Re: New claim CI131: Machines come from intelligent agency

On 9 Feb 2006 13:40:24 -0800, in talk.origins , "noctiluca"
<robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> in
<1139521224.625927.313500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 16:11:46 -0800, in talk.origins , "noctiluca"
<robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> in
<1139443906.601211.199810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


[snip]

Although I will take slight issue with the contrast of fragility of
man-made and living things ("slight" because I don't think you meant it
to apply comprehensively anyway). It seems to me there are plenty of
examples of greater durability and operational stability in man-made
artifacts, as well as the reverse.

What strikes me as more impressive is the difference in the degree,
between man-made and living things, to which these design
considerations happen with respect to need or purpose. We can see the
anticipation of future cost-benefit calculations in the redesign of
human artifacts, a process which often obscures or removes the trial
and error history of our intelligent designs.

But the far more limited ability of living things to respond only to
current environmental need, and only then if a developmental pathway is
available, leaves the evidence of trial and error obvious in the form
of the often circuitous routes life takes to functionality.

When I see robust man-made systems I see evidence of evolution, not
design. To take my favorite example we have the New York City
transportation system. It is pretty robust, we took a strike and
worked, we had a recent blackout and it worked. We survive blizzards
and terrorist attacks and so on Why? Lots of redundancy of various
types, buses and some duplicated subways and sidewalks and bridges and
tunnels and so on. The thing is, though, no one designed this systems.
No one sat down and figured out that we need this level of redundancy
and those alternate technologies. Instead it grew and developed and,
yes, evolved over time. We have some subway duplication because
individual *failed* in their ability to predict future needs and their
companies went bankrupt.

Certainly, though, you wouldn't suggest that other transportation
designers haven't learned from this kind of experience and configured
newer, more efficient traffic systems? In this circumstance, assuming
the designers have learned and redesigned appropriately, one has to
assume that the new system is more robust, yet less complicated, less
redundant.

No, I would not assume any such thing. But, then again, I have
actually done design work. Robust is only a concern in terms of very
restricted factors, the one the paymaster cares about.

This doesn't mean the evolution of this system didn't
happen. It just means that the evolution of the system is no longer
obvious from its structure.

I do not take issue with the idea that robustness can be found in
living systems. I take issue with the notion that living things can be
counted as different from man-made artifacts on this score. Robustness
can be found in both, fragility can be found in both. Both employ
redundancy, either can found to use systems that are functionally
delicate. I don't see that these qualities offer differentiation.

Living things are, in general, far more robust than designed things.
Designed things show robustness when they are evolved.

There are man-made things that are pretty durable (B-17 anyone?) but
of course there are outliers. In general human made stuff handles a
much more constrained set of circumstances than living stuff. They
require much more specific fuel, they can't self-repair, etc. Life is
resilient and durable. If each human is the descendant of an ancestor
who got lucky at least once in their own lives, life in general is the
result of billion of years of evolving to changing conditions. No
human designer can hope to do better than that.

Agreed. Somehow I seem to have inadvertently presented the image of
regarding human design as superior to evolutionary development. I do
not, and that is not my point. I mean to suggest that many of these
qualities, robustness, redundancy, etc., are not diagnostic of one
versus the other. One observation that does offer differentiation, in
my opinion, is the degree to which intelligence allows for learning and
anticipation, resulting in the redesign of human artifacts.

There is no way to have a diagnostic since human design is an
evolutionary process. All we can hope for is various relative
differences in degree.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

.

Relevant Pages
Loading