We need to look at the time-frame if you want to see the difference between blind evolution and human-directed evolution. — TheMadFool
Human-directed evolution would arguably achieve optimum efficiency in a shorter period. — TheMadFool
Which situation would have a higher hit rate? You firing your gun randomly or a trained sniper? — TheMadFool
Yes. I use metaphors as a short-cut for extremely complex "mechanisms" — Gnomon
But, once programmed, the subconscious system operates the body automatically, until some problem requires an executive decision. — Gnomon
For example, the emotions quickly prime the body for "fight or flight". But the exec has to decide which. That's why we tend to freeze, when startled, long enough to assess the situation. — Gnomon
Wait, do you mean like eugenics or genetic engineering? — ZhouBoTong
If "directed evolution" means that the average Joe takes all applicable factors into account then chooses the most efficient way to live and reproduce, then I am yet to be sold. — ZhouBoTong
Besides intentional genetic manipulation though, hasn't human society largely eliminated the "survival of the fittest" thing? Nearly all humans will have the opportunity to reproduce if that is their life goal. What choices do I need to make in order to successfully pass on my genetic material? — ZhouBoTong
So, directed evolution needs to be framed in the context of rational faculties AND ethical sense. To immediately think of eugenics and genetic engineering would be incorrect. Nevertheless, I think it's important to point out the dangers. — TheMadFool
You don’t need to make many choices to pass on your genetic material, but your choices might determine the nature of its future. See my comments to TheMadFool about climate change. — Brett
Ha! That's why martial arts and competitive sports emphasize "practice, practice, practice". When you practice a move, your conscious mind analyzes the motions into small details. But your subconscious mind remembers only the whole movement (muscle memory). Eventually, you no longer need to freeze long enough to analyze, you just do it without thinking --- without willing. I suspect you may be an introvert, who is always consciously monitoring what you are doing. Top athletes and artists just go with the flow. :smile:I must get stuck in that moment of decision then. My fight or flight is f***ed. It almost always results in freeze. I did kickboxing for about a decade and the only fights that went well were the ones where I was calm enough for fight or flight to never kick in. — ZhouBoTong
Maybe TMF is talking about Cultural Evolution in general, rather than Eugenics or Transhumanism in particular. Cultural Evolution occurs much more rapidly than Natural Evolution. Cultural Selection is cumulative human choices. Unfortunately, the "unfit" consequences of our short-term efficiencies come back to haunt us quickly (e.g. burning fossil fuels, buried over millions of years, turned into aerosols in just a few human generations). Fortunately, if we learn from history, we can try to avoid making the same short-sighted choices over & over.If "directed evolution" means that the average Joe takes all applicable factors into account then chooses the most efficient way to live and reproduce, then I am yet to be sold. — ZhouBoTong
So, you think evolution "intended" to create intelligent agents all along, but it took 14 billion years to create a working prototype? I'm kidding, but most materialists would find the notion of teleology in Nature to be magical thinking. I happen to agree with your intuition, but instead of promoting Intelligent Design (ID), I propose Intelligent Evolution (IE).In fact it could be said that if nature is truly efficient it would favor directed evolution which necessitates an agent with intelligence AND free will rather than just leave everything to the vagaries of chance. — TheMadFool
I think where we clash here is in the idea that we can consciously shape and plan for the future, whereas I don’t think we can because the future is unknowable and cannot be planned for. — Brett
I didn't mean either of those quite so negatively (although eugenics certainly deserves it). When you talked about speeding evolution, that has to be more than individual choices...right? I think of dogs as a good example of accelerated evolution. Are humans making any decisions that are speeding evolution in any sort of similar way?
My point about EVERYBODY reproducing was to suggest that there is no targeted improvement happening if everyone is passing on genes.
I feel like I am NOT really addressing what you are getting at. Can you give me an example of how humans are speeding up their evolutionary development? — ZhouBoTong
So, you think evolution "intended" to create intelligent agents all along, but it took 14 billion years to create a working prototype? I'm kidding, but most materialists would find the notion of teleology in Nature to be magical thinking. I happen to agree with your intuition, but instead of promoting Intelligent Design (ID), I propose Intelligent Evolution (IE).
The primary difference between blind groping evolution and directed evolution is the foresight to imagine something better than what is. According to Darwinism, Nature is an ad hoc process : it works with what worked in the past, and adapts it to a new function. Early humans were not much better. They found rocks lying around and used them to pound on nuts. Only thousands of years later did their intelligence invent the hammer, which is intended specifically to pound on nails.
Intelligent Design envisions a world that began as a perfect design, but has been corrupted by an evil deity. Intelligent Evolution proposes a world that began as a primordial Egg, and is still developing and evolving toward the complete design. Both theories explain the imperfections, but only one explains the necessity for gradual evolution, and for the belated emergence of Intelligence, Will, and Morality. :smile: — Gnomon
In conclusion if you have a limited number of choices that are a subset of the actual number of choices do you have free will — enzomatrix207
I still can't figure out why you think the future is unknowable. — TheMadFool
Okay, let’s define, or agree somehow, on what we mean by ‘the future’. To me it’s the absolute unknown, it doesn’t exist. And yes, for me, the universe is chaos. — Brett
Yes, but that assumes the Designer intended to create a perfect Garden of Eden. If so, then we have to invent an evil god who is powerful enough to foil that intention. However, what if the whole point of creation was to produce a self-perfecting Experiential Process? Some philosophers have postulated that God experiences reality through our eyes, ears, and feelings. I can't speak for God's intentions, but the self-improvement Process of Intelligent Evolution makes more sense to me than the failed Perfection of Intelligent Design. :smile:Isn't this a tacit affirmation that, given the means and opportunity, an intelligent designer can surpass blind evolution in every way? — TheMadFool
Yes, but that assumes the Designer intended to create a perfect Garden of Eden. If so, then we have to invent an evil god who is powerful enough to foil that intention. However, what if the whole point of creation was to produce a self-perfecting Experiential Process? Some philosophers have postulated that God experiences reality through our eyes, ears, and feelings. I can't speak for God's intentions, but the self-improvement Process of Intelligent Evolution makes more sense to me than the failed Perfection of Intelligent Design — Gnomon
Maybe TMF is talking about Cultural Evolution in general, rather than Eugenics or Transhumanism in particular. — Gnomon
Fortunately, if we learn from history, we can try to avoid making the same short-sighted choices over & over. — Gnomon
What I'm saying boils down to the fact that intelligent design is better than blind evolution. — TheMadFool
If you look at how scientists argue against intelligent design you'll see one common motif - that our biology has countless structural and functional flaws. — TheMadFool
Implicit in that claim is an intelligent designer would've done a better job than probability-based evolution. — TheMadFool
Perhaps. If the final outcome was the most important goal of the designer. But multiplayer video games are intended to provide an ongoing experience for the players, not to rig the game for a predetermined end state. So, maybe the "designer" of our world was more interested in the Process than the Product.Isn't this a tacit affirmation that, given the means and opportunity, an intelligent designer can surpass blind evolution in every way? — TheMadFool
Perhaps. If the final outcome was the most important goal of the designer. But multiplayer video games are intended to provide an ongoing experience for the players, not to rig the game for a predetermined end state. So, maybe the "designer" of our world was more interested in the Process than the Product.
As you suggested, "given the means and opportunity", why should it take over 14 billion human years to create a perfect world with perfect people? In Genesis, the Creator produced a perfect paradise, complete with vegetarian lions and innocent humans, in only six days, and then took some time off. Ironically, during his vacation, a Troll hacked-in to paradise and "put up a parking lot".
However, since our turbulent Game of Thrones is still evolving in fits & starts, I must assume the Designer is either absconded, or incompetent, or is enjoying the ride, and in no hurry to see the drama end. :smile: — Gnomon
So, maybe the "designer" of our world was more interested in the Process than the Product. — Gnomon
Fascinating. I would also argue to believe you have free will in the traditional sense leads to an increase in depression. Depression is not the path of least resistence. I would argue an animals ability to understand abstract concepts like law and money will lead to that animal to have deep and serious depression. Once again not the path of least resistence.
Thanks for this post. Once again very fascinating. — christian2017
Given this is so, it seems an obvious goal for intelligent life like humans is to manipulate the processes (evolution) to give the product (life) an increased chance of survival. To add, human objectives in life have gone beyond mere survival and now include the quality of life itself. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.