Re: My first evolutionary algorithm
- From: gregwrld <GCzebatol@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:26:31 -0700
On Sep 6, 2:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 6, 7:33 pm, Ritsjoena <bramvan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We are told Evolution = RM+NS. The intent with NS is the DawkinsThe "directed" in NS is not necessarily in the sense that it is
intent of non-random NS. Thus Evolution = Random + non-random. But if
the non-random element is larger than the random element then
evolution is biased towards being "non-random" or "directed". The
pragmatics we generally have with "non-random" is that some
teleological agent directed towards some goal a process and thus a
synonym of "non-random" is "directed".
towards a goal (as far as we can tell it is not) but "directed" in the
sense that it is the best that fits the rules. The rules are
determined by the environment, physics etc. And these rule change in
time. In other words the "direction" is due to the limitations put on
the organism by the environment and physics.
The pragmatics with "direction" and "directed" differ as the context
of the "non-random NS" or "directed NS" indicates. You entire
paragraph is not logical for this reason. I am talking about the
pragmatics of "directed" not "direction" which doesn't have as strong
a teleological goal setting projection as the word "directed".
Directed is the antonym for Non-random, not "direction" - don't make
the English language undefined.
I want to know who did the directing and in what way would evolutionA who is not necessary.
The pragmatics in in 95% of sentences using the word "directed" is
that a conscious agent did the "directing". IF a "who" is not
necessary then your are changing the general pragmatics we have with
"directed".
Evolution contains a mix of random and non-random: (list is
simplified)
random
1) variety comes from random mutations
Dr.Shapiro says there is nothing "random" going on in the genome. How
do you actually know that mutations are
random?
2) some organisms are filtered out by random events that do not care
about the specifics of the organism: flood, meteors etc
If one tiger dies due to a random rock falling on him and another
tiger lives, in what way does this explain the non-linear control
loops in both tigers?
non-random:
1) selection of those that fit the rules set by the environment, physics etc
Maybe in your language universe. In mine, "non-random" is a colloquial
way of saying "chance events". And "chance events" can happen in any
environment. What is your intent with "rules set by the environment"
and "physics". What about physics.
You keep forgetting how irrelevant your world is.
gregwrld
.
- References:
- My first evolutionary algorithm
- From: geoproc
- Re: My first evolutionary algorithm
- From: backspace
- Re: My first evolutionary algorithm
- From: backspace
- Re: My first evolutionary algorithm
- From: Ritsjoena
- Re: My first evolutionary algorithm
- From: backspace
- My first evolutionary algorithm
- Prev by Date: Re: Are all creationists liars?
- Next by Date: Re: Ultraconserved Elements in the Genome: Are They Indispensable?
- Previous by thread: Re: My first evolutionary algorithm
- Next by thread: Re: My first evolutionary algorithm
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|