| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
12 Jul 2006 04:12:03 AM |
| Object: |
Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
Genetic Programming:
http://tinyurl.com/mobp7
http://genetic-programming.com/published/usnwr072798.html
Simulations:
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Budikka666, FFM Naughty Babe Banging Old Man |
12 Jul 2006 04:50:34 AM |
|
|
Budikka666tempest-swept female man who likes sordid mattress marathons
with numbats wrote:
Frolicsome tomato with dirty vagina and sickly beacons seeks
despisable kentucky telescope for fervent cheek beating. Mail me at
<budikka1@netscape.net>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
19 Jul 2006 09:06:50 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2006 02:12:03 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Genetic Programming:
http://tinyurl.com/mobp7
http://genetic-programming.com/published/usnwr072798.html
LMAO @ the Christian Cretins.
/article
Science 7/27/98
Touched by nature
Putting evolution to work on the assembly line
BY CHARLES W. PETIT
A new kind of evolution is on the loose, and to hear its practitioners
talk, the prospects are surreal. "Mom and dad jet engine can get
together and have baby jet engines. You find the ones that work better,
mate them, and just keep going," says David Goldberg, a professor of
engineering at the University of Illinois. He is a leader among
researchers who, with little fanfare, have hijacked evolution from the
world of the living. Stripped down and souped up, this new evolution is
ready, after 30 years of gestation, to go to work as an industrial,
invention-spewing tool.
Evolution as in Charles Darwin, blind chance, survival of the fittest,
and all that? Yes. This is the same descent-with-modification evolution,
right down to the lingo--sex, parents, offspring, selection, mutations,
genes, and chromosomes--that biologists use to explain the emergence of
new species. Except in this case, the product is not living tissue but
complex hardware, solutions to maddeningly difficult scheduling
problems, or novel molecules that evolve out of computer code, or even
DNA.
Breeding turbines. The Boeing Co.'s 777 airliner has a General Electric
engine whose turbine geometry evolved inside a computer, and the company
is experimenting with evolving wings for future airliners. Eli Lilly and
other pharmaceutical companies use "directed evolution" to find new
protein catalysts to help produce drugs faster; Deere & Co. breeds daily
schedules that direct assembly lines in six factories to fill custom
orders for its millions of variants of agricultural machinery. The
government contracted with Natural Selection Inc. of La Jolla, Calif.,
to use evolutionary programming in computers that will read mammograms
more quickly and inexpensively than a radiologist.
Applying biological principles to engineering isn't as tough as it
sounds, but it requires computing muscle that has only recently been
available. About five years ago, Andrew Keane, a professor of
engineering at the University of Southampton in England, took a hard
look at a prototype space-station girder assembled by American
astronauts aboard the space shuttle in 1985. Keane had read Goldberg's
work on computer-based evolution. Much of modern engineering uses
algorithms--mathematical procedures for solving problems. But Goldberg
is a champion of genetic algorithms, which use computers to manipulate
potential solutions as if they were living organisms. Keane wondered if
genetic algorithms could outdo NASA's human engineers. To find out, he
recast the original design of the girder as strings of numbers
describing thickness, angle of attachment, and other aspects. He called
each number a gene, each string of numbers a chromosome--analogues to
the DNA genes and chromosomes that orchestrate living cells. Keane then
copied his digital truss "genome" enough times to produce a diverse
founding population. Finally he said, in effect, "Let there be life,"
and ran the program on 11 interconnected computer workstations. For
several days, the truss designs had cybersex--they swapped digital genes
with random abandon. To be sure, Keane, creator of this pseudo world,
imposed his influence over the breeding. He had defined ahead of time
what constituted fitness, and the computers tested each emerging design
accordingly. Those that suppressed vibration best yet remained
lightweight and strong were rewarded with greater fertility. Generation
by generation, the fittest got fitter. The program threw occasional
random mutations among the competing genomes to provide a little extra
variety.
Thus there emerged, from 15 generations and 4,500 different designs, a
truss no human engineer would design. The lumpy, knob-ended assembly
reminds Keane of a leg bone, irregular and somehow organic. Tests on
models confirm its superiority to human-designed ones as a stable
support. No intelligence made the designs. They just evolved.
Impressed by Keane's work, executives of Matra Marconi Space, a
French-British satellite manufacturer, last year signed his group to
help design an orbiting infrared telescope platform for finding planets
similar to Earth around other stars. Its name: Darwin. "It's a
remarkable irony that we may wind up looking for life on other planets,
using mechanisms made by the process that created life here. It sends
tingles up my spine," Keane says.
Engineers expect that similar techniques will reap a bonanza of
innovations here on Earth. "By the middle of the next century, there
will be no area of engineering not touched" by these genetic methods,
says J. David Schaffer, a senior researcher at the Philips Electronics
company's North American research center in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. "The
only way to get to the next level of complexity is with evolutionary
methods."
No single term has arisen to label this new kind of evolution. Variants
of it include not only genetic algorithms but directed evolution,
evolutionary programming, evolution strategy, and evolutionary
computation. In Madison, Wis., this week, more than 400 specialists will
turn out for the Third Annual Genetic Programming Conference to discuss
the field's growing success in industry.
The code of life. Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard
Dawkins saw the border between life and machine start to blur more than
10 years ago. In his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote:
"What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, not warm
breath, not a 'spark of life.' It is information, words, instructions.
There is very little difference, in principle, between a two-state
binary information technology, like ours, and a four-state information
technology like that of the living cell."
Now, engineers who formerly thought in Cartesian,
gears-and-straight-line terms are finding the blending of biology with
hardware and software to be liberating. Bill Fulkerson of Deere & Co.,
who shepherded his company's use of genetic algorithms, says, "The old
metaphors were mechanical, shoulder to the wheel, and all that. When you
open up to biology, and to new metaphors like ecologies of companies,
you get a completely different perspective on how things work." At
Deere, factory-floor supervisors key into ordinary PCs the list of hay
balers, air-conditioned tractors, and other customized farm machinery on
order, and the software sets a swarm of prototype schedules loose. In a
few hours, a list emerges deciding which machines to make when, a list
consistently more efficient than any person could have figured out.
Those sorts of vexing practical problems are driving much of the work in
evolutionary computation. Goldberg, the University of Illinois engineer
whose 1989 textbook is the bible of the field, got his start with the
topic out of frustration with his job consulting for a
natural-gas-transport company in the 1970s. Efficient management of
intricate pipeline networks seemed impossible. Hoping that artificial
intelligence could help, Goldberg went back to school and wound up in
the classroom of John Holland at the University of Michigan. The first
lectures were all biology, with nothing, it seemed, to do with
engineering. Then it hit Goldberg: "Maybe this biology stuff has
everything to do with everything." Holland, still a central figure in
evolutionary computation, invented genetic algorithms in the early
1960s, but they and similar methods languished until the late 1980s.
With the advent of greater computer power, Holland's principles now are
being applied broadly, even to accelerate research with actual raw
genes, the stuff of "real" evolution. "I call it Darwin in a test tube,"
said Frances Arnold, a California Institute of Technology professor of
chemical engineering. For 10 years she has been developing directed
evolution, which scrambles real snippets of DNA, mutates some of them,
crosses them with one another in a process like sex without the good
parts, then plants them back in microbes and harvests new proteins. A
relatively small protein containing 300 amino acids can have far more
variants than there are protons in the universe. A human's attempt to
design a new protein, Arnold says, "is fruitless, doomed to failure
because our puny brains cannot understand the systems we want to
design."
But in just three cycles of DNA shuffling, researchers at Maxygen Inc.
of Santa Clara, Calif., using a method similar to Arnold's, applied
directed evolution to a protein for antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
The result was a version that worked 32,000 times better than the
protein present in microbes naturally. Milton Zmijewski, a senior
research scientist at Lilly Research Laboratories' drug labs in
Indianapolis, said directed evolution is perfect for his company. "We
don't care how we get there, as long as we get there first and fast."
Computer ooze. Some of the new evolution even uses computer programs to
breed their own progeny, swapping software code like genes. South of San
Francisco is the hilltop aerie of John Koza, a Stanford computer
scientist who, as cofounder of Scientific Games Inc., made a fortune by
inventing the scratch-off lottery ticket. Now he has loaded a room in
his huge split-level home with 70 networked computer processors, each
running at 533 megahertz, or half a billion calculations per second, and
expects to have 1,000 processors by year's end. He is loading them with
evolvable computer programs for industrial use, including ones that will
design electronic circuits and control robots. Koza calls his method
"genetic programming," a version of genetic algorithms. While the latter
use computer programs to manipulate strings of numbers representing
real-world things, Koza's technique allows the programs themselves to
crossbreed and evolve. His start-up programs are random snippets of
code, what Koza calls primordial computer ooze. As ensuing generations
become increasingly effective, they also begin looking more bizarre.
They accumulate seeming garbage, circles of illogic that no human would
think up--just as the DNA of living things is thronged with stretches of
nonsense and leftovers of forgotten ancestors.
According to Koza, it is precisely because evolutionary computer code is
messy that it finds solutions that are more subtle and flexible than
does that written by a human programmer. "In nature, nothing is brittle;
it is smooth and elegant, because you never encounter exactly the same
situation twice," Koza says.
To be sure, there remains a vast gulf between the subtlety of living
creatures and the innards of even the most advanced computers or
machines or individual proteins. No computer is even close to being able
to cope with the interactions among the 100,000 genes in a human being.
And it is hard work to frame even fairly simple problems so they can be
genetically manipulated. Breeding and testing solutions can gobble hours
to days of computer time. The human brain may always be better for
solving some problems, but as computers get faster and faster, it is
inevitable they will become breeding grounds for a growing share of
invention.
The implications are profound, not only for engineering but for our view
of ourselves. "As evolution becomes more a standard part of engineering
techniques, and more and more people gain firsthand experience with an
evolutionary process, people will feel more comfortable with the idea of
evolution as the core of their own history," said Lee Altenberg, a
research affiliate at the University of Hawaii.
But can one trust inventions that invent themselves, with people as mere
interested observers? Philips's Schaffer recalls a meeting about genetic
algorithms a few years ago. "Is anybody concerned that you might be
living downwind from a nuclear power plant controlled by a robot that
evolved?" Schaffer asked. Nobody, he recalls, was bothered. As one said,
why worry? After all, today we turn such plants over to people. Nobody
really knows how they work, either
/end
Simulations:
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm
Budikka
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
12 Jul 2006 02:44:08 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2006 02:12:03 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Genetic Programming:
http://tinyurl.com/mobp7
http://genetic-programming.com/published/usnwr072798.html
Simulations:
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm
Budikka
Cool. I have the game Civilization III so that must prove that I am
the Creator of the Earth and rule of my people with an iron scepter!
You can easily manipulate software to do whatever you please
therefore it is proof of nothing. Although the advanced math that a
computer can do does help scientist solve problems and help create
useful things.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
13 Jul 2006 09:28:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 12 Jul 2006 02:12:03 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Genetic Programming:
http://tinyurl.com/mobp7
http://genetic-programming.com/published/usnwr072798.html
Simulations:
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm
Budikka
Cool. I have the game Civilization III so that must prove that I am
the Creator of the Earth and rule of my people with an iron scepter!
You can easily manipulate software to do whatever you please
therefore it is proof of nothing.
If you manipulate software so it adds numbers - it proves numbers can
be added.
Right?
If you manipulate software so it evolves new software that performs a
function - it proves things can evolve.
Right?
That is you vavent "proved" that you or I evolved - but you have proved
that something can "design" itself.
If a computer program can design itself then why not a population of
cells or a poulation of apes?
Although the advanced math that a
computer can do does help scientist solve problems and help create
useful things.
One thing they have created is a thing which evolves - which solves
problems without being told how to solve problems.
That's what life does.
