Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2013, 12:28 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(30-03-2013 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 12:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No Chas, I haven't been shown wrong. I want to be shown wrong. That's why I keep asking for you or anyone to show a replication of cumulative selection that doesn't require an intellect to establish goals for the system or organisms.


Just use Google to find some.
There are many programs out there that are excellent evolution simulators.

Yeah I have done that and none i have found can replicate cumulative selection without an intellect assigning goals to the system or organisms. So I come here asking you to show me that I am wrong by providing some actual evidence rather than merely stating I am wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 01:17 PM
Synthetic life.
(30-03-2013 12:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  Here is where you went entirely off the rails:


You are claiming goals for evolution. You are claiming that an evolutionary system that is designed must have goals.

You have been shown to be wrong on both counts.

No Chas, I haven't been shown wrong. I want to be shown wrong. That's why I keep asking for you or anyone to show a replication of cumulative selection that doesn't require an intellect to establish goals for the system or organisms.

If you genuinely wanted to be shown wrong shouldn't you be in school? Or consulting a scientist? Why come here to be shown wrong on this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
30-03-2013, 05:03 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(30-03-2013 12:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just use Google to find some.
There are many programs out there that are excellent evolution simulators.

Yeah I have done that and none i have found can replicate cumulative selection without an intellect assigning goals to the system or organisms. So I come here asking you to show me that I am wrong by providing some actual evidence rather than merely stating I am wrong.


You couldn't have looked very hard.Dodgy

Since the burden of proof is actually on you since you are claiming evolutionary theory is flawed, please provide evidence for either an intellect providing goals or the need for an intellect to provide goals.

I already provided an example of evolution in action that neither had nor needed an intellect providing goals.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-03-2013, 12:24 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2013 12:30 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(30-03-2013 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 12:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No Chas, I haven't been shown wrong. I want to be shown wrong. That's why I keep asking for you or anyone to show a replication of cumulative selection that doesn't require an intellect to establish goals for the system or organisms.


Just use Google to find some.
There are many programs out there that are excellent evolution simulators.


Species has no fitness function: how 'fit' a creature is is determined entirely by it's environment. The selection process in Species is the natural result of it's environment: not an artificial force.
http://www.speciesgame.com/node/2



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
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
31-03-2013, 03:55 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2013 06:07 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(30-03-2013 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 12:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Yeah I have done that and none i have found can replicate cumulative selection without an intellect assigning goals to the system or organisms. So I come here asking you to show me that I am wrong by providing some actual evidence rather than merely stating I am wrong.


You couldn't have looked very hard.Dodgy

Since the burden of proof is actually on you since you are claiming evolutionary theory is flawed, please provide evidence for either an intellect providing goals or the need for an intellect to provide goals.

I already provided an example of evolution in action that neither had nor needed an intellect providing goals.

I never said evolutionary theory is flawed. Your making that up. As far as your example it showed no such thing. Its certainly doesn't answer the challenge I gave you. You thinking is circular...you assume your conclusions and you don't know how to look at the world objectively. An objective person would consider the following two statements concerning evolutionary systems.

1. It is logically possible evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection require an intellect to come into existence.
2. It is logically possible evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection do not necessarily require an intellect to come into existence.

An objective person would look for reasons to reject one of those statements. Replicating cumulative selection without an intellect establishing goals for the simulants would cause me to reject statement 1. Richard Dawkins or anyone else for that matter just claiming evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection do not ncessarily require an intellect is insufficient cause for me to reject statement 1.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2013, 04:03 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 12:24 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just use Google to find some.
There are many programs out there that are excellent evolution simulators.


Species has no fitness function: how 'fit' a creature is is determined entirely by it's environment. The selection process in Species is the natural result of it's environment: not an artificial force.
http://www.speciesgame.com/node/2



I watched a couple of youtube videos and I'm not impressed. The organism in the game have goals that are establishec by the author of eating and reproducing. I also don't like the fact that the author programs the creatures to evolve legs and eyes. About 10 years ago I played with an evolution simulator called Frame sticks that was a much better example, but it still fell short.

Thanks....at least you are trying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2013, 06:18 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 03:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  You couldn't have looked very hard.Dodgy

Since the burden of proof is actually on you since you are claiming evolutionary theory is flawed, please provide evidence for either an intellect providing goals or the need for an intellect to provide goals.

I already provided an example of evolution in action that neither had nor needed an intellect providing goals.

I never said evolutionary theory is flawed. Your making that up. As far as your example it showed no such thing. Its certainly doesn't answer the challenge I gave you. You thinking is circular...you assume your conclusions and you don't know how to look at the world objectively. An objective person would consider the following two statements concerning evolutionary systems.

1. It is logically possible evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection require an intellect to come into existence.
2. It is logically possible evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection do not necessarily require an intellect to come into existence.

An objective person would look for reasons to reject one of those statements. Replicating cumulative selection without an intellect establishing goals for the simulants would cause me to reject statement 1. Richard Dawkins or anyone else for that matter just claiming evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection do not ncessarily require an intellect is insufficient cause for me to reject statement 1.

In another thread, you stated that Dawkins was wrong about evolution being unguided.

Neither Dawkins nor any other evolutionary biologist 'just claims' that evolution does not require an intellect, they carefully describe how evolution functions and support it with evidence.

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
31-03-2013, 06:30 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 06:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 03:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I never said evolutionary theory is flawed. Your making that up. As far as your example it showed no such thing. Its certainly doesn't answer the challenge I gave you. You thinking is circular...you assume your conclusions and you don't know how to look at the world objectively. An objective person would consider the following two statements concerning evolutionary systems.

1. It is logically possible evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection require an intellect to come into existence.
2. It is logically possible evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection do not necessarily require an intellect to come into existence.

An objective person would look for reasons to reject one of those statements. Replicating cumulative selection without an intellect establishing goals for the simulants would cause me to reject statement 1. Richard Dawkins or anyone else for that matter just claiming evolutionary systems which result in cumulative selection do not ncessarily require an intellect is insufficient cause for me to reject statement 1.

In another thread, you stated that Dawkins was wrong about evolution being unguided.

Neither Dawkins nor any other evolutionary biologist 'just claims' that evolution does not require an intellect, they carefully describe how evolution functions and support it with evidence.

Dawkins certainly didn't support his claim with evidence. He admits in the video his demonstration was a cheat and then goes on to make the assertion for which he provides no evidence. If you go to the swimbots website and view the YouTube video, its description claims that Dawkins wishes someone could create an evolution simulator that doesn't rely on arbitrary goals established by the authors of the program.

Now you keep claiming there is evidence to support your position, but you never actually present any. This is why I don't find your counter arguments convincing....because they are based on assertions of evidence but not actual evidence. I'm sorry but your opinion, and that's all you really presented, is worth squat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2013, 06:48 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 06:30 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 06:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  In another thread, you stated that Dawkins was wrong about evolution being unguided.

Neither Dawkins nor any other evolutionary biologist 'just claims' that evolution does not require an intellect, they carefully describe how evolution functions and support it with evidence.

Dawkins certainly didn't support his claim with evidence. He admits in the video his demonstration was a cheat and then goes on to make the assertion for which he provides no evidence. If you go to the swimbots website and view the YouTube video, its description claims that Dawkins wishes someone could create an evolution simulator that doesn't rely on arbitrary goals established by the authors of the program.

Now you keep claiming there is evidence to support your position, but you never actually present any. This is why I don't find your counter arguments convincing....because they are based on assertions of evidence but not actual evidence. I'm sorry but your opinion, and that's all you really presented, is worth squat.


I have given you evidence of evolution without agency in my example.

I pointed you to two books by Dawkins where he provides mountains of evidence.

Apparently, you don't read books. Reliance on videos is just lazy.

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
31-03-2013, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2013 12:04 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 06:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 06:30 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Dawkins certainly didn't support his claim with evidence. He admits in the video his demonstration was a cheat and then goes on to make the assertion for which he provides no evidence. If you go to the swimbots website and view the YouTube video, its description claims that Dawkins wishes someone could create an evolution simulator that doesn't rely on arbitrary goals established by the authors of the program.

Now you keep claiming there is evidence to support your position, but you never actually present any. This is why I don't find your counter arguments convincing....because they are based on assertions of evidence but not actual evidence. I'm sorry but your opinion, and that's all you really presented, is worth squat.


I have given you evidence of evolution without agency in my example.

I pointed you to two books by Dawkins where he provides mountains of evidence.

Apparently, you don't read books. Reliance on videos is just lazy.

Dawkins discusses how evolution works but not its origins. If intellect plays a role in evoution it is at inception of the evolutionary system. Go back and re-read this thread. In an exchange I had with Ghost, I said evolution was "set it and forget it". Once an intellect designs the system to produce a desired end result, no more input from him/her is required.

The reason I am asking for an example of replicated cumulative selection is because then we know the details of how the system originated. Your example is useless because we don't know if an intellect was involved in the inception of the system or not. You think its relavent but it is not because you are assuming your conclusion. You assume no intellect was involved in the inception of the system which produced the cumulative selection presented in your example so you think your example shows intellect is not necessarily required to create a system which produces cumulative selection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: