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.
Evolutionary theory does not allow for a task to complete or a process of learning, or there being any sense of there being a predetermined goal (except in all cases by metaphor).
In a way it does, though. The "goal" of biological is the survival and reproductive viability of organisms. And the 'learning' part is simply the recursive process of biological evolution which is a form of trial and error with respect to viable biological forms.
In a way it does, though. The "goal" of biological is the survival and reproductive viability of organisms. And the 'learning' part is simply the recursive process of biological evolution which is a form of trial and error with respect to viable biological forms.
I’m not sure if pattern learning algorithms are strictly analogous to the random generation of mutation
Indeed, but you haven't mentioned the really impressive part - AlphaZero can learn to play any game of this type from only the rules. It has also thrashed AlphaGo and AlphaGo Zero (which beat AlphaGo) - at Go, of course.Googles AI engie DeepMine has been trained to play chess. They call the program AlphaZero. Only given the rules of chess it had to experiment by random trial and errors games with itself. After 4 hours traning it was matched against the best chess engine in the world; Stockfish. After 100 games, AlphaZero won 28 and lose zero time, with 72 draws
For those not initiated this is quite impressive. As quoted form Chess.com:
"This would be akin to a robot being given access to thousands of metal bits and parts, but no knowledge of a combustion engine, then it experiments numerous times with every combination possible until it builds a Ferrari."
Which is similar to the junkyard tornado argument creationists like to use to "disprove"evolution. It is like DeepMind's AlphaZero learned to plays chess similar to a tornado in a junkyard would create a Boeing 747. I know some Creationist now will claim the AlphaZero been made by an intelligent designer. I grant that, but it misses the point; AlphaZero still had to figure out but itself, by random trial and errors, how to play chess on super human level.
I am curios what take creationist have on this; if randomness cannot create design, no matter what time is given, then what did cause AlphaZero to achieve a superhuman performance in chess in less than four hours time?
I don't think they are strictly analogous either, but loosely speaking the concept is similar.
I don't think they are strictly analogous either, but loosely speaking the concept is similar.
Indeed, but you haven't mentioned the really impressive part - AlphaZero can learn to play any game of this type from only the rules. It has also thrashed AlphaGo and AlphaGo Zero (which beat AlphaGo) - at Go, of course.
The "goal" of evolution is that creatures remain fit to survive in changing environments. It does this "by trial and error and by remembering and applying what it learns..."No, but if I have understood what you are saying you are comparing a piece of software with the theory of random selection. The software is designed to complete a task; in that sense it is volitional, i.e it has a task to accomplish and a preprogrammed ability to complete that task. It does this by trial and error and by remembering and applying what it learns through this process. Evolutionary theory does not allow for a task to complete or a process of learning, or there being any sense of there being a predetermined goal (except in all cases by metaphor). What you are describing is a better argument for creationists than for those who believe in a blind process of non volitional random selection.
The "goal" of evolution is that creatures remain fit to survive in changing environments. It does this "by trial and error and by remembering and applying what it learns..."
I am not sure what you mean by "non-volitional random selection."
Googles AI engie DeepMine has been trained to play chess. They call the program AlphaZero. Only given the rules of chess it had to experiment by random trial and errors games with itself. After 4 hours traning it was matched against the best chess engine in the world; Stockfish. After 100 games, AlphaZero won 28 and lose zero time, with 72 draws
For those not initiated this is quite impressive. As quoted form Chess.com:
"This would be akin to a robot being given access to thousands of metal bits and parts, but no knowledge of a combustion engine, then it experiments numerous times with every combination possible until it builds a Ferrari."
Which is similar to the junkyard tornado argument creationists like to use to "disprove"evolution. It is like DeepMind's AlphaZero learned to plays chess similar to a tornado in a junkyard would create a Boeing 747. I know some Creationist now will claim the AlphaZero been made by an intelligent designer. I grant that, but it misses the point; AlphaZero still had to figure out but itself, by random trial and errors, how to play chess on super human level.
I am curios what take creationist have on this; if randomness cannot create design, no matter what time is given, then what did cause AlphaZero to achieve a superhuman performance in chess in less than four hours time?
The "volition" is the constant production of randomly distributed somatic variation. The "memory" is the storage of the genetic record of reproductively successful variants in the gene pool.What is the volition and memory in the process of random selection?
Because there's no such thing as randomness.Anyhow, I strongly disagree. Can you please explain why you do not think AlphaZero evolved by random play and selection?
I think the wording is a bit confused. You note that Alpha was given something, and then ask why Stockfish didn't achieve something. Neither program achieved anything. Alpha simply was given instructions that Stockfish was not.That is, if AlphaZero was given knowledge by design how to play chess then why was this design not already achieved by Stockfish - the top most ranked chess engine in the world until AlphaZero came around a frankly made Stockfish look like an amateur?
A possible interpretation is that evolution is itself a simple (although inefficient) learning algorithm that learns how to make creatures well-adapted to many environments, and in time, creatures who can adapt to many environments. The most successful of these eventually use learning to adapt environments to themselves.I’m not sure how loose you can get and still have a connection between a pre-designed ability to learn in a specific fashion within clearly defined parameters, and a process that involves randomness leading to improbable outcomes leading to modified randomness (putting it a bit crudely I know) but it would be interesting to have that explained by someone who understands it better than I do.
Evolutionary theory does not allow for a task to complete or a process of learning or there being any sense of there being a predetermined goal
AlphaZero didn't "create a design" it was given the rules of a game and according to the given rules of its program it 'learnt' to play the game.
I doubt you'll get any creationists here able to look past this point.
For those not initiated this is quite impressive. As quoted form Chess.com:
"This would be akin to a robot being given access to thousands of metal bits and parts, but no knowledge of a combustion engine, then it experiments numerous times with every combination possible until it builds a Ferrari."
Which is similar to the junkyard tornado argument creationists like to use to "disprove"evolution. It is like DeepMind's AlphaZero learned to plays chess similar to a tornado in a junkyard would create a Boeing 747.
Because there's no such thing as randomness.
I think the wording is a bit confused. You note that Alpha was given something, and then ask why Stockfish didn't achieve something. Neither program achieved anything. Alpha simply was given instructions that Stockfish was not.
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?