Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@Setanta,

well said. Precise and concise . Now I can go to the Farm Show secure in the knowledge that the Phlipistines wont have the doors all covered with symbols

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

No, it sounds like purest feedlot bullsh*t. That you claim to see patterns is not evidence that there are patterns there. Your algorithm analogy is a failed analogy, and you've not supported it with logic, let alone evidence.

Other people see the analogy, discussing it, and are advancing science instead of calling names and being close minded bigots.

Why not address the points one at a time and show everyone where my logic is flawed?

https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/alife13/ch018.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

https://watchmaker.uncommons.org/manual/ch01.html

https://conversionxl.com/blog/evolutionary-algorithms-optimization/

http://www.counterbalance.org/evotheo/evolu2-frame.html

https://www.quora.com/Is-evolution-basically-a-biological-optimization-algorithm

https://qz.com/933695/researchers-are-using-darwins-theories-to-evolve-ai-so-only-the-strongest-algorithms-survive/

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/29/10620

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

well said. Precise and concise . Now I can go to the Farm Show secure in the knowledge that the Phlipistines wont have the doors all covered with symbols

Instead jumping on Setanta's name calling band wagon, why don't you read the links I gave him, educate yourself and the topic, and discuss my points one at a time and systematically show me where you think my logic is wrong?

Are you capable of discussing this point by point because that is the process necessary for discussing and understanding a topic precisely and concisely.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It’s the natural process based on the materials within the available environment.

I agree. Where do you think the materials and environment came from?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

You've been told again and again that your analogies are without foundation (something you never attempt to remedy) and that you provide no evidence for your world view. When it is pointed out that you have not supported your silly analogies, and that you have provided no evidence for your claims, your "points" that you want discussed one at a time are just a lame rhetorical dodge to avoid your wonderfully-evidence-free narrative. When you make claims, no one is obliged to disprove them, you have a burden of proving your claims.

This whining about "name-calling" is pathetic. Calling bullshit bullshit is not name-calling. Grow up.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

If my analogies are without foundation, why are so many people in the scientific community using the analogy to guide research and development as I showed in all the links I provided in my last post?

I thought it is an obviously perceived pattern like those researchers in those links did. Why do you think they think its logical but you don’t?

Could it be you are full of bullshit and don’t want to admit it with your poof matter (which is order and information) came into existence on its own belief.

Maybe you need to try saying Brian and most other people could possibly be right. It’s not about who’s smarter, it’s about accepting a truth that at first you thought was wrong and admitting it could be right.

Maybe you need an aha moment.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Other people see the analogy, discussing it, and are advancing science instead of calling names and being close minded bigots.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/alife13/ch018.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
https://watchmaker.uncommons.org/manual/ch01.html
https://conversionxl.com/blog/evolutionary-algorithms-optimization/
http://www.counterbalance.org/evotheo/evolu2-frame.html
https://www.quora.com/Is-evolution-basically-a-biological-optimization-algorithm
https://qz.com/933695/researchers-are-using-darwins-theories-to-evolve-ai-so-only-the-strongest-algorithms-survive/
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/29/10620

These links mostly deal with Evolutionary Algorithms as a function of computational programming.

I doubt that anyone disputes that you can use Biological Evolution as a general pattern for computational problem solving. It's been done successfully many times already and is becoming a routine approach to solving complex computational problems.

Evolutionary Algorithms (EA's) are becoming commonplace in AI development and in other applications, so I'm not sure not sure what your point is. Maybe I missed it earlier since I haven't been following this thread very closely lately.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I doubt that anyone disputes that you can use Biological Evolution as a general pattern for computational problem solving. It's been done successfully many times already and is becoming a routine approach to solving complex computational problems.

Evolutionary Algorithms (EA's) are becoming commonplace in AI development and in other applications, so I'm not sure not sure what your point is. Maybe I missed it earlier since I haven't been following this thread very closely lately.

I was drawing the conclusion that we should consider Evolution by natural selection is an actual algorithm (running in the hardware of matter and biology using the operating system of the laws of physics) since we can use it as a pattern for algorithms we are creating today.

Sentanta disagreed

Quote:

Setanta

3 REPLYREPORT Mon 8 Jan, 2018 09:56 pm
@brianjakub,
No, it sounds like purest feedlot bullsh*t. That you claim to see patterns is not evidence that there are patterns there. Your algorithm analogy is a failed analogy, and you've not supported it with logic, let alone evidence.

Do you think it is pure feedlot bullshit also?

3 Replies

@brianjakub,

Your analogy is to the effect that the cosmos is hardware, and that the hardware is operated yb an operating system using algorithms. That's bullshit, for which you have provided no support.
don't seem to have absorbed the criticsm that your patterns are imposed from outside, and such patterns cannot be used as evidence for the phony-baloney claim that our cosmos has been organized by an intelligence. You continue to sidestep the issue of entropy, which is the state of matter and energy in the cosmos, which moves to more and more dis-ordered states.

Maybe you need to buy a vowel. Maybe you need to learn to distinguish thought exercises from reality.

EDIT: By the way, it's hilarious and typical of the god-botherers that you whine about name-calling, while referring to me as close-minded bigot.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

EA's in all cases have been developed by careful study of what actually happened and even that was done in segmented computations. The SCience article about which I asked for your opinions last year had some interesting findings. What did you take from the results published??

I had a bit of a chuckle when I posed the series of abiogenesis experiments that were being done in long term(including lbs like Lawrence Livermore). My statement to you was something like,"even if we come up with a number of possible means of abiogenesis, we can nver be certain of which one or ones actually applied"

As I recall you responded with a sort of "Jakuby" , and I paraphrse.

"SEE!? You dont really know which one applies now do you"? Using a similar argument based on your continued incredulity,
Why not inspect your own premises then?,. I dont see you going past a comfortable Bible based assertion. At least science has a bagful of lab experiments, ID, however, seems to be sitting on its ass, smugly comfortable in their religious premise that implies that they dont really need any steenking evidence to assert the "Facts" of their beliefs.

We should really have no time for that kind of thinking , its too damned tribal(and its a very small tribe). If you want to diss the Discovery Institute and their meager efforts at discovering "pattern and intelligence " in the origins of life" (Which is where theyve sort of finally come to rest), you then sort of run out of corners. Arguments from incredulity always have a big responsibility on them, you need to get cracking or, like some of our other Creationists, you will be viewed as some dang fool whose busy yelling at traffic. Once you get something worth considering then you have an argument of value, Till then, you really need to think like Darwin, make up pros and cons list that leads to some means of investigation. If youve got a science bone in your body, you shouldnt hqve to be told any of this
Will I see you publishing something significant for the 150th anniversary of "Darwin Day"?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I was drawing the conclusion that we should consider Evolution by natural selection is an actual algorithm (running in the hardware of matter and biology using the operating system of the laws of physics) since we can use it as a pattern for algorithms we are creating today.

,
Obeying all the laws of chemistry, Physics, nd biology would result in more because it would NOT require reprogramming at every "natural hiatus or mass extinction".(of course you could probably default to saying that some god was playing ping pong by first wiping out life and then almost wiping out life several times).
Hell we even have a really good understanding of how the world bounced over from being totally methogenetic to totally oxidizing. All it requires is some understanding of redox and thermo.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

I was drawing the conclusion that we should consider Evolution by natural selection is an actual algorithm (running in the hardware of matter and biology using the operating system of the laws of physics) since we can use it as a pattern for algorithms we are creating today.

Algorithms are typically defined as processes involved in solving problems, but in the case of evolution within natural systems there is no problem which is being solved, so it is not an algorithm almost by definition.

Evolutionary processes, whether cosmological or biological, are just natural processes running their course, so I don't think your "algorithm" analogy is very good or very accurate.

As to what, if anything, has imbued our so-called reality with these natural processes, I cannot say, nor can anyone. What we can say with logical certainty, is that any supposition which involves a preexisting intelligence, over-complicates the solution rather than simplifying it, and thus fails Occam's Razor.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

So if we ever create a robot that can learn to replicate itself, maintain itself and improve itself by evolving its algorithm when it reaches that point it is no longer an algorithm because now it is operating under fully natural system (it is at from the robot’s point of view). Heck even the guy that invented the original algorithm was a man who is part of nature. Or was the initial creative thought of the man supernatural? If the robot creates something new is it natural or supernatural? I think you are getting caught up in symantics to avoid talking about an algorithm writer and hardware builder that is much older and works on much grander scales that the only algorithm writer we observe today (man).

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

If such a robot were unable to distinguish its own condition from natural processes, as is the case with us, then it should draw the same conclusions that we do. It would be wrong, but at least it would be thinking rationally.

Your whole argument is an exposition of multiplying entities beyond necessity.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Algorithms are typically defined as processes involved in solving problems, but in the case of evolution within natural systems there is no problem which is being solved, so it is not an algorithm almost by definition.

Elegant explanation ros.Tell ya the truth I have a problem installing my passwords into a password saving thingy.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I can distinguish between natural (a running system) and supernatural(creative thought that built the system). That’s what makes you and I special, we aren’t living robots like animals, we are beings created in the image of God with the ability to visualize an objective view of reality which allows us to understand the need to sacrifice our comfort for a greater good. If that robot could do that he would eventually realize there is something that had to create the algorithm his thoughts are living and operating in.

The question is are his objective thoughts the result of the hardware and algorithm, or are they just experienced through the hardware and algorithm. In actuality a man wrote it into his hardware and algorithm so he learning how understand how the man thinks just by living.

What if the son of the inventor of the robot visited him and told the robot about the creator

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

If we create an algorithm for the robot, what problem is it solving?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Algorithms are typically defined as processes involved in solving problems, but in the case of evolution within natural systems there is no problem which is being solved, so it is not an algorithm almost by definition.

False.. The problem nature faces is survival.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

False.. The problem nature faces is survival.

The individual organism faces the problem of survival. The process of evolution does not.

3 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

If we create an algorithm for the robot, what problem is it solving?

You are mixing up frames of reference. You are breaking the logic of your own analogies.

1 Reply

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know