An opportunity for you: help name a new kind of Evolution

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I have come to the conclusion that Evolution deserves its own category. Due to Evolution getting its own category, it behoves the adept to begin to set out things which do not belong to Evolution - according to that category (but belong to that category, because the category is self-sufficient). My point is, there are types of Evolution, that also deserve their own place in that category.

Rather than set out candidate after candidate, I thought I would just choose one,, and give you the idea - from there, who knows, you might be able to name them all yourself.

The candidate for its own name, under Evolution's category, is "Machine Evolution". The concept "Machine Evolution" points to the idea that, yes, with the right set of prompts, a machine can evolve - we have early computers, later computers, quantum computers, the list goes on.

So what would you name "Machine Evolution"? I have a couple of ideas "Machinelation" "Machinelution" "machinagressus" (from the Latin "machina praegressus" - but I want to hear from you (specifically Evolutionists, at least at first)... what would you name it?

The point is, we are working within the construct of Evolution's category, not Evolution itself - so we are able to point to things which evolve, without expecting Evolution to evolve (either itself, or other categories with it).

Have I made naming "Machine Evolution" clear enough?

 

[Belk]

Hi there,

So I have come to the conclusion that Evolution deserves its own category. Due to Evolution getting its own category, it behoves the adept to begin to set out things which do not belong to Evolution - according to that category (but belong to that category, because the category is self-sufficient). My point is, there are types of Evolution, that also deserve their own place in that category.

Rather than set out candidate after candidate, I thought I would just choose one,, and give you the idea - from there, who knows, you might be able to name them all yourself.

The candidate for its own name, under Evolution's category, is "Machine Evolution". The concept "Machine Evolution" points to the idea that, yes, with the right set of prompts, a machine can evolve - we have early computers, later computers, quantum computers, the list goes on.

So what would you name "Machine Evolution"? I have a couple of ideas "Machinelation" "Machinelution" "machinagressus" (from the Latin "machina praegressus" - but I want to hear from you (specifically Evolutionists, at least at first)... what would you name it?

The point is, we are working within the construct of Evolution's category, not Evolution itself - so we are able to point to things which evolve, without expecting Evolution to evolve (either itself, or other categories with it).

Have I made naming "Machine Evolution" clear enough?

No offense Gottservant, but have you stopped taking your medication again? If so can I politely suggest you start up again? These episodes can not be good for you.

 

[HARK!]

I wonder what the plants think about evolution. If they were here first; wouldn't it stand to reason that their intellect would be the most highly evolved?

 

[Ophiolite]

I wonder what the plants think about evolution. If they were here first; wouldn't it stand to reason that their intellect would be the most highly evolved?

Why would it? Intellect is a notoriously expensive and generally counterproductive trait. Almost all the successful taxa have avoided it like the plague. (I don't mean they have avoided it like the plague, I was just giving the plague as an example of one that had avoided it. )

Plus, plants came on the scene a billion years after the first life. Newcomers! They move in. They take our carbon dioxide and they pollute the air with poisonous excretions of oxygen. Nasty green slimy things!

 

[HARK!]

Intellect is a notoriously expensive and generally counterproductive trait.

That's very interesting. i was taught that it is the productive traits that prevail. I guess you just can't believe everything that you hear.

 

[Speedwell]

Hi there,

So I have come to the conclusion that Evolution deserves its own category. Due to Evolution getting its own category, it behoves the adept to begin to set out things which do not belong to Evolution - according to that category (but belong to that category, because the category is self-sufficient). My point is, there are types of Evolution, that also deserve their own place in that category.

Rather than set out candidate after candidate, I thought I would just choose one,, and give you the idea - from there, who knows, you might be able to name them all yourself.

The candidate for its own name, under Evolution's category, is "Machine Evolution". The concept "Machine Evolution" points to the idea that, yes, with the right set of prompts, a machine can evolve - we have early computers, later computers, quantum computers, the list goes on.

So what would you name "Machine Evolution"? I have a couple of ideas "Machinelation" "Machinelution" "machinagressus" (from the Latin "machina praegressus" - but I want to hear from you (specifically Evolutionists, at least at first)... what would you name it?

The point is, we are working within the construct of Evolution's category, not Evolution itself - so we are able to point to things which evolve, without expecting Evolution to evolve (either itself, or other categories with it).

Have I made naming "Machine Evolution" clear enough?

Do machines reproduce themselves with randomly distributed heritable variation?

 

[Occams Barber]

I wonder what the plants think about evolution. If they were here first; wouldn't it stand to reason that their intellect would be the most highly evolved?

Why would it stand to reason?

You are assuming that intellect is an evolutionary goal and that evolution somehow moves closer to that goal as time progresses. You have an anthropocentric view of evolution. Evolution doesn't have goals. The term 'highly evolved' has no meaning in this context. Evolution just moves in the direction determined by selection filters combined with random mutation.

OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

Why does one have to stand to reason?

I do quite well sitting down.

It is reasonable to assume any posture.

The plants however struggle to do this, so that is why if I were them, I would not take it sitting down.

I cant however, stand the suggestion that we evolved from them, I certainly wont take that lying down... never...

Anyway I am not going to stand for any more of this nonsense.

To me someone is lying about it.

 

[Occams Barber]

Why does one have to stand to reason?

I do quite well sitting down.

It is reasonable to assume any posture.

The plants however struggle to do this, so that is why if I were them, I would not take it sitting down.

I cant however, stand the suggestion that we evolved from them, I certainly wont take that lying down... never...

Anyway I am not going to stand for any more of this nonsense.

To me someone is lying about it.

Have you ever wondered why we cut a tree down and then cut it up?
OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

Have you ever tried to cut a tree up before cutting it down - very hard to do I guess.

 

[Occams Barber]

Have you ever tried to cut a tree up before cutting it down - very hard to do I guess.

Oddly enough I actually have had to cut a tree up in order to cut it down.

Many years ago I was clearing a section of eucalypt forest as a preliminary to building a pole frame, mud brick house. When I felled a particularly big tree it dropped off the stump, fell a little way and then got hung up on the branches of a neighbouring tree. I had no choice but to recut the tree at its base to try and make it fall. I did this with the same result - it got stuck again. The third attempt was successful but, after cutting the tree up three times in order to cut it down I had lost control of the direction of the fall...

I have never run so quickly before or since.

When I had a similar problem some weeks later I got smart and used a 22 rifle to nick the branch supporting the tree. Three or four shots and the tree fell.

I suppose you could say I shot the tree down.

I swear on Darwin's grave that the above is the absolute, unvarnished truth.

OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

I would immediately repent of swearing on Darwins grave...

 

[Tanj]

Rather than set out candidate after candidate, I thought I would just choose one,, and give you the idea - from there, who knows, you might be able to name them all yourself.

Kewl. I think it should be named Gottservantolution.

 

[SLP]

I wonder what the plants think about evolution. If they were here first; wouldn't it stand to reason that their intellect would be the most highly evolved?

Wow, SUPER insightful....

 

[SLP]

That's very interesting. i was taught that it is the productive traits that prevail. I guess you just can't believe everything that you hear.

Not in church, no.

 

[SLP]

So what would you name "Machine Evolution"?

What happens if you interrupt machine evolution?

 

[HARK!]

Not in church, no.

I heard that in a secular humanism indoctrination facility.

 

[Gottservant]

What happens if you interrupt machine evolution?

Can't be studied, without you naming it (in principle).

Really!

What would you call it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hi there,

So I have come to the conclusion that Evolution deserves its own category. Due to Evolution getting its own category, it behoves the adept to begin to set out things which do not belong to Evolution - according to that category (but belong to that category, because the category is self-sufficient). My point is, there are types of Evolution, that also deserve their own place in that category.

Rather than set out candidate after candidate, I thought I would just choose one,, and give you the idea - from there, who knows, you might be able to name them all yourself.

The candidate for its own name, under Evolution's category, is "Machine Evolution". The concept "Machine Evolution" points to the idea that, yes, with the right set of prompts, a machine can evolve - we have early computers, later computers, quantum computers, the list goes on.

So what would you name "Machine Evolution"? I have a couple of ideas "Machinelation" "Machinelution" "machinagressus" (from the Latin "machina praegressus" - but I want to hear from you (specifically Evolutionists, at least at first)... what would you name it?

The point is, we are working within the construct of Evolution's category, not Evolution itself - so we are able to point to things which evolve, without expecting Evolution to evolve (either itself, or other categories with it).

Have I made naming "Machine Evolution" clear enough?

Machines don't evolve because they aren't biological organisms.
Really, Gotts, you REALLY need to actually learn about evolution. Like... actually study it.

 

[Gottservant]

Machines don't evolve because they aren't biological organisms.
Really, Gotts, you REALLY need to actually learn about evolution. Like... actually study it.

I don't actually "lose", in this debate, between predator and prey, until you identify the difference, without mention of "relevance".

That's basically all you have: making my Evolution feel worthless.

In other words, every successive effort I make at understanding the compunction you say you have in your theory, the closer I get to redefining it - eventually, when you have redefined it, we will see your change for what it is.