Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Questions for Sean Pitman
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sean Pitman" data-source="post: 705649" data-attributes="member: 6520"><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>I'm not contradicting myself.&nbsp; I said and I still say that language is a great analogy for the genetic code and the coded system of living cells.&nbsp; Where we disagree is how codes evolve.&nbsp; Human language is a coded system just like the information contained in DNA.&nbsp; However, humans are gifted with higher intelligence.&nbsp; Humans can manipulate not only their own language codes, but also genetic codes as well.&nbsp; They do not need to rely on random mutation and natural selection to do the changing for them.&nbsp; </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>On the other hand, individual cells are not creative or intelligent.&nbsp;The are like&nbsp;computers running on algorithms.&nbsp; They are not&nbsp;intuitively creative.&nbsp; They can only do what they are programmed to do.&nbsp; They can evolve certain limited functions over time, but this evolution is quite limited as previously detailed.&nbsp; </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>So you see, there is a huge difference between human language evolution and genetic evolution since intelligence is involved on the one hand but not on the other.&nbsp; Human language evolution is not a&nbsp;purely&nbsp;naturalistic process, but genetic evolution must be.&nbsp;&nbsp;For example, by themselves, computers cannot evolve their own software beyond very limited restrictions.&nbsp; They are not creative or intelligent.&nbsp; They can only do what they are programmed to do.&nbsp; They cannot increase their own programming to any significant degree without the help of outside&nbsp;intelligence and creativity from humans.&nbsp; Humans can evolve computer code, but computers cannot evolve their own codes very much at all.&nbsp; </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>So you see, wherever humans are involved, a purely naturalistic process is not being demonstrated.&nbsp; Human language evolution does occur because it involves humans who are intelligent.&nbsp; Computer evolution does not occur without humans because computers are not creative or intelligent.&nbsp; Living systems are no more intelligent than computers are.&nbsp; So, their evolution must rely on purely naturalistic processes without the aid of outside intelligence be it human or other sources of intelligence and creativity.&nbsp; The codes are the same, but the processes of evolution are different.&nbsp; Genetic language evolution must be purely naturalistic while human language evolution involves intelligence. </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p> <strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Do you not see that you are simply restating my own argument here?&nbsp; Only those letter sequences that are defined in a particular way will be recognized by an English speaking person.&nbsp; The word "batter" is recognized because of the way in which it is defined by the English dictionary.&nbsp; The word "bat" is a noun.&nbsp; Likewise, the word "cat" is a noun.&nbsp; Someone not familiar with the English language might think that the suffix "er" could equally be attached to both cat and bat to give new meaning.&nbsp; However, it simply does not work this way because there is no "catter" defined in the English dictionary.&nbsp;Of course, you argue that the rules of the English language would still give meaning to the word "catter" as someone who does something with cats even though this word is not found in the English dictionary.&nbsp; Ok, this is a reach, but I'll give it to you.&nbsp; Even given this of&nbsp;sort leway for giving words function, it doesn't help you much.&nbsp; It adds a few more potential functions to the list.&nbsp; However, the list of non-functional sequences is so much larger that it really doesn't matter.&nbsp; </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>For example, lets take a sentence like, "It really does not matter."&nbsp; How many different place would the addition of the letters "er" be meaningful in this sentence?&nbsp; Is "iter" a word?&nbsp; Is "reallyer" a word?&nbsp; Is "doeser" a word?&nbsp; "Noter" might be a word according to your definition of words, but does it have meaningful function in our sentence?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Also, who is to say that the letters "er" will get pasted at the end of words?&nbsp; They could get mutated anywhere in the sentence.&nbsp; The sentence could read, "It reerally does not matter."&nbsp; Now, the function of this sentence is really messed up.&nbsp; </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>You see the problem don't you?&nbsp; Do you understand now how "foo" is not going to help you here?&nbsp; Certain mutations may in fact have meaning, but the vast majority will not have meaning.&nbsp; You are talking about a small minority of words that can use the suffix "er", but I am talking about the vast majority of sequences that cannot use "er" anywhere.&nbsp; It is the&nbsp;ocean of non-function that is the problem, not the small puddle of function that you are talking about. </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p> <strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>I did not call genetic programming "bs".&nbsp; I called computer software evolution "bs".&nbsp; Certainly computers can mutate and evolve novel functions as long as these functions are within a limited range of complexity.&nbsp; The examples of computer evolution that you described are very much guided by human intervention and are limited to a relatively small range of options.&nbsp; In other words, their "evolution" is directed.&nbsp; Without human input, a computer could never and will never evolve its own software programs via mutation and function based selection.&nbsp; </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Give me the answer to this question, yes or no:&nbsp; Can anyone program a computer to evolve a software program, like a photoediting program, using only mutation and function based selection?&nbsp; If you answer "yes" to this question, then this begs the follow-up question, "Then why do we still need computer programmers?"&nbsp; Computers are so much faster and can "remember" so much more information than humans can remember, and yet they still need our help to come up with new functions?&nbsp; Why is this?&nbsp; Because really truly, computers are dumb.&nbsp; They are not intelligent or creative.&nbsp; They cannot evolve their own software without human help... Period.&nbsp; If you ever come up with a computer program that will allow computer software evolution outside of human guidance, then you will be richer than Bill Gates. </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>So for you to argue that evolutionary computing does work shows your ignorance of decades of computer science research. Maybe next time you should do some research before you say that computers can evolve in the same way the life forms supposedly evolved&nbsp;the fantastic functions&nbsp;that we see all around us.&nbsp; Clearly, if computers could evolve in the same Darwinian fashion, their lightening speed would have allowed them to evolve at a very rapid rate, and yet they are still relatively helpless without human input?&nbsp; You say that anything that can undergo random mutation can evolve new functions.&nbsp; If so, then all you would have to do is make a computer program to produce random changes in computer code and it would come up with all kinds of brilliant new functions all by itself.&nbsp; Computers really wouldn't need human programmers.