Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2013, 09:45 AM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2013 09:49 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(28-03-2013 06:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 06:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Chas, watch the fricken swimbots video. The "food" is a dot. But instead of being red its yellow. If chasing a red dot is a goal, so is chasing a yellow dot even if you label that yellow dot "food".


You are not understanding the difference between goals for an organism and goals for evolution. They are not even close to the same thing.

This makes all of your previous misunderstanding understandable.

That organisms have goals is very clear. That in no way implies there are goals to evolution.

(29-03-2013 05:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 10:47 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

If organisms have goals as you suggested, then those goals came from somewhere. You've done awful lot of backpeddleing in this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 09:48 AM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2013 10:35 AM by Chas.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 09:45 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 06:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are not understanding the difference between goals for an organism and goals for evolution. They are not even close to the same thing.

This makes all of your previous misunderstanding understandable.

That organisms have goals is very clear. That in no way implies there are goals to evolution.

(29-03-2013 05:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

If organisms have goals as you suggested, then those goals came from somewhere.


Yes, from within. They are not external.

I have not backpedaled one iota. You are a very confused man.

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, 10:29 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
Quote:If organisms have goals as you suggested, then those goals came from somewhere. You've done awful lot of backpeddleing in this thread.

Are you going to argue that my goal to have a good day at work today is being external fed to me and I am just a puppet in a puppet show? It seems you are trying to deduce life and reality as one giant puppet show your GOD plays for himself.. Organisms don't need external control to have desired out comes. You're problem is thinking everything needed programming in the context of how we program computers, and that is not how it works.. You clearly know nothing about Chemistry or electromagnetism.. Tell us, is it a plants goal to seek sun light or is it a chemically induced reaction? I expect you to give me a direct answer and then tell me how such requires an external puppeteer in order to do so with a peer review paper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheJackal's post
29-03-2013, 11:40 AM
Synthetic life.
Is it derail time yet?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
29-03-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 09:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 09:45 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If organisms have goals as you suggested, then those goals came from somewhere.


Yes, from within. They are not external.

I have not backpedaled one iota. You are a very confused man.

Your all over the place man. First you said evolution has no goals, then you said I was pushing examples of goal driven evolution...then you said its not evolution that has goals but the organisms instead. Then you said organism didn't have goals and that i was misrepresenting what you said. Now you seem to be saying they do have goals but they come from within.

Your right I am very confused about your incoherent ever changing position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 01:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Then you said organism didn't have goals and that i was misrepresenting what you said.

Here's what Chas actually said:

(29-03-2013 05:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have no position that 'goals were established'. You misrepresent what I said.

Your dishonesty is becoming tiresome.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 01:38 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 01:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 09:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, from within. They are not external.

I have not backpedaled one iota. You are a very confused man.

Your all over the place man. First you said evolution has no goals, then you said I was pushing examples of goal driven evolution...then you said its not evolution that has goals but the organisms instead. Then you said organism didn't have goals and that i was misrepresenting what you said. Now you seem to be saying they do have goals but they come from within.

Your right I am very confused about your incoherent ever changing position.

My position hasn't changed. You are confused about goals.

Organisms have short-term goals that are internally generated - eating, resting, mating. This has nothing to do with alleged goals of evolution.

You have been trying to draw a parallel between simulations of evolution and evolution itself. The Dawkins program you initially cited was a goal-oriented example of cumulative change which you misinterpreted as showing evolutionary goal seeking.

It went down hill from there.


You have not responded to my post that said:


Chas Wrote: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, 02:13 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 01:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 01:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your all over the place man. First you said evolution has no goals, then you said I was pushing examples of goal driven evolution...then you said its not evolution that has goals but the organisms instead. Then you said organism didn't have goals and that i was misrepresenting what you said. Now you seem to be saying they do have goals but they come from within.

Your right I am very confused about your incoherent ever changing position.

My position hasn't changed. You are confused about goals.

Organisms have short-term goals that are internally generated - eating, resting, mating. This has nothing to do with alleged goals of evolution.

You have been trying to draw a parallel between simulations of evolution and evolution itself. The Dawkins program you initially cited was a goal-oriented example of cumulative change which you misinterpreted as showing evolutionary goal seeking.

It went down hill from there.


You have not responded to my post that said:


Chas Wrote: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.

You position might not have changed one iota, but you written description of your position has changed wildly.

Anyways on to your example, if evolution doesn't take a path then how is it you are able to predicted the population gets larger and more hairy?

Also you still never responded to my challenge of showing that cumulative selection has been replicated without the need of an intellect establishing goals for the system or organisms. Until you do this, you claim that evolution does not require an intellect is an unsubstantiated opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2013 02:33 PM by Chas.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 02:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 01:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  My position hasn't changed. You are confused about goals.

Organisms have short-term goals that are internally generated - eating, resting, mating. This has nothing to do with alleged goals of evolution.

You have been trying to draw a parallel between simulations of evolution and evolution itself. The Dawkins program you initially cited was a goal-oriented example of cumulative change which you misinterpreted as showing evolutionary goal seeking.

It went down hill from there.


You have not responded to my post that said:

You position might not have changed one iota, but you written description of your position has changed wildly.

Anyways on to your example, if evolution doesn't take a path then how is it you are able to predicted the population gets larger and more hairy?

Also you still never responded to my challenge of showing that cumulative selection has been replicated without the need of an intellect establishing goals for the system or organisms. Until you do this, you claim that evolution does not require an intellect is an unsubstantiated opinion.

The example above, even though you clearly don't understand it, does just that.

I have tried to engage you with the wording you seem to understand, and have tried to explain the concepts in various ways. I, unlike you, am not playing word games.

Your idea that evolution requires intellect is the claim that requires evidence and you have provided none.

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, 02:35 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(29-03-2013 02:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 02:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You position might not have changed one iota, but you written description of your position has changed wildly.

Anyways on to your example, if evolution doesn't take a path then how is it you are able to predicted the population gets larger and more hairy?

Also you still never responded to my challenge of showing that cumulative selection has been replicated without the need of an intellect establishing goals for the system or organisms. Until you do this, you claim that evolution does not require an intellect is an unsubstantiated opinion.

The example above, even though you clearly don't understand it, does just that.

You can't point to biological evolution and then claim you've replicated it. Your thinking is circular. Try again without so much fail next time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: