In other words, and here's where it gets interesting, mindless evolution through random mutation is exactly what a mind which is as intelligent as us would do given the way things were, are, will probably be. — TheMadFool
That's a nice thought. Have you looked into GAs by chance? They can work when other methods don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm — j0e
If I understand what you are implying, I must whole-heartedly agree. In my own theory of Creation via Evolution, our world has grown from a tiny fetus (Singularity) to the most complex system in the known universe, by implementing a simple algorithm : Chance + Choice = Progress. Random variations provide novelty from which the most adaptive forms are Naturally Selected to pass on into the next generation. That is indeed the "strategy" of the Genetic Algorithm.Notice the word, "strategy" above vis-à-vis evolution. If anything, it implies that were there a being as intelligent as us behind the "creation" of life, that being (some call it god/creator) would do exactly what evolution does right now. — TheMadFool
So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future. — Gnomon
where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation. — Gnomon
In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. — Gnomon
We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light. — Gnomon
Are you suggesting that humans can do what the bible-god couldn't : create a system that gradually evolves toward a more perfect world? I'm not a card-carrying Transhumanist, but I see evidence that evolution is progressing upward, and that the rate-of-progress accelerated after rational creatures emerged. Of course, the glitch in that rosy scenario is the resistance of irrational creatures to change. :nerd:So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future. — Gnomon
Transhumanist Theodicy — TheMadFool
Yes. The traits that survive are the fittest available for the local conditions at that place & time. The apex dinosaurs had traits that were quite fit for their place & time, but the asteroid impact changed the conditions of the environment, and the rules of the fitness game. So little furry creatures -- and dinosaurs with feathers -- were more fit for the new milieu, than the old dominant species with cold blood and/or scaly skin. Was it just the luck of the draw, that creatures had already evolved with the necessary traits for the next phase of evolution? :chin:This means that those who survive major upheavals in the environment aren't actually the fittest life-forms around; it's just that a particular set of traits help them ride out the storm. — TheMadFool
That was a reference to the "Power of Absence" mentioned in the Anthropic Principle thread.We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light. — Gnomon
Well said! — TheMadFool
Are you suggesting that humans can do what the bible-god couldn't — Gnomon
Yes. The traits that survive are the fittest available for the local conditions at that place & time. The apex dinosaurs had traits that were quite fit for their place & time, but the asteroid impact changed the conditions of the environment, and the rules of the fitness game. So little furry creatures -- and dinosaurs with feathers -- were more fit for the new milieu, than the old dominant species with cold blood and/or scaly skin. Was it just the luck of the draw, that creatures had already evolved with the necessary traits for the next phase of evolution? — Gnomon
Natural selection, like other chaotic systems, is not random. — 180 Proof
"Survival of the fittest" applies to species broadly and population groups narrowly, and is never applicable to individuals. Re: eu-social neo-darwinism (i.e. E.O. Wilson & Richard Dawkins).
An "anthropic principle" is a self-serving, self-flattering cognitive bias that anthropocentrically, and without sufficient warrant, violates the mediocrity principle.
The OP's "paradox" is merely an artifact of inadequate, or false, premises. — 180 Proof
This is ignorance. Random events are not repeatable, yet DNA is a discernible pattern of repeatable nucleic events.This is a myth. There are no discernible patterns in genetic mutation i.e. DNA events are random. — TheMadFool
Hasty generalization. Cite evidence that evolution "strategizes" (i.e. is purposeful or has goals). Finalism aka "teleology" is demonstrably false and pseudo-scientific (like e.g "Intelligent Design"). And why do you (seemingly) equate "intelligence" with "mind"?All I'm saying is if we believe we have intelligence, as evidenced by our ability to strategize, evolution too must be treated as a product of a mind since it too is a strategy, a good one at that.
There's no need to "concede" anything, Fool. False dichotomy. Another plausible (highly probable) option is, for instance, "no mind behind evolution" and our minds are products of natural selection (yet transparent to themselves since minds were evolved to adapt to external environments and N O T to the internal environment of brain-CNS) .Either that or insist there's no mind behind evolution and concede the possibility that our minds could be an illusion.