&nbsp; All a person would have to do is go to the store and by a computer without having to worry about software to run the computer.&nbsp; The computer would only have one program... the mutation program.&nbsp; The person would just have to tell the computer, "Evolve me a word processor" and the computer would do it in short order.&nbsp; Hey, why not?&nbsp; What's the problem with this idea?&nbsp; </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Please...&nbsp;your argument here is exceptionally&nbsp;weak.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Argumentum ex ignoratia</em> is no way to operate in an honest, intellectual debate. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Sean</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sean Pitman, post: 705649, member: 6520"] [B] I'm not contradicting myself. I said and I still say that language is a great analogy for the genetic code and the coded system of living cells. Where we disagree is how codes evolve. Human language is a coded system just like the information contained in DNA. However, humans are gifted with higher intelligence. Humans can manipulate not only their own language codes, but also genetic codes as well. They do not need to rely on random mutation and natural selection to do the changing for them. On the other hand, individual cells are not creative or intelligent. The are like computers running on algorithms. They are not intuitively creative. They can only do what they are programmed to do. They can evolve certain limited functions over time, but this evolution is quite limited as previously detailed. So you see, there is a huge difference between human language evolution and genetic evolution since intelligence is involved on the one hand but not on the other. Human language evolution is not a purely naturalistic process, but genetic evolution must be. For example, by themselves, computers cannot evolve their own software beyond very limited restrictions. They are not creative or intelligent. They can only do what they are programmed to do. They cannot increase their own programming to any significant degree without the help of outside intelligence and creativity from humans. Humans can evolve computer code, but computers cannot evolve their own codes very much at all. So you see, wherever humans are involved, a purely naturalistic process is not being demonstrated. Human language evolution does occur because it involves humans who are intelligent. Computer evolution does not occur without humans because computers are not creative or intelligent. Living systems are no more intelligent than computers are. So, their evolution must rely on purely naturalistic processes without the aid of outside intelligence be it human or other sources of intelligence and creativity. The codes are the same, but the processes of evolution are different. Genetic language evolution must be purely naturalistic while human language evolution involves intelligence. Do you not see that you are simply restating my own argument here? Only those letter sequences that are defined in a particular way will be recognized by an English speaking person. The word "batter" is recognized because of the way in which it is defined by the English dictionary. The word "bat" is a noun. Likewise, the word "cat" is a noun. Someone not familiar with the English language might think that the suffix "er" could equally be attached to both cat and bat to give new meaning. However, it simply does not work this way because there is no "catter" defined in the English dictionary. Of course, you argue that the rules of the English language would still give meaning to the word "catter" as someone who does something with cats even though this word is not found in the English dictionary. Ok, this is a reach, but I'll give it to you. Even given this of sort leway for giving words function, it doesn't help you much. It adds a few more potential functions to the list. However, the list of non-functional sequences is so much larger that it really doesn't matter. For example, lets take a sentence like, "It really does not matter." How many different place would the addition of the letters "er" be meaningful in this sentence? Is "iter" a word? Is "reallyer" a word? Is "doeser" a word? "Noter" might be a word according to your definition of words, but does it have meaningful function in our sentence? No. Also, who is to say that the letters "er" will get pasted at the end of words? They could get mutated anywhere in the sentence. The sentence could read, "It reerally does not matter." Now, the function of this sentence is really messed up. You see the problem don't you? Do you understand now how "foo" is not going to help you here? Certain mutations may in fact have meaning, but the vast majority will not have meaning. You are talking about a small minority of words that can use the suffix "er", but I am talking about the vast majority of sequences that cannot use "er" anywhere. It is the ocean of non-function that is the problem, not the small puddle of function that you are talking about. I did not call genetic programming "bs". I called computer software evolution "bs". Certainly computers can mutate and evolve novel functions as long as these functions are within a limited range of complexity. The examples of computer evolution that you described are very much guided by human intervention and are limited to a relatively small range of options. In other words, their "evolution" is directed. Without human input, a computer could never and will never evolve its own software programs via mutation and function based selection. Give me the answer to this question, yes or no: Can anyone program a computer to evolve a software program, like a photoediting program, using only mutation and function based selection? If you answer "yes" to this question, then this begs the follow-up question, "Then why do we still need computer programmers?" Computers are so much faster and can "remember" so much more information than humans can remember, and yet they still need our help to come up with new functions? Why is this? Because really truly, computers are dumb. They are not intelligent or creative. They cannot evolve their own software without human help... Period. If you ever come up with a computer program that will allow computer software evolution outside of human guidance, then you will be richer than Bill Gates. So for you to argue that evolutionary computing does work shows your ignorance of decades of computer science research. Maybe next time you should do some research before you say that computers can evolve in the same way the life forms supposedly evolved the fantastic functions that we see all around us. Clearly, if computers could evolve in the same Darwinian fashion, their lightening speed would have allowed them to evolve at a very rapid rate, and yet they are still relatively helpless without human input? You say that anything that can undergo random mutation can evolve new functions. If so, then all you would have to do is make a computer program to produce random changes in computer code and it would come up with all kinds of brilliant new functions all by itself. Computers really wouldn't need human programmers. All a person would have to do is go to the store and by a computer without having to worry about software to run the computer. The computer would only have one program... the mutation program. The person would just have to tell the computer, "Evolve me a word processor" and the computer would do it in short order. Hey, why not? What's the problem with this idea? Please... your argument here is exceptionally weak. [i]Argumentum ex ignoratia[/i] is no way to operate in an honest, intellectual debate. :) Sean[/b] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Questions for Sean Pitman
Top
Bottom