Mark.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
15 Jul 2006 08:37:37 AM |
|
|
In article <e995kf$vcq$2@emma.aioe.org>, says...
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1152844091.691413.276210@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ft@wd.fc wrote:
On 12 Jul 2006 02:12:03 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Genetic Programming:
http://tinyurl.com/mobp7
http://genetic-programming.com/published/usnwr072798.html
Simulations:
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm
Budikka
Cool. I have the game Civilization III so that must prove that I am
the Creator of the Earth and rule of my people with an iron scepter!
You can easily manipulate software to do whatever you please
therefore it is proof of nothing.
If you manipulate software so it adds numbers - it proves numbers can
be added.
Right?
If you manipulate software so it evolves new software that performs a
function - it proves things can evolve.
Right?
That is you vavent "proved" that you or I evolved - but you have proved
that something can "design" itself.
If a computer program can design itself then why not a population of
cells or a poulation of apes?
Although the advanced math that a
computer can do does help scientist solve problems and help create
useful things.
One thing they have created is a thing which evolves - which solves
problems without being told how to solve problems.
That's what life does.
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Evolution does not attempt to show where the first replicating organisms
came from. However, present abiogenesis work is much more satisfying
that the moron creation myths of the bible. There is no reason for you
to assert external intelligence. Nature has to be somehow and those
default states do not require intelligence to specify them. From those
rules, genetic algorithms have shown that complex, apparently "designed"
systems can arise without guiding intelligence. That our simulations
were created by intelligent people is irrelevant. Since nature had
billions of years to chaotically self-organize we are not required to
think that any of its processes required the intervention of
intelligence.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
15 Jul 2006 05:51:06 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f229d88b057d51f989b21@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <e995kf$vcq$2@emma.aioe.org>, says...
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Evolution does not attempt to show where the first replicating organisms
came from. However, present abiogenesis work is much more satisfying
that the moron creation myths of the bible. There is no reason for you
to assert external intelligence. Nature has to be somehow and those
default states do not require intelligence to specify them. From those
rules, genetic algorithms have shown that complex, apparently "designed"
systems can arise without guiding intelligence. That our simulations
were created by intelligent people is irrelevant. Since nature had
billions of years to chaotically self-organize we are not required to
think that any of its processes required the intervention of
intelligence.
No. That the simulations were created by intelligent people is essential.
All you have proven is that intelligent forces can create simulations of
evolution. Since you don't like that level of description you pretend that
the intelligent creator of your simulation does not exist and concentrate
exclusively on the program level.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
15 Jul 2006 08:12:53 PM |
|
|
In article <e9brgg$d3n$1@nntp.aioe.org>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f229d88b057d51f989b21@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <e995kf$vcq$2@emma.aioe.org>, says...
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Evolution does not attempt to show where the first replicating organisms
came from. However, present abiogenesis work is much more satisfying
that the moron creation myths of the bible. There is no reason for you
to assert external intelligence. Nature has to be somehow and those
default states do not require intelligence to specify them. From those
rules, genetic algorithms have shown that complex, apparently "designed"
systems can arise without guiding intelligence. That our simulations
were created by intelligent people is irrelevant. Since nature had
billions of years to chaotically self-organize we are not required to
think that any of its processes required the intervention of
intelligence.
No. That the simulations were created by intelligent people is essential.
It doesn't matter if humans, Martians, or a random number generators
wrote the simulation. The question is not how the simulation got here.
The question is the results and the results of simulated evolution verify
that the properties of natural evolution are sufficient to produce
optimized variations in the gene pool.
All you have proven is that intelligent forces can create simulations of
evolution.
You've just conceded that this simulation accurately models evolutionary
processes in nature. But the natural phenomena in evolution do not
require intelligence. Therefore, more optimally fit designs can emerge
from nature, which means that we can't say with any confidence that a
creator god was involved with any of the features we see in living
organisms, given that they all could have emerged from evolution.
Since you don't like that level of description you pretend that
the intelligent creator of your simulation does not exist
Of course I don't pretend that, you stupid *****. I'm saying that the
simulation confirms evolutionay principles and you've now conceded on
that issue. The evolutionary mechanisms in the simulation generate the
apparent "design", and therefore, the fact that the simulation was
written by humans has no relevance to the issue that evolution works.
and concentrate
exclusively on the program level.
I'm concentrating upon the evolutionary level, you brain-dead, god-
fellating *****.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
16 Jul 2006 02:44:29 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f234081413f4895989b2c@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <e9brgg$d3n$1@nntp.aioe.org>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f229d88b057d51f989b21@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <e995kf$vcq$2@emma.aioe.org>, says...
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has
the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that
can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Evolution does not attempt to show where the first replicating
organisms
came from. However, present abiogenesis work is much more satisfying
that the moron creation myths of the bible. There is no reason for you
to assert external intelligence. Nature has to be somehow and those
default states do not require intelligence to specify them. From those
rules, genetic algorithms have shown that complex, apparently
"designed"
systems can arise without guiding intelligence. That our simulations
were created by intelligent people is irrelevant. Since nature had
billions of years to chaotically self-organize we are not required to
think that any of its processes required the intervention of
intelligence.
No. That the simulations were created by intelligent people is
essential.
It doesn't matter if humans, Martians, or a random number generators
wrote the simulation. The question is not how the simulation got here.
The question is the results and the results of simulated evolution verify
that the properties of natural evolution are sufficient to produce
optimized variations in the gene pool.
Of course it matters who rote the simulation. If no one wrote the
simulation the results would not exist. All that has been proven is that
intelligent beings can create simulations of evolutionary processes.
Eliminate the writer and the simulation does not exist nor do the results
that such simulations produce.
All you have proven is that intelligent forces can create simulations of
evolution.
You've just conceded that this simulation accurately models evolutionary
processes in nature. But the natural phenomena in evolution do not
require intelligence. Therefore, more optimally fit designs can emerge
from nature, which means that we can't say with any confidence that a
creator god was involved with any of the features we see in living
organisms, given that they all could have emerged from evolution.
What we can say with confidence is that an intelligent being can create such
simulations. You seem curiously unable to demonstrate that simulations
exist that arose via any other method that an intelligent origin.
Since you don't like that level of description you pretend that
the intelligent creator of your simulation does not exist
Of course I don't pretend that, you stupid *****. I'm saying that the
simulation confirms evolutionay principles and you've now conceded on
that issue. The evolutionary mechanisms in the simulation generate the
apparent "design", and therefore, the fact that the simulation was
written by humans has no relevance to the issue that evolution works.
It is perfectly relevant to the fact that if the intelligent designer of the
simulation did not exist, the simulation would not exist and nothing will be
generated.
and concentrate
exclusively on the program level.
I'm concentrating upon the evolutionary level, you brain-dead, god-
fellating *****.
Your ad hominem attacks are developing nicely. You must be really proud of
this one! It still detracts from your argument rather than enhances it
though...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
16 Jul 2006 04:59:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:44:29 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e4ui$b4b$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
[snip]
Of course it matters who rote the simulation. If no one wrote the
simulation the results would not exist.
That is not the point. That just says that the simulation needs to
exist, not who wrote it. Would it matter if one really smart person as
opposed to 1,000 kind of stupid people wrote it? (We assume the same
result.)
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
17 Jul 2006 08:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bidlb212l6gdmeec5ktaj374hig2aghhpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:44:29 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e4ui$b4b$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
[snip]
Of course it matters who rote the simulation. If no one wrote the
simulation the results would not exist.
That is not the point. That just says that the simulation needs to
exist, not who wrote it. Would it matter if one really smart person as
opposed to 1,000 kind of stupid people wrote it? (We assume the same
result.)
I don't know - do you know of such a simulation - one that has been written
by one really smart person, and one written by 1,000 'kind of stupid' people
(obviously they would have to be 'intelligent' enough to write a working
simulation - and it is likely that one 'really smart' person may know some
methods of using code more efficiently than the others).
In fact, since you assert that 'intelligence' is not required to produce the
simulation perhaps you could get one 'kind of stupid' person (who needs to
be 'intelligent' enough to write working code) to write a simulation and
1,000 rocks (presumably you would agree that rocks cannot be described as
'intelligent') to write a simulation and we will compare the two? - good
luck with the 'rock' version...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
17 Jul 2006 08:58:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:20:57 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9hd1c$nu2$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bidlb212l6gdmeec5ktaj374hig2aghhpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:44:29 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e4ui$b4b$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
[snip]
Of course it matters who rote the simulation. If no one wrote the
simulation the results would not exist.
That is not the point. That just says that the simulation needs to
exist, not who wrote it. Would it matter if one really smart person as
opposed to 1,000 kind of stupid people wrote it? (We assume the same
result.)
I don't know - do you know of such a simulation -
You don't seem to understand how a subjunctive works, do you? I asked
if, if we had the things we could just observe.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
18 Jul 2006 06:48:32 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:psfob2potdagaaf43fidh1s2gdm8l6p7q6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:20:57 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9hd1c$nu2$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bidlb212l6gdmeec5ktaj374hig2aghhpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:44:29 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e4ui$b4b$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
[snip]
Of course it matters who rote the simulation. If no one wrote the
simulation the results would not exist.
That is not the point. That just says that the simulation needs to
exist, not who wrote it. Would it matter if one really smart person as
opposed to 1,000 kind of stupid people wrote it? (We assume the same
result.)
I don't know - do you know of such a simulation -
You don't seem to understand how a subjunctive works, do you? I asked
if, if we had the things we could just observe.
Yes, I do. We don't have the things and we can't observe them so any
prediction made would be nothing more than a guess, wouldn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
19 Jul 2006 05:01:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:48:32 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9js01$jau$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:psfob2potdagaaf43fidh1s2gdm8l6p7q6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:20:57 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9hd1c$nu2$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bidlb212l6gdmeec5ktaj374hig2aghhpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:44:29 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e4ui$b4b$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
[snip]
Of course it matters who rote the simulation. If no one wrote the
simulation the results would not exist.
That is not the point. That just says that the simulation needs to
exist, not who wrote it. Would it matter if one really smart person as
opposed to 1,000 kind of stupid people wrote it? (We assume the same
result.)
I don't know - do you know of such a simulation -
You don't seem to understand how a subjunctive works, do you? I asked
if, if we had the things we could just observe.
Yes, I do. We don't have the things and we can't observe them so any
prediction made would be nothing more than a guess, wouldn't it?
Let me try something a bit simpler, more in reach of your
capabilities. Suppose I have some water made by intelligent agents and
some water made otherwise. Do you have any reason to think they would
behave differently? How about if it was ice? Or is that something you
are not able to consider?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
20 Jul 2006 02:19:21 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:gqatb2lpnd8u7h6ulb1bmksq70bjnbbvvt@4ax.com...
You don't seem to understand how a subjunctive works, do you? I asked
if, if we had the things we could just observe.
Yes, I do. We don't have the things and we can't observe them so any
prediction made would be nothing more than a guess, wouldn't it?
Let me try something a bit simpler, more in reach of your
capabilities. Suppose I have some water made by intelligent agents and
some water made otherwise. Do you have any reason to think they would
behave differently? How about if it was ice? Or is that something you
are not able to consider?
I can certainly make a guess - If I apply the principle that what is
identical will behave identically, I would have to conclude that they would
behave identically. Whether that principle is universally true and
therefore necessarily applicable, however, is a different question. It may
be fine for a simple combination of two molecules; but does it necessarily
apply to more complex systems? Apply the same principle to monozygotic
twins (genetically identical and from the same source) - would you expect
monozygotic twins to behave identically on the basis that they are
identical? If one was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, for
example, would it necessarily follow that the other twin is suffering from
the same condition? What about clones - would a clone and the original it
was 'created' from behave identically? - Would they move the same? Think
the same?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
21 Jul 2006 07:10:42 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Tabula Rasa <tabula@bulldoghome.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:gqatb2lpnd8u7h6ulb1bmksq70bjnbbvvt@4ax.com...
