- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Have come across a different answer to t8's perpetual monotone about computers being coded as a (false) analogy for biological 'design', and his claims about artificial intelligence. It seems that programming for AI takes you down dead-ends UNLESS you use an approach which treats the computer instructions as genes, allowing random mutation and selection of the rules that are most productive in solving unforeseen problems. If you don't do this then the robot (or whatever) gets stuck everytime it gets trapped into a situation for which it has no rules to rescue it.
t8's analogy doesn't work that well unless you allow Darwinian natural selection to be the mechanism for making the code!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2009,22:52) Have come across a different answer to t8's perpetual monotone about computers being coded as a (false) analogy for biological 'design', and his claims about artificial intelligence. It seems that programming for AI takes you down dead-ends UNLESS you use an approach which treats the computer instructions as genes, allowing random mutation and selection of the rules that are most productive in solving unforeseen problems. If you don't do this then the robot (or whatever) gets stuck everytime it gets trapped into a situation for which it has no rules to rescue it. t8's analogy doesn't work that well unless you allow Darwinian natural selection to be the mechanism for making the code!
Stuart
I think you can argue it both ways, there was a time when people argued that it required intelligence to play chess.Yet now, relatively dumb programs can beat people through computational brute force (and designed algorithms) – with algorithms definitely not now classed as artificial intelligence.
What do you call intelligence?
I'm ignoring the fact that I think it's a somewhat false analogy insofar as DNA might specify the means to create elements, it doesn't actually operate them once they are created.
Much as the principles of a logic gate build up a chip – the operation of the whole is very far removed from the operation of each single gate.
There must be a finite space of possibilities in which chess is played, albeit a large number of permutations. It is strictly true of the whole universe that there are only certain values of various quantities that are allowed. With enough brute force you can simply code for every eventuality, but you should then not expect that to be practically workable as a solution to artificially learning a way round any situation your robot might find itself in.
DNA is limited to what can be done by making proteins so it is not adaptable to just any situation, but DNA is arrived at by an elegant and parsimonious method of adaptation. DNA is self-contained in the sense that it codes for the production of the mechanism that allows it to operate. DNA is able to self-operate in an ongoing way in that genes can be switched off and on by biochemical interactions that are set up by the code in the DNA.
I agree with what I think you are saying about defining intelligence. Tentatively I might suggest that intelligence is the capacity to learn from ones mistakes, in which case all you then need is a mechanism for generating lots of random instruction sets and testing each one in situations where the existing set of retained codes do not appear to be giving appropriate results. Is that not far more efficient than carrying ridiculous masses of code and searching through the whole lot in every unforseen situation?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 07 2009,20:54) There must be a finite space of possibilities in which chess is played, albeit a large number of permutations. It is strictly true of the whole universe that there are only certain values of various quantities that are allowed. With enough brute force you can simply code for every eventuality, but you should then not expect that to be practically workable as a solution to artificially learning a way round any situation your robot might find itself in. DNA is limited to what can be done by making proteins so it is not adaptable to just any situation, but DNA is arrived at by an elegant and parsimonious method of adaptation. DNA is self-contained in the sense that it codes for the production of the mechanism that allows it to operate. DNA is able to self-operate in an ongoing way in that genes can be switched off and on by biochemical interactions that are set up by the code in the DNA.
I agree with what I think you are saying about defining intelligence. Tentatively I might suggest that intelligence is the capacity to learn from ones mistakes, in which case all you then need is a mechanism for generating lots of random instruction sets and testing each one in situations where the existing set of retained codes do not appear to be giving appropriate results. Is that not far more efficient than carrying ridiculous masses of code and searching through the whole lot in every unforseen situation?
Stuart
Yes, chess is ultimately finite – though it's an astronomical number, and the most powerful computers now can't calculate that many moves ahead really. Generally they have algorithms on top of the brute force to reject obviously flawed routes and favour beneficial ones (e.g. minimax – minimum risk maximum gain).I regard evolution – and indeed trial and error – as a generally dumb process. I agree that capacity to learn from one's mistakes is definitely an attribute of “intelligence” but I'd go further and say an understanding of cause and effect, and an ability to predict the results of events is also required.
Intelligence to me isn't mixing Hydrogen and Fluorine, and saying, “I wonder what will happen” – it's more mixing Hydrogen and Fluorine, and saying, “I think this will happen based on what I know about these elements”. With the latter outlook, you might at least stand a bit further away.
Evolution is an adaptive process rather than an intelligently driven one, for example – if humans cease to need their intelligence, humans who do not consume so much energy running such a large brain will be more efficient and favoured and we lose intelligence as a species. I regard intelligence as an attribute of a single entity, rather than a species (though you can argue the toss about collective intelligence, particularly if you're looking at hive insects).
Overall though random brute force isn't an efficient way of solving most problems. For example, to crack a password you can try all combinations possible – or you can try to predict it based on certain knowledge about the individual to whom it belongs.
DNA seems to be a brute force dumber approach. It works though.
It does occur to me to note that creationism seems to me a little weak at explaining extinction – firstly – why? (given people aren't always the agents of extinction)
Secondly, how do you get new species – are they continually created in creationism, including right now? (evolution provides a model for species divergence and new species coming along).
With extinction and without new species coming along, the number of species of course ultimately tends towards zero.
Yes, and I would suppose you would have to ask whose creationism you were discussing. Some just claim one act of creation then ignore the questions you are posing.
Stuart
Quote (Douglas @ Aug. 08 2009,21:57) DNA seems to be a brute force dumber approach. It works though.
It is brute force from the point of view of survival of the organism but not from the point of view of the mechanism by which it accumulates change: natural selection does not try opening combination locks by starting over each time. It discovers each number and remembers it before moving on to the next one. In that way it is elegant and efficient, although not with any goal 'in mind' of course.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,10:14) Quote (Douglas @ Aug. 08 2009,21:57) DNA seems to be a brute force dumber approach. It works though.
It is brute force from the point of view of survival of the organism but not from the point of view of the mechanism by which it accumulates change: natural selection does not try opening combination locks by starting over each time. It discovers each number and remembers it before moving on to the next one. In that way it is elegant and efficient, although not with any goal 'in mind' of course.Stuart
Well there is a goal – even if it isn't a conscious intelligent one – it's the same goal that finds and remembers the numbers on the locks – and adapts them as necessary.Survival is both the selection process and the implicit goal.
The overall process acts to adapt species to survive, but not necessarily to make them better at anything else except as an accidental byproduct of that. In theory a species that can take control of it's own evolution might be able to get past the just surviving thing – in practice, looking at people, I'm not sure sure if intelligence is ultimately a great evolutionary strategy.
It does get a bit more interesting nearer the fringes of science – when you consider Gaia theory and the idea that the planet as a whole can self regulate (within reason) to maintain a habitable environment by the activity (primarily) or living organisms (e.g. Daisyworld). It also nicely answers how the planet remains habitable for us and other species despite the increasing temperature of the sun as it ages.
In that respect, a species just evolving to gain more ability to survive in the context of that species doesn't necessarily mean it does better overall. For instance, a predator that becomes too efficient at hunting it's prey – resulting in their extinction. There is a bigger more complex layer to the whole evolution thing relating to the interaction with other species and the environment overall.
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2009,22:52) It seems that programming for AI takes you down dead-ends UNLESS you use an approach which treats the computer instructions as genes, allowing random mutation and selection of the rules that are most productive in solving unforeseen problems.
Creation creation creation.You say you need to so this or that in order for it to do this.
Creator all the way.
Douglas
Many issues there.
I'm not sure how you can use the word goal in relation to evolution. If it is not intelligent foresight then there is no goal of any sort. Why is it necessary to insert the concept of goals when it appears to be completely redundant?
Having thought about it recently I decided that no matter how hard we try it will not be possibly for humans to affect their own evolution by more than the extent of trivial tinkering. The scale and economics of it will never allow it. We are nevertheless affecting other species, driving many to extinction.
In ecosystems that have come to ecological equilibrium (not sure what word biologists use for this) you would not be likely to find predators that could evolve to the extent of decimating their prey. The predator is only sustained by the survival of the prey populations and will dwindle together with them. Of course there are also the evolutionary arms races to consider. Events happen that set up a new dynamic, and then you will see extinctions and other changes as a new ecological equilibrium is restored.
Gaia is not a theory as far as I am aware. I see it as mostly a crackpot religion.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 09 2009,12:10) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2009,22:52) It seems that programming for AI takes you down dead-ends UNLESS you use an approach which treats the computer instructions as genes, allowing random mutation and selection of the rules that are most productive in solving unforeseen problems.
Creation creation creation.You say you need to so this or that in order for it to do this.
Creator all the way.
Chanting of children's nonsense rhymes would seem to be the most honest form of creationism there is. As soon as facts are requested, the lying begins.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,13:57) Douglas Many issues there.
I'm not sure how you can use the word goal in relation to evolution. If it is not intelligent foresight then there is no goal of any sort. Why is it necessary to insert the concept of goals when it appears to be completely redundant?
Having thought about it recently I decided that no matter how hard we try it will not be possibly for humans to affect their own evolution by more than the extent of trivial tinkering. The scale and economics of it will never allow it. We are nevertheless affecting other species, driving many to extinction.
In ecosystems that have come to ecological equilibrium (not sure what word biologists use for this) you would not be likely to find predators that could evolve to the extent of decimating their prey. The predator is only sustained by the survival of the prey populations and will dwindle together with them. Of course there are also the evolutionary arms races to consider. Events happen that set up a new dynamic, and then you will see extinctions and other changes as a new ecological equilibrium is restored.
Gaia is not a theory as far as I am aware. I see it as mostly a crackpot religion.
Stuart
I don't think you need intelligence for a “goal” to exist – I'm using the word goal to mean a target which a system seeks – like a dumb thermostat in a heating system has a set goal which it tries to regular the temperature towards. It isn't always designed systems that exhibit that sort of equilibrium or balance. I did say it was an implicit goal – since anything that isn't capable of surviving necessarily goes extinct, and only things that survive persist.If we wanted to I think we could have a more fundamental effect that you think on our future evolution. Just look at the changes we've made in other species? Dogs? Cows? Chickens? Plants? Don't assume it's all genetic engineering. Sickle cell anaemia is one example of nature evolving people.
I agree super predators don't evolve very often, but once an arms race goes too far – it happens. I mean, look at what the human race is doing to both natural habitats and fish stocks? It's a mistake to assume our intelligence will somehow save us or stop us.
As for events happening that set up a new dynamic, restoring equilibrium – that's what Gaia hypothesis is all about. That's where the growing population of white daisies as the sun heats up comes from – that's where the obvious feedback loop limits rabbit populations if they're introduced to the model (they eat too many daisies, and starve).
I know a whole bunch of hippy types jumped all over Gaia theory and went into the whole religious thing with it – but look at the feedback side of it, the fact it resolves the faint young sun paradox and explains how the planet has managed to sustain life for so long against the backdrop of a warming sun (and more importantly maintained a reasonably tight temperature cliamte wise) and it's a decent theory in my book. Plus Daisyworld, to me, makes good sense.
Going back to your intelligence question, I don't think emergent behaviour in complex systems composed of simple parts should be classified as intelligence, and therefore I do not think this planet is either self aware or intelligent.
I personally think both tectonic plate drift and nuclear fission were considerably more crackpot theories than Gaia hypothesis (as per Daisyworld).
We can artificially select captive organisms (assuming the animals are willing to cross-breed for us!) but we have evolved ethical sensibilities that I think will stop humans making a blind bit of difference to human evolution. It may be that we unconsciously do artificial selection on ourselves but there is no way there could be a concerted effort lasting hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Just look at the way people have accepted then rejected large-scale centralised organisation and dictatorship within in the C20th. How could anyone make a large percentage of the population follow some artifically-imposed eugenic ideology? I can't see it myself, not even to the extent of wiping out genetic diseases. How would that be paid for? That is not to say we would not be aware of the factors that are driving human evolution. We know lots of them already.
Tectonic plate theory has some similarities with Darwin: there were observations like fitting coastlines and continental drift that demanded an explanation. I'm not sure who you think considered nuclear fission crackpot. Probably many people still do! Gaia would seem to be still looking for its mechanisms, but we know that the mechanisms of natural selection are the driving force for change in species. Are there hitherto unknown mechanisms of natural selection that cause the organism to try and improve the environment for itself on a wide-scale? What about the organism improving the environment for others? Daisyworld is a cute idea that appeals to me too but tell our ancestors that were anaerobic sulfur-eating bacteria that the relatively sudden filling of the atmosphere with oxygen was a maintenance of the environment that was co-beneficial.
What actually needs explaining by Gaia that has not already been explained by Darwin?
In a simplistic way I stick to the biological principle that there are no goals. Actually what are the goals? Survival and reproduction? Those are emergent properties of a blind biology too.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 10 2009,06:57) We can artificially select captive organisms (assuming the animals are willing to cross-breed for us!) but we have evolved ethical sensibilities that I think will stop humans making a blind bit of difference to human evolution. It may be that we unconsciously do artificial selection on ourselves but there is no way there could be a concerted effort lasting hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Just look at the way people have accepted then rejected large-scale centralised organisation and dictatorship within in the C20th. How could anyone make a large percentage of the population follow some artifically-imposed eugenic ideology? I can't see it myself, not even to the extent of wiping out genetic diseases. How would that be paid for? That is not to say we would not be aware of the factors that are driving human evolution. We know lots of them already. Tectonic plate theory has some similarities with Darwin: there were observations like fitting coastlines and continental drift that demanded an explanation. I'm not sure who you think considered nuclear fission crackpot. Probably many people still do! Gaia would seem to be still looking for its mechanisms, but we know that the mechanisms of natural selection are the driving force for change in species. Are there hitherto unknown mechanisms of natural selection that cause the organism to try and improve the environment for itself on a wide-scale? What about the organism improving the environment for others? Daisyworld is a cute idea that appeals to me too but tell our ancestors that were anaerobic sulfur-eating bacteria that the relatively sudden filling of the atmosphere with oxygen was a maintenance of the environment that was co-beneficial.
What actually needs explaining by Gaia that has not already been explained by Darwin?
In a simplistic way I stick to the biological principle that there are no goals. Actually what are the goals? Survival and reproduction? Those are emergent properties of a blind biology too.
Stuart
I think mostly I was just saying that affecting our future evolution was possible. However, we are in some respects affecting it by facilitating the survival of people who would not at one time have survived.I'm not aware of anyone of specific examples of people considering nuclear fission crackpot – but I personally do (despite not disputing it). It's an incredible idea that something the size of a golf ball can be converted to energy to demolish a small city. Totally incredible. E=mc2 is an absolutely incredible equation. If not for the secrecy surrounding the development of the atomic bomb I can imagine the reaction of Joe Public to hearing it was possible…
Now, more to the point, an instance of where I regard the Gaia model as being useful (using Daisyworld).
We'll take a planet, arbitrarily covered in a mixture of black and white daisies. Initially, we'll grant the daisies equivalence, excepting in the pigment of the their petals. At this point I don't think you can predict anything with Darwin – except that the two species should be able to compete equally and co-exist. If you throw Gaia into the equation then to be fair you have to say that the temperature is balanced with an equal distribution of daisies (in terms of their albedo effect with the sun). Both species are equally well adapted to their environment, and even if you let the sun heat up – you then introduce inequality by favouring white daisies which become relatively better adapted to their environment (using Darwin).
So instead of letting the sun heat up, we'll arbitarily introduce a very beneficial mutation into the black daisies – we'll evolve a daisy that's able to grow twice as fast and twice as high and wide, that happens to be black (since mutations are random it could be either, and it works either way).
Now, to me, Darwin says wonderful – excellently favourable mutation, black daisies win an evolutionary arms race, they conquer white daisies by getting all the sunlight first, and become the dominant species.
And Gaia adds a caveat – as the number of black daisies explodes as they overtake the white daisies, the albedo of the planet alters, and more heat is absorbed. Suddenly the black daisies have created an environment where they are more heat stressed and less able to survive than white daisies, merely by developing a highly beneficial mutation according to Darwin.
Now I just came up with the scenario off the top of my head, so I apologise if it's flawed, but as I see it – Gaia will negate what Darwin says should be an amazingly beneficial evolutionary step, simply because a species in sufficiently large numbers can affect the environment in which it lives. Result in this instance, black daisies are unable to totally overwhelm white daisies and indeed may not fundamentally alter the balance of power without further evolution (either to become white, or find some other way to tolerate higher temperatures that white daisies lack).
Darwin as I see it deals with the level of the individual species very well, Gaia adds a little perspective in the bigger picture that tempers it.
Strictly though, the black daisies don't depend on the white ones – there are mutations they could develop that would permit them to overwhelm the white daisies -like higher tolerance for heat. Then during cold periods they would remain a little warmer, and during hot periods they would suffer no penalty, and they could gradually overwhelm the white daisies – and fundamentally alter the environment of their planet (which nonetheless has to somehow settle into a reasonably stable state for their long term survival to be possible – bearing in mind the long term warming of the sun)
I'm not sure Darwin and Gaia are terribly different and indeed Gaia very much depends on Darwin – but they do look at opposite ends of the scale.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 09 2009,12:10) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2009,22:52) It seems that programming for AI takes you down dead-ends UNLESS you use an approach which treats the computer instructions as genes, allowing random mutation and selection of the rules that are most productive in solving unforeseen problems.
Creation creation creation.You say you need to so this or that in order for it to do this.
Creator all the way.
Is that personal belief speaking?The bible?
The belief of another person?
Or can you honestly and categorically say that God literally created everything you know and was not itself a product of everything you know? Honestly and categorically as in, that's what you were told, fair and square.
t8 realises that his creator was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna) but is too shy to say so.
The prevalence of Italian fast food outlets today is all the evidence you need.
Creation all the way, right t8?
Stuart
Greetings Stu…. It is the huberous of man that marvels at the creation yet denies the creator…Could you imagine what would have happened to this world if the wonders of science we live with today was available….say in the beginning of the 16th century…I dare say we would have destroyed ourselves…just as we are working towards today…The science of DNA has been revealed by its creator and that surely was not man,however,man is devising ways to pervert it as we speak(eg.cloning)so as to satiate his ego by claiming a creation… God will help us..
Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 13 2009,01:52) Greetings Stu…. It is the huberous of man that marvels at the creation yet denies the creator…Could you imagine what would have happened to this world if the wonders of science we live with today was available….say in the beginning of the 16th century…I dare say we would have destroyed ourselves…just as we are working towards today…The science of DNA has been revealed by its creator and that surely was not man,however,man is devising ways to pervert it as we speak(eg.cloning)so as to satiate his ego by claiming a creation… God will help us..
There is not a single assertion in your post that cannot be replaced with one with the word 'not' in it, and have exactly the same credibility.“The science of DNA has NOT been revealed by its creator (because there is no creator)” is just as valid.
This is what science has given us. A way of discriminating between boastful claims of the supernatural (about which you cannot possibly know) and that which is real and independently repeatable. I'm afraid your claims come into the former category.
If we are living in a 'creation' then it was not created by the god described in the Judeo-christian scripture.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 13 2009,06:53) Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 13 2009,01:52) Greetings Stu…. It is the huberous of man that marvels at the creation yet denies the creator…Could you imagine what would have happened to this world if the wonders of science we live with today was available….say in the beginning of the 16th century…I dare say we would have destroyed ourselves…just as we are working towards today…The science of DNA has been revealed by its creator and that surely was not man,however,man is devising ways to pervert it as we speak(eg.cloning)so as to satiate his ego by claiming a creation… God will help us..
There is not a single assertion in your post that cannot be replaced with one with the word 'not' in it, and have exactly the same credibility.“The science of DNA has NOT been revealed by its creator (because there is no creator)” is just as valid.
This is what science has given us. A way of discriminating between boastful claims of the supernatural (about which you cannot possibly know) and that which is real and independently repeatable. I'm afraid your claims come into the former category.
If we are living in a 'creation' then it was not created by the god described in the Judeo-christian scripture.
Stuart
OK ! we are making progress….we both agree there is a creator….the question is who is he….Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 14 2009,01:48) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 13 2009,06:53) Quote (theodorej @ Aug. 13 2009,01:52) Greetings Stu…. It is the huberous of man that marvels at the creation yet denies the creator…Could you imagine what would have happened to this world if the wonders of science we live with today was available….say in the beginning of the 16th century…I dare say we would have destroyed ourselves…just as we are working towards today…The science of DNA has been revealed by its creator and that surely was not man,however,man is devising ways to pervert it as we speak(eg.cloning)so as to satiate his ego by claiming a creation… God will help us..
There is not a single assertion in your post that cannot be replaced with one with the word 'not' in it, and have exactly the same credibility.“The science of DNA has NOT been revealed by its creator (because there is no creator)” is just as valid.
This is what science has given us. A way of discriminating between boastful claims of the supernatural (about which you cannot possibly know) and that which is real and independently repeatable. I'm afraid your claims come into the former category.
If we are living in a 'creation' then it was not created by the god described in the Judeo-christian scripture.
Stuart
OK ! we are making progress….we both agree there is a creator….the question is who is he….
How did you get “…we both agree there is a creator..” from my statement “The science of DNA has NOT been revealed by its creator[/i] (because there is no creator)” ?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
