Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 11:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 06:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.


No, I don't assume their was no intellect.
I state that there is no evidence of an intellect and no need of an intellect.

You have provided evidence of neither the presence nor the need.

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, 03:54 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 03:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 11:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.


No, I don't assume their was no intellect.
I state that there is no evidence of an intellect and no need of an intellect.

You have provided evidence of neither the presence nor the need.

I claim that cumulative selection cannot be replicated without an intellect. My claim is falsifiable and I have asked you to falsify it by answering my challenge. I can provide numerous examples of intellect replicating cumulative selection, but you have utterly failed in providing just one example where cumulative selection was replicated without an intellect establishing goals for either the system or the simulants.

Now given this state of affairs, why should I find you argument compelling?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2013, 04:27 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 03:54 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I claim that cumulative selection cannot be replicated without an intellect.
And you have yet to show that this is true.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
31-03-2013, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2013 05:15 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 04:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 12:24 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  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.
I like frame sticks, and I miss 3dvce.

By no goals, what do you mean? What would the lack of goals and evolution look like to you?

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
31-03-2013, 07:53 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 05:10 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 04:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.
I like frame sticks, and I miss 3dvce.

By no goals, what do you mean? What would the lack of goals and evolution look like to you?

By no goals established by an intellect, I mean life functions (eating, reproducing, etc) which emerge from the system instead of being programmed into it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2013, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2013 08:13 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 07:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 05:10 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I like frame sticks, and I miss 3dvce.

By no goals, what do you mean? What would the lack of goals and evolution look like to you?

By no goals established by an intellect, I mean life functions (eating, reproducing, etc) which emerge from the system instead of being programmed into it.


Sounds like you want a system that starts with out life functions and then produces life functions?

A from of programmed abiogenesis?

You do realize that abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution only exists once life is there. When you want life to come into existence from some sort of emergent simulated process you are testing abiogenesis.

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
31-03-2013, 08:25 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 08:03 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 07:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  By no goals established by an intellect, I mean life functions (eating, reproducing, etc) which emerge from the system instead of being programmed into it.


Sounds like you want a system that starts with out, life functions and then produces life functions? A from of programmed abiogenesis?

If I were to try to answer my challenge, that is the kind of direction I would take.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 08:03 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 07:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  By no goals established by an intellect, I mean life functions (eating, reproducing, etc) which emerge from the system instead of being programmed into it.
You do realize that abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution only exists once life is there. When you want life to come into existence from some sort of emergent simulated process you are testing abiogenesis.

They are different processes but part of the same system.

Suppose you programmed a law of physics and matter, let it run and started having evolution. What you observe would be all part of one system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2013, 08:41 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2013 08:57 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 08:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 08:03 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  You do realize that abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution only exists once life is there. When you want life to come into existence from some sort of emergent simulated process you are testing abiogenesis.

They are different processes but part of the same system.

Suppose you programmed a law of physics and matter, let it run and started having evolution. What you observe would be all part of one system.

There in lies the problem.

We don't have a mathematical theory that can be applied to everything. We have different systems that describe different natural phenomena. With out a the theory for everything we have to simulate the processes differently.

But if we had a computer powerful enough to simulate every interaction of matter, energy, time,space, and a theory that applies to everything. Then we might observe life naturally springing up on many planets of our computer universe.


However with out that theory, or computational power, we can only simulate theories on smaller scales.

With that being said, abiogenesis forming lipid bi-layers accumulating RNA has been simulated. In other words there has been the simulation of the behavior of protocells, but the observations of the protocells forming has already been done in labs all of the world.

I don't know if any programmers have committed any formation of protocells to computer code.

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
31-03-2013, 08:59 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(31-03-2013 08:41 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(31-03-2013 08:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  They are different processes but part of the same system.

Suppose you programmed a law of physics and matter, let it run and started having evolution. What you observe would be all part of one system.

There in lies the problem.

We don't have a mathematical theory that can be applied to everything. We have different systems that describe different natural phenomena. With out a the theory for everything we have to simulate the processes differently.

But if we had a computer powerful enough to simulate every interaction of matter, energy, time,space, and a theory that applies to everything. Then we might observe life naturally springing up on many planets of our computer universe.


However with out that theory, or computational power, we can only simulate theories on smaller scales.

We shouldn't have to simulate our universe to show that evolutionary systems can emerge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: