The "intelligence" of evolution

[Agent11]

I have a brain. Evolution doesn't. You guys are not making sense.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Mutations aren't random. As has been pointed out, certain nucleotides are more likely to change into others. Different parts of various organisms' genomes are more likely to mutate, mutation rates are not equal across different organisms, especially at greater taxonomic levels (ie. Hominoids' genomes mutate at a far, far slower rate than even the genomes of Rodents & certainly of the various bacteria).

That has no bearing on the discussion though. I'd still argue that the effects of these mutations (i.e. good or bad) is random. The reason for the non-random results is that the bad mutations are generally not good for survival and are weeded out. That's where the predictable results come in.

It seems this discussion boils down to simple semantics over whether to term "intelligent" can be applied to a natural and essentially random process.

 

[Agent11]

I would like to see a definition that would allow the word to be used in such a way.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
This thread is going in circles because people are insisting on using a word for some thing in a way that it does not apply. Try to explain your point in a different manor because as it is it makes no sense at all.

Right now it looks like this/

"my cat is a proffesor." I proudly announce
"wtf??"you say
"yes he is." I reply.
"A cat cannot be a proffesor."You retort
"really. He's a damn good one." I say
"where did he get his degree?!" you counter
"You are simply looking at the situation from too narrow a perspective."I explain
"TOO NARROW A PERSPECTIVE??!?! HE'S A CAT!" you exclaim

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Agent11
I have a brain. Evolution doesn't. You guys are not making sense.

What does a brain have to do with anything? A brain is not required for something to exhibit intelligence. I have stated this multiple times already.

Originally posted by: Thraxen
That has no bearing on the discussion though. I'd still argue that the effects of these mutations (i.e. good or bad) is random. The reason for the non-random results is that the bad mutations are generally not good for survival and are weeded out. That's where the predictable results come in.

It seems this discussion boils down to simple semantics over whether to term "intelligent" can be applied to a natural and essentially random process.

Its not a random process if the overall results are non-random. The relationship between species and their environment is a crucial and non-random part to evolution.

Originally posted by: Agent11
This thread is going in circles because people are insisting on using a word for some thing in a way that it does not apply.

As I stated in a previous post, the usage of the word "intelligence" in this case is more closely related to how Computer AI can exhibit intelligence rather than how a human can exhibit intelligence.

 

[Agent11]

A computer is made of componants, put together by a person. Evolution has no form. It is a concept. It cannot be intelligent.


"my cat is a proffesor." I proudly announce
"wtf??"you say
"yes he is." I reply.
"A cat cannot be a proffesor."You retort
"really. He's a damn good one." I say
"where did he get his degree?!" you counter
"You are simply looking at the situation from too narrow a perspective."I explain
"TOO NARROW A PERSPECTIVE??!?! HE'S A CAT!" you exclaim
"Are you saying my cat is stupid?" I reply
"CATS DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO BE PROFFESORS!" you admonish
"You simply do not grasp the nature of Fuzzywuzzy, proffesors or Intelligence." I conclude

Its not a random process if the overall results are non-random. The relationship between species and their environment is a crucial and non-random part to evolution.

Read this again. It makes no sense.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Agent11
A computer is made of componants, put together by a person. Evolution has no form. It is a concept. It cannot be intelligent.

I don't see how "being made by human" has anything to do with something being intelligent (technology is just human evolution anyways). Elephants are intelligent, yet were not created by people.

Originally posted by: Agent11
"my cat is a proffesor." I proudly announce
"wtf??"you say
"yes he is." I reply.
"A cat cannot be a proffesor."You retort
"really. He's a damn good one." I say
"where did he get his degree?!" you counter
"You are simply looking at the situation from too narrow a perspective."I explain
"TOO NARROW A PERSPECTIVE??!?! HE'S A CAT!" you exclaim
"Are you saying my cat is stupid?" I reply
"CATS DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO BE PROFFESORS!" you admonish
"You simply do not grasp the nature of Fuzzywuzzy, proffesors or Intelligence." I conclude

Cats are intelligent, but just not as intelligent as humans and definately not intelligent enough to be professors. I don't, however, see how this relates at all to what I am saying. Evolution has no intelligence quotient to fit. Nobody is arguing that evolution is "smart", or "thinks", or does anything even remotely related to human activities. Instead, as I have pointed out numerous times before, evolution exhibits intelligence like how computer AI exhibits intelligence. When you play against computer opponents they aren't "smart", they aren't "thinking", and they certainly don't have a "brain". Yet, despite this, they are still able to exhibit intelligence. They can appear to make smart decisions and an intelligent human being can lose against them.

Originally posted by: Agent11

Its not a random process if the overall results are non-random. The relationship between species and their environment is a crucial and non-random part to evolution.

Read this again. It makes no sense.

I can't see anything wrong with what I said, so either reveal what does not make sense or don't post.

Maybe you should reread my previous posts (and those by pcy)? Everything you say has already been addressed.

 

[Agent11]

The relationship between an organism and it's environment IS random, I would like you to explain how it is not.

 

[Qriz]

I think that evolution would seem to/demonstrates characteristics of intelligence, but this by no means makes it intelligent. I think we're confusing it with the natural tendency for more beneficial traits to be expressed more frequently over time. Which is just Natural Selection.

Like I said, light will always find the shortest path. But there is no intelligence that drives this tendency, as there is none that drives evolution.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Its not a random process if the overall results are non-random.
[\q]

This is simply wrong. Stochastic processes can result in highly predictable results.
I am actually studyings such a process at the moment so let me use it to give you a real-world example
In the experiment a circuit can switch between two states. Lets call them S and R.
The circuit always starts in the S state but as I increase the current flowing through it the probability that it will switch to the R state increases and ->1 meaning it will always switch as SOME current, the current at which it switches is recorded.
Now, it is impossible to predict when the circuit will switch in any given run. However, when I repeat the experiment many times (about 500 or so) and plot the reuslt in a histogram I see that the histogram has a very definite shape (and btw, it is not gaussian). If I increase the number of experiment to about 20 000 the result will be a very "smooth" histogram.
Now, this is just statisitics but the point is that I can reproduce the shape of the histogram using a relatively simple formula using NO free fitting parameters, meaning if someone tells me the experimental conditions (temperature, sweep rate and a few other parameters) I can predict the outcome of the experiment (and long as it is repeated many times).

Hence the overall result of the experiment (the shape of the histogram) is NOT random but the process generating it IS stochastic (on a fundamental level, it is a decay process described by quantum mechanics so it is truly "random").

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Agent11
The relationship between an organism and it's environment IS random, I would like you to explain how it is not.

Its not random because certain organisms have better chances of surviving than others (one of the fundamental reasons that evolution occurs in the first place). If it was truely random than an ape born without arms would have just as good a chance of surviving as a normal one.

Also, don't you find it a little ironic that you make a claim without presenting any support and then press me to support my claim? Thats just as bad as the ID proponents.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Its not a random process if the overall results are non-random.

This is simply wrong. Stochastic processes can result in highly predictable results.
I am actually studyings such a process at the moment so let me use it to give you a real-world example
In the experiment a circuit can switch between two states. Lets call them S and R.
The circuit always starts in the S state but as I increase the current flowing through it the probability that it will switch to the R state increases and ->1 meaning it will always switch as SOME current, the current at which it switches is recorded.
Now, it is impossible to predict when the circuit will switch in any given run. However, when I repeat the experiment many times (about 500 or so) and plot the reuslt in a histogram I see that the histogram has a very definite shape (and btw, it is not gaussian). If I increase the number of experiment to about 20 000 the result will be a very "smooth" histogram.
Now, this is just statisitics but the point is that I can reproduce the shape of the histogram using a relatively simple formula using NO free fitting parameters, meaning if someone tells me the experimental conditions (temperature, sweep rate and a few other parameters) I can predict the outcome of the experiment (and long as it is repeated many times).

Hence the overall result of the experiment (the shape of the histogram) is NOT random but the process generating it IS stochastic (on a fundamental level, it is a decay process described by quantum mechanics so it is truly "random").

I understand the point you are making and to a certain degree it is valid, however your example fails to take into account one important fact. Evolution keeps a record of itself (DNA) and further progress is based off of past evolution as well. This is quite different from your example where the current result is unaffected by previous results. This difference is what allows evolution to develop increasing order as oppossed to, in your example, order remaining constant.

 

[Agent11]

Just because positive mutations in an organism allow it to thrive does not allow you to assume that nature is not random.
A 'Super Volcano' like the one in syberia or yellowstone goes off resulting in mass extinction, a meteor strikes with a simular effect, el`nino causes a famine in africa.

Random.

It is the random events in nature that caused life to be where it is today, otherwise there would be no hominids and a dinasaur or one of its evolutionary decendants would be crapping in a forest somewhere right now.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Agent11
Just because positive mutations in an organism allow it to thrive does not allow you to assume that nature is not random.

I never claimed that "nature is not random". Any given sequence of days is highly chaotic in terms of wind, rain, sun, etc... What is not random is how an organism interacts with its highly chaotic surroundings. Raining, snowing, cloudiness, etc... are all "random" events as far as we are concerned, but an organism's ability to survive and take advantage of these events is certainly not.

Originally posted by: Agent11
A 'Super Volcano' like the one in syberia or yellowstone goes off resulting in mass extinction, a meteor strikes with a simular effect, el`nino causes a famine in africa.

Random.

Irrelevant. Evolution is not primarily driven by superdisasters.

Originally posted by: Agent11
It is the random events in nature that caused life to be where it is today, otherwise there would be no hominids and a dinasaur or one of its evolutionary decendants would be crapping in a forest somewhere right now.

Just because evolution has random elements does not mean that the whole process is random. For example, there are many events in my life that are out of my control and are "random" as far as I am concerned, however my life as a whole is not "random". It contains some degree of randomness and some degree of structure.

Evolution develops increasing order and the evolution of a new species depends heavily on the evolution of the species before it. This is, by definition, non-random. A random process will not develop order beyond its original starting order (ie: a random process will not build on previous order).

 

[Agent11]

disasters are a significant part of evolution, they open new areas of expansion for the survivors while reducing competition for resources.

Although the process of evolution creates more complex creatures while the organisms continue to survive and expand this not intelligence.. Just the way natural selection works.
If you killed off all life on earth and waited around a few billion years it would start from scratch.. not where it 'left off'.

Saying evolution is intelligent is like saying the atmosphere is, you could argue that hurricanes provide a needed job in transporting heat and that the millions of other vital things happening in the atmosphere denote intelligence.

but that doesn't make it so.

patterns emerge from chaos, not because there is any intelligence behind them but because of the laws of physics and the way things are in the physical world we live in.

 

[f95toli]

Blackllotus: That a process is random (stochastic) does not mean that said process is "white" (as in white noise), any process which includes a stochastic variable is by definition random regardless of what kind of probability distribution you get if you study an ensemble.
Moreover, whether or not the process has a memory or not is irrelevant. All the lack of memory means is that the process is not Markovian (by definition) but it is still stochastic.

Obviously, this is why some models in population dynamics are said to be non-Markovian.


Edit: I should also mention that the process I study DOES have a "memory" if the repetition rate is too high, then you'll get heating effects (the circuit heats up while in the R state) which will change the shape of the histogram (it becomes gaussian). Hence, by looking at the histogram I can tell if there is a "memory effect" or not.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: f95toli
Blackllotus: That a process is random (stochastic) does not mean that said process is "white" (as in white noise), any process which includes a stochastic variable is by definition random regardless of what kind of probability distribution you get if you study an ensemble.

Ack. Even some of the books I have been using as sources for my argument confirm you are correct (as does wikipedia ). However, on the topic of intelligence, our own intelligence is made up of a certain degree of randomness, so is it too, by definition, a random process as well (which, as you already pointed out, does not imply that it lacks order)?

Originally posted by: Agent11
Although the process of evolution creates more complex creatures while the organisms continue to survive and expand this not intelligence...

If you want really want to debate you need to do more than just produce a continuous stream of dismissals without substance. How do you define intelligence? What exactly do you have issue with when I say that evolution exhibits intelligence? Do you consider a process that produces intelligent solutions (such as computer AI, or, dare I say it, evolution) to exhibit intelligence?

 

[blackllotus]

Btw, F95toli's arguments have revealed that discussing the "non-randomness" of a process may not even be related to whether or not a process can be considered intelligence (especially, considering our own intelligence may be, by definition, a random process). I will probably start a new thread discussing what defines intelligence. Presumably the result of that discussion can then be applied back to this thread (that is, if a consensus can even be reached on such a controversial topic).

 

[Agent11]

encarta definition
in·tel·li·gence (plural in·tel·li·genc·es)


noun
Definition:

1. ability to think and learn: the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed

2. secret information: information about secret plans or activities, especially those of foreign governments, the armed forces, business competitors, or criminals

3. gathering of secret information: the collection of secret military or political information

4. people gathering secret information: an organization that gathers information about the secret plans or activities of an adversary or potential adversary, or the people involved in gathering such information

5. intelligent spirit: an entity capable of rational thought, especially one that does not have a physical form


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions




The burden of proving that a word can apply in a way it is not meant to is yours.

A computer is not intelligent. It is a machine. The software created by PEOPLE can allow it to see patterns and perform fuctions.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html
'Computer programs have plenty of speed and memory but their abilities correspond to the intellectual mechanisms that program designers understand well enough to put in programs. Some abilities that children normally don't develop till they are teenagers may be in, and some abilities possessed by two year olds are still out. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the cognitive sciences still have not succeeded in determining exactly what the human abilities are. Very likely the organization of the intellectual mechanisms for AI can usefully be different from that in people.'


One day we may be able to create a true AI. we have not yet.

 

[blackllotus]

You are confusing processes that are intelligent with processes that exhibit intelligence. No knowledge is required for something to exhibit intelligence.