Intelligent Evolution?

My defintion of artifical relies on the context of the discussion - something you have failed to grasp.
 
Last edited:
No mijo - my definition is entirely context dependent since where one considers it valid to choose to make a distinction between the artificial and the natural will depend on the system being considered: and when considering the physical system we occupy to make a hard distinction between the natural and artificial in the context of humanity is to elevate humanity above the natural.

I consider that the sort of thing IDers everywhere engage in.
 
cyborg-

I must congratulate you on your continued masterful use of straw men. No-one (I repeat no-one) involved in this discussion has ever said that intelligence is a uniquely human trait. We have just said that it is possible to distinguish between systems that involve intelligence and those that don't by the way in which the system progresses. As far as we are concerned (and jimbob, President Bush, quixotecoyote, and ImaginalDisc feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying), the intelligent actor could be a chimpanzee or a horse as long as said actor can understand causality well enough to alter the initial conditions of a system to obtain a specific result.
 
No-one (I repeat no-one) involved in this discussion has ever said that intelligence is a uniquely human trait.
Click to expand...

I congratulate you on the perfection of the non-sequitur for missing the point yet again.

the intelligent actor could be a chimpanzee or a horse as long as said actor can understand causality well enough to alter the initial conditions of a system to obtain a specific result.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what understanding entails.
 
jimbob said:
As people are arguing that self-replication is unimportant to the process of evolution, its importance does need stating.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: you mean you STILL haven't understood ?

Mijo said:
Mutations, at the molecular level, do not occur to advantage or disadvantage the organism. For instance, the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia did not occur to make humans resistant to malaria; it occurred and then propagated because it made humans resistant to malaria.
Click to expand...

Thoughts aren't any less deterministic.
 
Southwind17 said:
I think you're getting confused over the function of the designer. The designer's function is to improve the product, which is achieved by the introduction of beneficial changes.
Click to expand...

Hummm.... I suppose we could see the designer as the "enzyme" that copies the DNA, and messes up, once in a while. :D
 
jimbob said:
Walter Wayne is arguing against the validity of the analogy.

If his examples of engineering fail to fit the analogy, that is support for his position.
Click to expand...

As I've written many times in this thread: there are always exceptions to the rule. They don't invalidate the rule, though. I'll say again: The fact that 99% of early flight attempts by man failed didn't invalidate the 1% that succeeded, that 1% proving beyond ALL doubt that man could fly!
 
Any chance of progressing this branch of the debate jimbob (Post #1745)?:

Southwind17 said:
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!).
Click to expand...
 
Southwind17 said:
I think you're forgetting the whole purpose of the OP analogy. It was simply to demonstrate that intelligence and/or design (one and the same?!) are not necessarily accountable for seemingly irreducible complexity that we see in human endeavours. It matters not that the process is not identical to natural evolution. In fact, thinking about it, it matters not whether the process is completely different from natural evolution. The whole ID argument hinges on intelligence/design being a precursor to seemingly irreducibly complex organisms. If it can be shown that even a completely different technological process can lead to seemingly irreducible complexity then how does the ID 'logic' then stand up?
Click to expand...
Southwind, it is very important how different design and evolution are different. It is how we test the theories themselves.

The test of evolution is what predictions it makes as compared to intelligent design. The "history" embedded in us is why we believe evolution theory over ID.

If your analogy showed (which I don't think it does) an extensive similarity between the products intelligent design and biological evolution, we would then "ockham" the designer out of science. But Ockham's razor is an appeal to practicle consideration or testability, and is generally a weaker "disproof" than finding contradiction between reality than theory.

If your process is so completely different, you haven't shown that it would produce what we see, or what intelligent design would. You have simply stated it would.

Walt
 
Walter Wayne said:
Southwind, it is very important how different design and evolution are different. It is how we test the theories themselves.

The test of evolution is what predictions it makes as compared to intelligent design. The "history" embedded in us is why we believe evolution theory over ID.

If your analogy showed (which I don't think it does) an extensive similarity between the products intelligent design and biological evolution, we would then "ockham" the designer out of science. But Ockham's razor is an appeal to practicle consideration or testability, and is generally a weaker "disproof" than finding contradiction between reality than theory.

If your process is so completely different, you haven't shown that it would produce what we see, or what intelligent design would. You have simply stated it would.
Click to expand...

I don't find this at all helpful. Any chance you can re-word it so that it actually means something?
 
Southwind17 said:
I don't find this at all helpful.
Click to expand...

Indeed

I am familiar with all of the words, yet the way they are arranged sounds (esp in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) so much like jargon on steroids as to be meaningless, which I suspect (hope) it's not

Please Wayne, do rephrase that post
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
Indeed

I am familiar with all of the words, yet the way they are arranged sounds (esp in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) so much like jargon on steroids as to be meaningless, which I suspect (hope) it's not

Please Wayne, do rephrase that post
Click to expand...

I have WW on ignore, because in my experience, asking him to rephrase only makes things worse. Find out if someone you can understand understands him and can translate. If not-- he's probably only making sense to himself.
 
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.

Walt
 
articulett said:
I have WW on ignore, because in my experience, asking him to rephrase only makes things worse. Find out if someone you can understand understands him and can translate. If not-- he's probably only making sense to himself.
Click to expand...

Translation: "I disagree with him therefore he is wrong and it's his fault I don't understand."
 
President Bush said:
Dis 'nalogy refudiatizes da Inteligunt Daseined arg'ment cuz technalogicalical 'vancement iz sumting dat evolvarized witout inteligunt dasein.
Click to expand...

Excelent!

May I translate that?

The fundamental error of Intelligent Design is most easily debunked when we see evolution in the light of human technological developments, where it is crystal clear that these product changes came about without the intervention of external inteligent agencies.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
The fundamental error of Intelligent Design is most easily debunked when we see evolution in the light of human technological developments, where it is crystal clear that these product changes came about without the intervention of external inteligent agencies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom