Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly; creativity doesn't require purpose.
The 'WOW' signal suggested technological origin, with all that implies.
Now you are beginning to get it, I think.
If you like - these are just labels we apply to certain kinds of behaviour. Whether they would recognisably apply to alien technology is moot.right, like intent, purpose, & creativity in the sense of creative imagination (as opposed to a meteor 'creating' a large hole..)
What caused you to change it?
Interesting. How did your model compare to other computer models of evolution?A lot of things, but one of the first seeds of doubt came when trying to demonstrate the efficacy of the Darwinian algorithm with a computer program to a skeptical friend (he was a surgeon and I couldn't believe he could doubt Darwinian evolution- but apparently most doctors are skeptical of it by some polls). I'm not saying I managed to soundly debunk Darwinism in one go, I just proved to myself, that it didn't work the way I intuitively thought it would- which got me looking into it more.
There's something very humbling about arguing with a computer!
If you like - these are just labels we apply to certain kinds of behaviour. Whether they would recognisably apply to alien technology is moot.
use any label you like, desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible-
Interesting. How did your model compare to other computer models of evolution?
It shouldn't matter to you; the presence of purpose or intention in biological forms is unfalsifiable.use any label you like, desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible-
as you argue yourself, you don't believe biological forms were the result of any intentional design, will, purpose, so you acknowledge that distinction yourself do you not?
What things? And why are those things otherwise impossible?
It shouldn't matter to you; the presence of purpose or intention in biological forms is unfalsifiable.
Correct. It would not work nearly so well if it did.well objectively this comes around to the information question again, information representing an anticipated consequence. Darwin's theory does not require any anticipation of consequences/outcomes- so the theory goes, right? that's a pretty clear distinction is it not?
As it stands, that's all just woo.We can all intuitively recognize creative intelligence in Mt Rushmore or the Rosetta Stone, but the key objective measure is the quality and quantity of information contained in the designs in each- beyond any subjective familiarity that might give us a short cut to the same conclusion
well objectively this comes around to the information question again, information representing an anticipated consequence. Darwin's theory does not require any anticipation of consequences/outcomes- so the theory goes, right? that's a pretty clear distinction is it not?
We can all intuitively recognize creative intelligence in Mt Rushmore or the Rosetta Stone, but the key objective measure is the quality and quantity of information contained in the designs in each- beyond any subjective familiarity that might give us a short cut to the same conclusion
Which would not falsify the presence of intention, which was my point.I think you could hypothetically falsify the need for intent- if you could create a model that produced similar quality and quantity of emergent properties/ information without being pre-loaded or guided to do so
How does one define/measure this information? How does this information represent an impossibility vis-a-vis natural forces?
What quality and quantity of information?
How does one measure information in something like Mt. Rushmore?
And finally, how does that represent an impossibility as per your claim that, "desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible".
If you really wanted to examine one case- you could determine just how many guided blows of the hammer and chisel it would require, or how many pixels altered in random noise, before the average person could not only recognize Abe Lincoln (he's probably quicker than most!) but also discount the probability that it was caused by unguided processes
But information having sufficient quality and quantity to make a conclusion, does not require an exact measurement either- because clearly we can recognize the difference without that level of precision- the old 'how much hair do you have to lose before you are bald' analogy- not having a specific number doesn't mean there is no clear distinctions to be made.
I acknowledge that it's a useful distinction that we make; but as I said before, it's not unique to humans, we simply excel at it. There are plausible evolutionary pathways for its development and obvious reasons why it would have a selective advantage, and we can see some of the stages of that development in other creatures alive today.use any label you like, desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible-
as you argue yourself, you don't believe biological forms were the result of any intentional design, will, purpose, so you acknowledge that distinction yourself do you not?
The "anticipation" in evolution lies in constantly providing a population exhibiting a range of variation around the existing theme in anticipation of changes in the selection criteria.I think many find the same thing, not just in models but in direct biological experimentation- 'beneficial mutations' do not take in a population nearly as easily as you would imagine.
Ironically I think there is some anthropomorphism involved. Talking of anticipation- everything we consciously do is in anticipation of a future consequence- near or far- right? And so this is practically impossible to separate from our thought experiments- we always tend to consciously favor any small 'advantage' for later pay off- because that's how we have lived our entire conscious lives. While the cold hard math itself- is quite happy to discard it for any number of reasons, it doesn't give a hoot if the genetic line is successful and this changes the outcome significantly
Not really true as a generalisation of human behaviour - empirically, we tend to be strongly loss averse, and discount larger future reward in favour of smaller near-term reward - hence, "a bird in the hand...".... we always tend to consciously favor any small 'advantage' for later pay off- because that's how we have lived our entire conscious lives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?