Re: Human design and natural "design"


Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:07:50 -0600, in talk.origins , dkomo
> <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> in <QMWdnRHnxIBEtmDfRVn-vA@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:03:21 -0600, in talk.origins , dkomo
> >> <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> in <h-idnTt9nP7UJ2HfRVn-ug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Evolution produces organisms which show the appearance of design, but
> >>>are not actually designed. Evolution uses random variation and
> >>>selection to do this.
> >>>
> >>>In the computer world, genetic algorithms and genetic programming
> >>>closely mimic evolution. Genetic algorithms find good approximate
> >>>solutions to difficult optimization problems using random variation and
> >>>selection for fitness. Genetic programming generates computer programs
> >>>which are good solutions to specific problems, again using random
> >>>variation and selection to accomplish this.
> >>>
> >>>In the general world of human design, is there anything more than random
> >>>variation and selection? Yes, an evaluative memory. As a design
> >>>proceeds, it is *guided* using a combination of what has worked in the
> >>>past with foresight into what may work in the future.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sort of like how organism keep the solutions that work in the past and
> >> make some changes to them.
> >>
> >
> >Organisms with a cortex, including almost all mammals, have some ability
> >to do this.
>
> Organisms without a cortex do so as well. That is what selection is
> about.
> >>
> >>>A large and
> >>>highly complex neural network continuously monitors the progress of the
> >>>design, providing highly discriminatory feedback. This type of guidance
> >>>is what is missing in evolution and the computer science examples.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope, it is called selection.
> >
> >Your statement is called "reductionism", and it is inaccurate to boot.
>
> It is not reductionism unless you have redefined the term.
>
> >I would call the process in human design "cybernetics".
>
> Call it a leg if you want, that does not change it at all.
>
> >The design is
> >"steered" toward a desired target using feedback from stored patterns of
> >what has worked before and feedback from the difference between the
> >state of the design at a given time and the target state.
>
> Yes. We take previous solutions, modify them, test them, and keep the
> ones that work. Evolution all the way down.
>
> >It takes a
> >neutral network, better known as a brain, to accomplish this.
>
> No, it does not. It takes a brain to do some of the generating and
> testing internally, but the process is still evolution. That is, it is
> descent with modification, mutation, selection, and drift. There is no
> magic here, not special future prediction.
>
> >Natural selection is nothing like this. There is no feedback from the
> >environment to the organism to tell it how to adapt.
>
> And there is no actual feedback in our thinking, not in the way that
> you mean. The environment never determines which choice to generate.
>
> >If there were such
> >feedback, we'd have lamarckism.
>
> We have apparent Lamarckism in thinking because we like to see our
> thinking as something special. But when we *generate* the new ideas
> they are random with respect to the problem. Sure, they are
> modifications of old working ideas, but genetic mutations are also
> modifications of old working solutions. The generation of both is
> random. We then test those ideas. Some we test internally, some we
> test on paper, some we test in the world, but all standard evolution.
>
> >The feedback would produce directed
> >mutations which would "steer" offspring toward a state of adaptation
> >with the altered evironment.
>
> Except that neither in biology nor in human thinking does the
> environment direct the creation of the new thing. Show me how that
> works in thinking and I will show you that it is really evolution when
> examined closely. After all, in your "cybernetic neural network" you
> still have a random program to generate the new ideas, right? The
> environment just selections them.

Are you suggesting that there is such thing in evolution as a "eureka
moment"? I'm refering to the human design phenomenon when an idea comes
forth with no antecedants.

(I get the part about the "environment" selecting human design ideas,
just as the natural environment selects natural designs. There are
reasons why 8 track tapes don't exist anymore.)

>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
>
> Cliff on Cheers

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pitt professors theory of evolution gets boost from cell research
    ... A General Mechanism of Evolution Based on Stress ... variations on which natural selection then acts, and that, ... >a substantial increase in mutations. ... >genotype that have been exposed earlier to a different environment but ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
    ... such modular organization has been strongly ... theory of evolution the greatest thing since sliced whitebread. ... can't change any bit of code without affecting the entire organism. ... but that is not an argument using natural selection at the organism ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Biochemistry of Genetic Mechanisms
    ... Sometimes, the environmental selection process ... conditions (in a confined environment). ... Evolution, insists that natural selection cannot account for the ... He maintains that the workings of life ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: "Random evolution"
    ... There is no way that the environment is "random." ... natural selection would not work. ... Evolution is a random process, ... numerous random variations thus can *non-randomly* ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Random evolution"
    ... There is no way that the environment is "random." ... natural selection would not work. ... Evolution is a random process, ... numerous random variations thus can *non-randomly* ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading