NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,19:59) | | Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09) | | I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm. It's usable for modelling artificial selection. It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection. |
The ID Causation model indicates that "artificial selection" and "natural selection" are an unnecessary false dichotomy:
| Quote |
From Theory of Intelligent Design:
| Quote | | As in Social Learning Theory, there is reciprocal causation where the person (or living thing), the behavior, and the environment can have an influence on each other (A influences B and B influences A). |
|
|
Already handily disposed of by others.
Although I will note your ongoing abuse of the term 'learning'. In the sense you use in the above quote from your correctly, but insufficiently, maligned "theory" is meaningless. Causation is always interactive between a cause and an effect, and both are always part of a milieu, a situation, a context. That this context often matters could only be new news to you and the newborn.
| Quote | | There is no algorithm variable that allows users to "tweak natural selection pressures". That would require purposely interfering with what programmatically develops in the model, or purposely leaving something out such as continental drift. |
ROFLMAO. Neither your software, nor your "theory" include continental drift. Do you mean to suggest you left it out on purpose and had intended to include it?
You are a moron.
Further, as alluded to in others' coverage of the distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' selection, of course there are things we can muck with that will impact selection pressures.
Your mistake is to assume, prejudicially, that nature is algorithmic. That approach has not worked out well for anyone who has attempted it, even people many orders of magnitude more intelligent than you.
It is an indefensible presumption. The workings of the universe are not the working out of a set of algorithms. The epic failures of Wolfram serve as testimony to the poverty of that approach -- for all that Wolfram has indeed accomplished.
Your mistake here is the same as one who argues that because calculus can be used to determine the path of a baseball in flight, therefore a baseball player solves the calculus equations in order to catch the balls. The player's result may match the solution of the calculus equations, but that does not mean that they were accomplished by means of those equations.
Worse, you assume that your pitiful software, with neither reproduction with variation nor differential reproductive success, nor any reproduction at all is adequate or even appropriate for the sorts of questions biology is after.
You are, as we continue to remind you, completely, totally, 100% wrong on this.
| Quote | | Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09) | | However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing both the context in which evolution is occurring and the levels of performance in meeting life's challenges that permit success in reproduction: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth. Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness". Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations). |
That's why I program using an algorithm that does not have these inherent ambiguities. |
Again ROFLMAO. There's nothing in your notions except ambiguities. And you hide in the cracks they provide, like the intellectual cockroach you aspire to be.
The classic case in point is, of course, your insistence that it is perfectly what you mean when you claim "certain features of the universe are best explained by 'intelligent cause'." On the face of it, entirely inconsequential and banal -- nobody questions that there are things in the universe that are best explained by the acts of intelligent beings. Where you leverage the ambiguity inherent in your imprecise statement is in your attempts to spread 'intelligence' far and wide, yet without ever specifying an algorithm by which intelligence can be separated from non-intelligence.
Likewise your incoherence regarding the status of 'molecular intelligence', which basically boils down to an attempt to have it both ways -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
And likewise your insistence that your pathetic model is representative of any reality other than the fantasies squeezed into your tiny little mind. You remind me of the case of the software modeler who carefully and precisely modeled the expected behavior of the new traffic control system. Confronted with the reality that traffic had totally gridlocked, his response was the pathetic "but that's not what the model shows". Models can be, and often are, wrong. Reality can't be wrong, it can only be what it is.
[Models, in fact, are always, without exception, guaranteed to be wrong in some respect -- a model is always an abstraction, a reduction of detail away from the thing modeled. And thus inadequate in some respect to evaluate some aspects of the thing modeled. Good modelers, professional modelers, experienced modelers, by and large are quite clear on this and thus do not make the kinds of mistakes that comprise very nearly the entirety of your bluster.]
| Quote | | Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09) | | However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale". |
That also becomes another unnecessary false dichotomy. Humans have long been on target to develop big brains. The question becomes: What set that target and not another target? |
False. It is not a false dichotomy, it is what we observe in the world. Some things happen without the input of intelligence as we know it, and with no grounds for supposing any intelligence to be involved. A subset of those things are the 'targeted results', where the thing that happened did so as a result of a plan, a goal.
That you anthropomorphize everything that occurs into the category "happened because of intelligence" is how we know, correctly, that you are assuming your conclusion.
There is no evidence that 'humans are on target for developing large brains. None. Not least because there is no evidence of anyone or any thing that could be doing the targeting. RM & NS are not targeting mechanisms in the sense required for your crap to be both meaningful and even approximately correct.
| Quote | | Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09) | | There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears. |
And what has for millions of years worked for humanity is the set target towards increasing multicellular brainpower. It's also more than just making brains bigger, we required improved brain circuit designs. I expect that this set target is still set. |
Except, of course, that humanity has not existed for millions of years. Many things that have do not have nor need large brains.
Furthermore, there are creatures extant today that have larger brains than humans, both in absolute and proportional measure, and yet display far less intelligence than humans do.
Again, your error is in assuming your conclusion followed by ignoring any facts that challenge it.
I'll note again that on the basis of your own "theory", you do not count as intelligent, nor do many things the rest of us are happy to take as marks of intelligence.
You do not have a definition, let alone an operational definition, of 'intelligence'. That is one of the many ways in which your nonsense goes wrong.
|