This is ignorance. Random events are not repeatable, yet DNA is a discernible pattern of repeatable nucleic events. — 180 Proof
Hasty generalization. Cite evidence that evolution "strategizes" (i.e. is purposeful or has goals). Finalism aka "teleology" is demonstrably false and pseudo-scientific (like e.g "Intelligent Design"). And why do you (seemingly) equate "intelligence" with "mind"? — 180 Proof
There's no need to "concede" anything, Fool. False dichotomy. Another plausible (highly probable) option is, for instance, "no mind behind evolution" and our minds are products of natural selection (yet opaque to themselves since minds were evolved to adapt to external environments and N O T to the internal environment of brain-CNS) . — 180 Proof
Big whup. "Somehow" is not grounds for doubting what I've said. "Your "references?"Somehow I don't believe you. — TheMadFool
Beaver dams & beehives. Viruses & neural nets (e.g. AlphaGo Zero). DNA & cellular automata ...Where have you found intelligence without a mind? :chin:
Clearly, you don't have an adequate conception of 'random' (or randomness). — 180 Proof
Big whup. "Somehow" is not grounds for doubting what I've said. "Your "references?" — 180 Proof
Where have you found intelligence without[/u] a mind? :chin:
Beaver dams & beehives. Viruses & neural nets (e.g. AlphaGo Zero). DNA & cellular automata ... — 180 Proof
The main problem with my thesis of an intentionally created universe is this : why? And why leave us, the apex creatures, in the dark about where & why the world is evolving as it does. Toward what end?Not exactly. God achieves faer aims through humans, us. To cut to the chase, we are the means with which God achieves his ends - we're essentially tools for God with which, if all goes well, god can create paradise/heaven (transhumanism). — TheMadFool
Stop being so lazy! That's what Google, wiki & SEP are for. Pro tip, Fool: search "random" "chance" "chaos" "natural selection" "intelligence" & "mind" so that you can correct or entirely rewrite your pseudo-whatever OP.Educate me! — TheMadFool
Stop being so lazy! That's what Google, wiki & SEP are for. Pro tip, Fool: search "random" "chance" "chaos" "natural selection" "intelligence" & "mind" so that you can correct or entirely rewrite your pseudo-whatever OP. — 180 Proof
Are Mutations Random?
The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germline. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right.
However, the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. Mutation rates are usually very low, and biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep them as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. Nonetheless, mutation rates never reach zero, even despite both low-level protective mechanisms, like DNA repair or proofreading during DNA replication, and high-level mechanisms, like melanin deposition in skin cells to reduce radiation damage. Beyond a certain point, avoiding mutation simply becomes too costly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution. — www.nature.com
The main problem with my thesis of an intentionally created universe is this : why? And why leave us, the apex creatures, in the dark about where & why the world is evolving as it does. Toward what end? — Gnomon
Ancient sages also pondered that question, and came up with a variety of solutions. As you noted, the fatalistic Greeks, among others, concluded that humans are slaves or "tools" of the gods, who do things the gods can't, or won't, do for themselves. So, it was common for those slaves to believe that they were doing "god's work", when they offered sacrifices of food, incense, and sometimes, human blood. They assumed that the gods needed those things, but without physical bodies, had to rely on semi-autonomous humans to do the actual laborious & messy work. — Gnomon
Omega Point — Gnomon
I rest my case.
— TheMadFool
:rofl: — 180 Proof
So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature?Another plausible (highly probable) option is, for instance, "no mind behind evolution" and our minds are products of natural selection — 180 Proof
That is a common short-hand assumption, but it simply ignores the "artificial" in Artificial Intelligence. The artist, whose intelligence is imparted to the program, is the Programmer, who is seldom sans mind. And his intelligence is a product of eons of natural selection going back to the original Programmer of Nature. :smile:As for the issue of intelligence and mind, you said that the relationship between the two isn't one of necessity - we've successfuly separated the two as in AI (intelligence sans a mind). — TheMadFool
That is a common short-hand assumption, but it simply ignores the "artificial" in Artificial Intelligence. The artist, whose intelligence is imparted to the program, is the Programmer, who is seldom sans mind. And his intelligence is a product of eons of natural selection going back to the original Programmer of Nature. :smile:
Artificial : made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, — Gnomon
Natural selection.Sowhomakes the "selection" -- mindless Nature? — Gnomon
:cry:Laughing, ok — TheMadFool
Natural selection, like other chaotic systems, is not random. — 180 Proof
This is a myth. — TheMadFool
Why is this simple fact about evolution so difficult for some folk?
It's as if, given that the Irish Lottery is decided at random, MadFool were to conclude that the entire institution of the National Lottery must have come about by chance. Web page and all. — Banno
Random" (like mystery) = "god did it" in the back of most thick skulls. TMF just refuses to learn how the concept is used (and differs from "chance", etc) in mathematics, computational & information theories or in the sciences more broadly. An almost religious incorrigibility. — 180 Proof
If evolution isn't inherently random, we must conclude that evolution is teleological. — TheMadFool
Why? — Banno
...preferred... — TheMadFool
Put some dirt in a jar. of water. Shake it. The smaller particles will move to the top, the larger to the bottom.
The particles move in a "...demonstrably consistent manner. This pattern of preferences will ultimately lead to a specific endpoint and this endpoint is what teleology is all about."
On your argument, the particles in the jar have a purpose. — Banno
Are we not then warranted to infer teleology in the dirt particles? — 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.