: namely the target set of 'valid' sequences drives the changes of 'invalid' sequences as I outlined earlier.

Got it... logical and mathematical truths. Right?

Eh?

Though I doubt you intend this... how else is one to interpret it?

I am attributing the qualities of nature to human form: it is everyone else who is arguing for the human primacy over this.

 

[cyborg]

The biggest problem with the analogy is that it requires that one denies that humans are intelligent,

NO MIJO GODDAMN IT.

It abstracts intelligence away: intelligence DOES NOT exist except as a label for a physical system. Here we do not consider other than in the 'black box' sense - we subsume the label.

meaning that they can perceive causal relationships and understand them well enough to obtain a specific out come by inputting specific initial conditions. Thus mat not be a uniquely human characteristic, but it does distinguish human from, for example, bacteria or viruses.

What you have failed to acknowledge - despite it being conclusively shown to you - is that this does NOT afford human intelligence with the ability to achieve anything evolution canot achieve alone. This is because evolution is a more general mechanism for affecting change in design than "intelligence".

It's that simple really.

Moreover, it how most humans perceive themselves, so analogy is immediately stymied because it asks people to think of themselves in a way that is completely unfamiliar.

To most people it the familiar way to think of themselves is as possesing a special place in creation as dictated by the creator.

Of course we have to break that thinking.

 

[mijopaalmc]

cyborg-

You can't abstract intelligence away. It's really as simple as that. Intelligence, as I defined it, is what allows technological development to possess the characteristics on ImaginalDisc's list while biological evolution cannot. It seems that, in your zeal to disabuse humans of their special place in the universe that Christian perceive to proceed from humans' special creation by God in his image, that you can distinguish animals (including humans) from one another by the cognitive abilities that they possess. For instance, humans, some other primates, dolphins, and (I think) parrots have that the ability to recognize themselves as different from members of their respective species, which means they recognize their image in a mirror as being of them and not another individual of their species. Thus, you can use cognitive abilities to distinguish humans and other animals from other physical, chemical, and biological systems without claiming there is something mystically unique about humans.

 

[Southwind17]

cyborg-

You can't abstract intelligence away. It's really as simple as that.

Assuming not, you can remove it with logic!

Intelligence, as I defined it, is what allows technological development to possess the characteristics on ImaginalDisc's list while biological evolution cannot.

Remind me please mijo, what unique definition was that?

 

[cyborg]

You can't abstract intelligence away. It's really as simple as that.

You can.

It's really as simple as that.

Intelligence, as I defined it, is what allows technological development to possess the characteristics on ImaginalDisc's list while biological evolution cannot.

The list has been popped enough times. Numerous examples of the types of things biological evolution "cannot" do have been shown to occur. It is fallacious to demand that all instances of biological entities can do all these things in every way. It is also simply incorrect to think such a thing applies to technology - there are instances where items on ID's list DO NOT apply to technology.

 

[Southwind17]

The list has been popped enough times. Numerous examples of the types of things biological evolution "cannot" do have been shown to occur. It is fallacious to demand that all instances of biological entities can do all these things in every way. It is also simply incorrect to think such a thing applies to technology - there are instances where items on ID's list DO NOT apply to technology.

Be prepared for the old "Do not does not mean cannot" flawed retort cyborg!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Assuming not, you can remove it with logic!

Really? How exactly would one do that?

Remember, its not logical to dismiss differences just because the are not convenient for your analogy.

Remind me please mijo, what unique definition was that?

The working definition that I have used is intelligent is the ability to perceive causal relationships and understand them well enough to obtain a specific out come by inputting specific initial conditions.