Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Who sets the goals for the organism?

The entire swimbot system takes a distinctive predictable path. Organism start out with poor abilities to eat and reproduce but over succesive generstions they get better at these life functions. Run the simulation again...same thing happens. Run the simulation again.....same thing happens. Run the simulation again....same thing happens.....ad infinitum.


No one set the goals for the organism.

In the simulation, the programmer set it up. It's a simulation.

You only assume no one set the goals for living organisms. However I don't think this is such a good assumption considering you cannot replicate cumulative selection that results from evolution without an intellect setting up goals for the organisms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 10:19 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 09:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  No one set the goals for the organism.

In the simulation, the programmer set it up. It's a simulation.

You only assume no one set the goals for living organisms. However I don't think this is such a good assumption considering you cannot replicate cumulative selection that results from evolution without an intellect setting up goals for the organisms.

If we extrapolate what you are saying to the real world.

Then your god controls the environment. Making things like floods, earthquakes, etc all phenomenon controlled by him, commanded by him, and overcome by living things.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 10:19 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 09:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  No one set the goals for the organism.

In the simulation, the programmer set it up. It's a simulation.

You only assume no one set the goals for living organisms. However I don't think this is such a good assumption considering you cannot replicate cumulative selection that results from evolution without an intellect setting up goals for the organisms.

Why assume there IS a being that sets goals? There is no evidence of such a being existing, or that such goals even make sense with organisms constantly undergoing mutations in changing environments.

Why does there have to be someone to set this up?
Do we also need someone to set up the universe? Why must it be someone?

Can you demonstrate why it must have been a 'someone'?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 10:21 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 09:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  No one set the goals for the organism.

In the simulation, the programmer set it up. It's a simulation.

You only assume no one set the goals for living organisms. However I don't think this is such a good assumption considering you cannot replicate cumulative selection that results from evolution without an intellect setting up goals for the organisms.


Your argument is without evidence. In the natural world, there is no evidence of anything setting goals. And you continue to confuse an organisms behavior with goals.

You clearly do not appreciate the power of cumulative selection in a blind algorithm. Organisms that survived passed on genes for survival. That's it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
28-03-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 10:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 09:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You only assume no one set the goals for living organisms. However I don't think this is such a good assumption considering you cannot replicate cumulative selection that results from evolution without an intellect setting up goals for the organisms.


Your argument is without evidence. In the natural world, there is no evidence of anything setting goals. And you continue to confuse an organisms behavior with goals.

You clearly do not appreciate the power of cumulative selection in a blind algorithm. Organisms that survived passed on genes for survival. That's it.

If goals are things which require intellects to be established, the fact that evolving organisms have goals is evidence for an intellect. Since you were very clear that it is your position that living organisms have goals, you must then reject the premise that goals are things which require an intellect to be established.

How do you support your position that goals can be established without the aid of intellect? Don't point to natural evolution because that would be circular. Can you replicate cumulative selection without you or some other intellect establishing the goals for the evolving organisms?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 04:41 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 09:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  No one set the goals for the organism.

In the simulation, the programmer set it up. It's a simulation.

You only assume no one set the goals for living organisms. However I don't think this is such a good assumption considering you cannot replicate cumulative selection that results from evolution without an intellect setting up goals for the organisms.

Because we know enough about chemistry and electromagnetism to understand that no goal is set.. And chaotic systems with feedback are not based on set goals.. Hence, the issue with systems of Chaos is that feedback is the control and the outcomes like everything around you are inherently determined on system feedback. So unless it's a controlled system, predictability of outcomes in chaotic systems is impossible, and no goals would be set. Just changes in the environment on the smallest scales can produce feedback to which translate to changes on larger scales. You should look up the butterfly effect as well.

And your wrong, biochemical reactions do that all on there own. There is nobody playing with them.. Birds that evolve shorter wings in urban areas are not having little magic elves changing their DNA. Life is connected to it's environment right down to the quantum scales.. In fact, science is now looking into quantum scale feedback to see what if any effects that might have on the processes of evolution.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/paper...0paper.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443139

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120306/s...00302.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 05:29 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 10:47 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 10:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your argument is without evidence. In the natural world, there is no evidence of anything setting goals. And you continue to confuse an organisms behavior with goals.

You clearly do not appreciate the power of cumulative selection in a blind algorithm. Organisms that survived passed on genes for survival. That's it.

If goals are things which require intellects to be established, the fact that evolving organisms have goals is evidence for an intellect. Since you were very clear that it is your position that living organisms have goals, you must then reject the premise that goals are things which require an intellect to be established.

How do you support your position that goals can be established without the aid of intellect? Don't point to natural evolution because that would be circular. Can you replicate cumulative selection without you or some other intellect establishing the goals for the evolving organisms?


You are using the word 'goals' in two very different ways, or on two very different levels. This is a word game you are playing.
I have no position that 'goals were established'. You misrepresent what I said.

The drive for survival is entirely internal to the organism, not something imposed from without. Organisms that do not function to survive tend not to, and their genes don't survive. Organisms that are successful in survival and reproduction pass on the genes that build organisms that are successful at surviving and reproducing. And so it goes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 05:38 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 09:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  No one set the goals for the organism.

In the simulation, the programmer set it up. It's a simulation.

You only assume no one set the goals for living organisms. However I don't think this is such a good assumption considering you cannot replicate cumulative selection that results from evolution without an intellect setting up goals for the organisms.


Let's start in the middle, as Darwin did. Here's how it works.

Let us suppose we have a population of herbivore mammals that is stable, and has been for thousands of centuries. There is variation within that genetic pool, some individuals are larger, some smaller; some hairier, some less so.

The climate starts to cool over a period of centuries. Individuals that are larger and/or hairier tend to survive better that smaller, less hairy ones. The allele frequency in the gene pool is shifting by differential survival of individuals that carry genes for larger size and more hairiness to have more of those alleles.

The average size of individuals increases, the average hirsuteness increases. There were no goals, just differential survival of individuals.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 05:58 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 05:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  The climate starts to cool over a period of centuries. Individuals that are larger and/or hairier tend to survive better that smaller, less hairy ones. The allele frequency in the gene pool is shifting by differential survival of individuals that carry genes for larger size and more hairiness to have more of those alleles.

The average size of individuals increases, the average hirsuteness increases. There were no goals, just differential survival of individuals.

So how do you explain why there are small unhairy creatures still around today?

Huh? Huh?

And what about baldness, smartypants?

Rolleyes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
29-03-2013, 06:17 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 05:58 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 05:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  The climate starts to cool over a period of centuries. Individuals that are larger and/or hairier tend to survive better that smaller, less hairy ones. The allele frequency in the gene pool is shifting by differential survival of individuals that carry genes for larger size and more hairiness to have more of those alleles.

The average size of individuals increases, the average hirsuteness increases. There were no goals, just differential survival of individuals.

So how do you explain why there are small unhairy creatures still around today?

Huh? Huh?

And what about baldness, smartypants?

Rolleyes



I'm short and bald, but I'm kept alive by the lizard aliens for their own secret purposes.Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: