Intelligent Evolution?

[Henners]

what's the difference, in principle, between a punter assessing the pros and cons of one consumer product over another and a cheetah assessing the 'pros and cons' of one particular animal for dinner over another

The cheetah is far less likely to be a fashion victim.

 

[cyborg]

The cheetah is far less likely to be a fashion victim.

Cheetah pelts anyone?

 

[Belz...]

Most analogies, though, have more that one point of correspondence, because almost every pair of objects has one point of correspondence (e.g., raven and writing desks both have quills); therefore having one point of correspondence doesn't necessarily make a good analogy.

Not necessarily, except when it shows what it purports to show. In short, your objection is about an irrelevant aspect.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Not necessarily, except when it shows what it purports to show. In short, your objection is about an irrelevant aspect.

My objection is not irrelevant. Trying to teach science by saying that technological development is like biological evolution because both are processes where the information that reproduces most efficiently persists is like trying to teach economics by saying that capitalism is like Communism because both systems address the government's relationship to economic wealth and capital. Both are true in the respect that they emphasize, but neither actually explain how either of the two real-world analogs work beyond the property that they emphasize.

 

[Southwind17]

My objection is not irrelevant. Trying to teach science by saying that technological development is like biological evolution because both are processes where the information that reproduces most efficiently persists is like trying to teach economics by saying that capitalism is like Communism because both systems address the government's relationship to economic wealth and capital. Both are true in the respect that they emphasize, but neither actually explain how either of the two real-world analogs work beyond the property that they emphasize.

Who said anything about trying to teach science? Who said that technological development is like biological evolution because both are processes where the information that reproduces most efficiently persists? I think the answer to both these questions, mijo, is you, and only you! In any event, your economic analogy sucks big time, so don't you go accusing anybody of citing poor analogies. Under what circumstances would you envisage any sensible economics teacher likening capitalism with communism as a tool to understanding economics? It really does seem that you continue to have a major problem understanding analogies mijo, which probably lies at the root of your inability to comprehend and appreciate the thrust of this thread.

 

[Belz...]

Well Mijo, there's really no point in responding to someone who thinks those analogies are analogous to one another, is there ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think that technology, along with all the other benefits of civilization, are just extensions of biological evolution. Here's why:

Imagine a race of titans who are so much further advanced than we are, on the evolutionary scale, that we would be like bacteria to them. What would they see when they look down on the Earth over a period of several hundred years? They will see what would be in their eyes a mindless ratcheting up of complexity in the infrastructure of the puny humans. A new device being invented would be seen as a random occurance, especially given that it often occurs simultaneously in multiple parts of the world. Incremental improvements of the design would be seen as an inevitable consequence of the humans having a communal self-interest in making things easier on themselves. They, like any other organisms on the planet, simply follow their own evolutionary urges. The only difference is that they happen to have a brain sufficiently developed to allow them to improve their environment in a diverse number of ways.

I can tell you as a programmer who has "inherited", contributed to, and passed on software code, it is possible to create something highly complex without any single person having designed it -- in fact, often there is no single person that fully understands it. It simply evolves out of need, feeding off of business pressures and the skills of the programmers that happen to be working on it. I can imagine it being very nearly the same in many other technologies.

 

[cyborg]

I can tell you as a programmer who has "inherited", contributed to, and passed on software code, it is possible to create something highly complex without any single person having designed it -- in fact, often there is no single person that fully understands it. It simply evolves out of need, feeding off of business pressures and the skills of the programmers that happen to be working on it.

I hear ya - this is the norm, not the exception. The exception is the sort of thing other people think should be the norm.

 

[six7s]

Most analogies, though, have more that one point of correspondence, because almost every pair of objects has one point of correspondence (e.g., raven and writing desks both have quills); therefore having one point of correspondence doesn't necessarily make a good analogy.

Not necessarily, except when it shows what it purports to show. In short, your objection is about an irrelevant aspect.

My objection is not irrelevant

Perhaps...

But Belz said "your objection is about an irrelevant aspect"

That you seem incapable and/or unwilling to acknowledge the irrelevance does not negate Belz's observation

 

[six7s]

I can tell you as a programmer who has "inherited", contributed to, and passed on software code, it is possible to create something highly complex without any single person having designed it

200 hours coding can save 5 hours of design

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob
Southwind, do you accept that even wioth your "let the maket decide" evolutionary algorithm story, each Successfull variant is chosen by an individual customer, who is an intelligent agent.

Yes, I do, but I fail to see the significance of 'intelligent agent'. Is a cheetah not an 'intelligent agent'? As I wrote above, what's the difference, in principle, between a punter assessing the pros and cons of one consumer product over another and a cheetah assessing the 'pros and cons' of one particular animal for dinner over another?

The cheetah doesn't decide what form its prey will take, the sam and ollie story, and its variants is simply an evolutionary algorithm, optimising towards what will sell.

The "parents" of the subsequent generations are selected on their "saleability". There is intelligent selection of the "trait" of saleablility, because it has been decided to only copy those that sell. That is an arbitary ,intelligently defined sepecification.

Originally Posted by jimbob
The selection is thus intwo parts,: Firstly by many different intelligent agents, and then according to other selection criteria to cull out the failures. In any system with finite resources the second is also vital. Every realistic system as finite resources.

Can you please clarify the first part. Are you alluding to consumer product designers/manufacturers or consumers? Also, I'm not sure why you're emphasising the finiteness of resources as important. Can you expand on this too please.

As quoted "copy those designs which sell", you are begging the question as to "sell in what timeframe". The default will be sell in an indefinite timeframe.

Suppose you have a showroom with 500 sales slots, you are lucky in the first generation and 50% sell within 20 minutes. The rest remain, preventing you from using 250 slots. Without specifying a timescale, these could remain, blocking half your slots for eternity, you now only have 250 sales slots available.

The next generation, being more like the parents than grandparents, 60% sell quickly but 40% remain. You now are down to only 100 slots, and the rate of "evlution" is beginning to slow.

The next generation, again is an improvement, and 64% sell, you are now down to 64 slots, and 446 unsaleable variants that are waiting for "euthaniasia", or to be sold, whichever is quicker.

Every time a random mutation stops the variant selling, it removes that particular sales slot from becomming available for further use.

The solution is obviously to impose an arbitary lifetime, but that is another intelligent intervention and intelligently imposed criterion, wehich is absent from evolution with a self-replicating system, as it either reproduces or it doesn't within its lifetime. Nobody needs to say that an orgainsm is living too long without reproducing, lifetime is another evolved trait.


Does this expalain what I mean?


<derail>
There is of course no evolutionary pressure for organisms to be able to reproduce much beyond the age by which they are likely to have died from other "natural causes".

Indeed, given that any such "effort" would be likely to use up precious resources, it would be more avantageous to have a similar lifetime to that, and have the surplus devoted to more successful breeding within the likely lifetime.

 

[President Bush]

Survival of the fittest, yes, but not always for the best,

This man down at the used car lot
Tried to sell me four wheels and a trunk
I said: man, there is no engine
He said: an engine’s like a piece of junk
You don’t need no engine to go downhill
And I can plainly see
That's the direction you’re heading in
Then he handed me the keys

Townes Van Zandt

 

[mijopaalmc]

The basic problem with the analogy still remains: if you take anything to the appropriate level of abstraction, anything can be made to resemble anything else.

 

[Southwind17]

The cheetah doesn't decide what form its prey will take, the sam and ollie story, and its variants is simply an evolutionary algorithm, optimising towards what will sell.

And the consumer doesn't decide what form consumer products will take either, does he? It might be helpful if you could explain what you see as fundamentally different in principle between a cheetah selecting an available prey and a consumer selecting an available product.

The "parents" of the subsequent generations are selected on their "saleability".

And the "saleability" is a reflection of a product's features and characteristics that differentiate it from the competition. "Saleability" is a measure of a product's 'fitness', just like survivability is a measure of a cheetah's 'fitness'.

There is intelligent selection of the "trait" of saleablility, because it has been decided to only copy those that sell. That is an arbitary ,intelligently defined sepecification.

"Saleability" isn't a trait. Saleability is the equivalent of survivability in biological evolution, because it leads directly to reproduction (if something sells then make more of it). The features and characteristics of individual consumer products are the "traits". The better suited such traits are for the environment, i.e. the more attractive the features and characteristics are to the consumer, the better the saleability.

Any "intelligence" that drives a consumer in rejecting one product for another based on that products weaker traits, i.e. features and characteristics that reduce its saleability, is absolutely no different from any "intelligence" that drives a cheetah, for example, in choosing one prey over another based on that prey's traits, i.e. natural capabilities (perceived ease with which it can be caught) that reduces its survivability. I really don't understand why you're struggling to see this too, jimbob.

 

[Southwind17]

The basic problem with the analogy still remains: if you take anything to the appropriate level of abstraction, anything can be made to resemble anything else.

OK mijo. Give us an example of a completely different analogy that demonstrates your point, i.e. an analogy that you feel only achieves as much as you consider the OP analogy does.

 

[Southwind17]

As quoted "copy those designs which sell", you are begging the question as to "sell in what timeframe". The default will be sell in an indefinite timeframe.

I thought we'd addressed this jimbob. It should be helpful if instead of raising objections as if they were new you addressed the responses to those objections when you first raise them.

Suppose you have a showroom with 500 sales slots, you are lucky in the first generation and 50% sell within 20 minutes. The rest remain, preventing you from using 250 slots. Without specifying a timescale, these could remain, blocking half your slots for eternity, you now only have 250 sales slots available.

The next generation, being more like the parents than grandparents, 60% sell quickly but 40% remain. You now are down to only 100 slots, and the rate of "evlution" is beginning to slow.

The next generation, again is an improvement, and 64% sell, you are now down to 64 slots, and 446 unsaleable variants that are waiting for "euthaniasia", or to be sold, whichever is quicker.

Every time a random mutation stops the variant selling, it removes that particular sales slot from becomming available for further use.

The solution is obviously to impose an arbitary lifetime, but that is another intelligent intervention and intelligently imposed criterion, wehich is absent from evolution with a self-replicating system, as it either reproduces or it doesn't within its lifetime. Nobody needs to say that an orgainsm is living too long without reproducing, lifetime is another evolved trait.


Does this expalain what I mean?

No, it doesn't. It simply reiterates something you've said previously, and which I've responded to previously. Don't you realize that for every hypothetical parameter that you've set, such as the number of sales slots or selling time, for example, I could hypothetically re-define the environment to overcome it? It's important that you realize, jimbob, that timeframe isn't important to the analogy. The analogy is hypothetical, so we can wait forever if we wish, so to speak. The analogy describes a principle which isn't bound by physical parameters such as showroom space, selling time, evolution rate, etc.

 

[Belz...]

Jimbob, did you not understand the point about intelligence beign a tool for information ?

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob
As quoted "copy those designs which sell", you are begging the question as to "sell in what timeframe". The default will be sell in an indefinite timeframe.

I thought we'd addressed this jimbob. It should be helpful if instead of raising objections as if they were new you addressed the responses to those objections when you first raise them.

My point has been that reproduction is a defining feature of life, and it is because of this self-replication that evolution occurs: Imperfect self-replication is necessary (and probably sufficient) for evolution to ocur.

This is is also what Richard Dawkins says, although he uses the word "heredity".

Originally Posted by jimbob
Suppose you have a showroom with 500 sales slots, you are lucky in the first generation and 50% sell within 20 minutes. The rest remain, preventing you from using 250 slots. Without specifying a timescale, these could remain, blocking half your slots for eternity, you now only have 250 sales slots available.

The next generation, being more like the parents than grandparents, 60% sell quickly but 40% remain. You now are down to only 100 slots, and the rate of "evlution" is beginning to slow.

The next generation, again is an improvement, and 64% sell, you are now down to 64 slots, and 446 unsaleable variants that are waiting for "euthaniasia", or to be sold, whichever is quicker.

Every time a random mutation stops the variant selling, it removes that particular sales slot from becomming available for further use.

The solution is obviously to impose an arbitary lifetime, but that is another intelligent intervention and intelligently imposed criterion, wehich is absent from evolution with a self-replicating system, as it either reproduces or it doesn't within its lifetime. Nobody needs to say that an orgainsm is living too long without reproducing, lifetime is another evolved trait.


Does this expalain what I mean?

No, it doesn't. It simply reiterates something you've said previously, and which I've responded to previously. Don't you realize that for every hypothetical parameter that you've set, such as the number of sales slots or selling time, for example, I could hypothetically re-define the environment to overcome it? It's important that you realize, jimbob, that timeframe isn't important to the analogy. The analogy is hypothetical, so we can wait forever if we wish, so to speak. The analogy describes a principle which isn't bound by physical parameters such as showroom space, selling time, evolution rate, etc.

The analogy is hypothetical, so we can wait forever if we wish, so to speak. The analogy describes a principle which isn't bound by physical parameters such as showroom space, selling time, evolution rate, etc.

So my point that it won't work stands then.

It won't work because without introducing a culling of the unsuccessfull variants, you require an infinite showroom. Even with an infinite showroom, and infinite time, only a small fraction of the "variants" would be saleable, most would not be.

I'll rephrase my response:

Unlike biological evolution or technical development, you have an (almost ) infinite amount of resources and infinite time. An infinite number of variants sells quickly, but unfortunately this is only 40% of the variants made. The other 60% are waiting for the heat death of the univers as they aren't going to sell. These 40% that sell quickly are copied, and 70% of those sell quickly whilst the rest don't, you are now down to only 28% of the variants are saleable. In two generations, 72% of the available variants will not sell, but there is no way in the system to cull them out.

Even with an infinte system, you need a culling process. As the system is infinite, it has already produces an infinite variety in the first pass, so again even more unlike evolution or technical development, there would be no change.

Evolution is a mechanism that doesn't need the infinite to work.

Your modification of the analogy, in order to remove the need for "death" and/or self-replication now invokes the infinite, which is a really poor argument to present against the need for a deity.

or as was said earlier I can make the analogy less like technical development to malke it more like biologivcal evolution...

 

[Belz...]

My point has been that reproduction is a defining feature of life

Actually, it's pretty much a feature of all forms of information.

 

[jimbob]

Jimbob, did you not understand the point about intelligence beign a tool for information ?

I don't accept that point.

Even in a memetic analysis, intelligence would be the environment where ideas evolve, not the tool.