You don't seem to understand how a subjunctive works, do you? I asked
if, if we had the things we could just observe.
Yes, I do. We don't have the things and we can't observe them so any
prediction made would be nothing more than a guess, wouldn't it?
Let me try something a bit simpler, more in reach of your
capabilities. Suppose I have some water made by intelligent agents and
some water made otherwise. Do you have any reason to think they would
behave differently? How about if it was ice? Or is that something you
are not able to consider?
I can certainly make a guess - If I apply the principle that what is
identical will behave identically, I would have to conclude that they would
behave identically. Whether that principle is universally true and
therefore necessarily applicable, however, is a different question. It may
be fine for a simple combination of two molecules; but does it necessarily
apply to more complex systems? Apply the same principle to monozygotic
twins (genetically identical and from the same source)
But they're not under the same external influences. Just as two identical
marbles roling down two ramps that are not at the same tilt won't both roll
at the same speed.
- would you expect
monozygotic twins to behave identically on the basis that they are
identical?
No. They have identical genes but they are NEVER identical.
If one was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, for
example, would it necessarily follow that the other twin is suffering from
the same condition? What about clones - would a clone and the original it
was 'created' from behave identically? - Would they move the same? Think
the same?
See above.
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
21 Jul 2006 06:33:09 PM |
|
|
<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:e9qg81$h8p$1@news04.infoave.net...
In talk.atheism Tabula Rasa <tabula@bulldoghome.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:gqatb2lpnd8u7h6ulb1bmksq70bjnbbvvt@4ax.com...
You don't seem to understand how a subjunctive works, do you? I asked
if, if we had the things we could just observe.
Yes, I do. We don't have the things and we can't observe them so any
prediction made would be nothing more than a guess, wouldn't it?
Let me try something a bit simpler, more in reach of your
capabilities. Suppose I have some water made by intelligent agents and
some water made otherwise. Do you have any reason to think they would
behave differently? How about if it was ice? Or is that something you
are not able to consider?
I can certainly make a guess - If I apply the principle that what is
identical will behave identically, I would have to conclude that they
would
behave identically. Whether that principle is universally true and
therefore necessarily applicable, however, is a different question. It
may
be fine for a simple combination of two molecules; but does it
necessarily
apply to more complex systems? Apply the same principle to monozygotic
twins (genetically identical and from the same source)
But they're not under the same external influences. Just as two identical
marbles roling down two ramps that are not at the same tilt won't both
roll
at the same speed.
Monochoriotic twins share the same intrauterine environment - what
difference is there as regards external influences for the first nine
months (or thereabouts) of development are there if they are genetically
identical and share placentation?
- would you expect
monozygotic twins to behave identically on the basis that they are
identical?
No. They have identical genes but they are NEVER identical.
Never? - How soon after the single egg is fertilized do the differences
begin to occur, particularly in the case of monochoriotic monozygotes?
If one was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, for
example, would it necessarily follow that the other twin is suffering
from
the same condition? What about clones - would a clone and the original
it
was 'created' from behave identically? - Would they move the same? Think
the same?
See above.
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
22 Jul 2006 06:18:23 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Tabula Rasa <tabula@bulldoghome.com> wrote:
<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:e9qg81$h8p$1@news04.infoave.net...
In talk.atheism Tabula Rasa <tabula@bulldoghome.com> wrote:
I can certainly make a guess - If I apply the principle that what is
identical will behave identically, I would have to conclude that they
would
behave identically. Whether that principle is universally true and
therefore necessarily applicable, however, is a different question. It
may
be fine for a simple combination of two molecules; but does it
necessarily
apply to more complex systems? Apply the same principle to monozygotic
twins (genetically identical and from the same source)
But they're not under the same external influences. Just as two identical
marbles roling down two ramps that are not at the same tilt won't both
roll
at the same speed.
Monochoriotic twins share the same intrauterine environment
Not completely. One may be up in the upper/roomier end of the womb and the
other "pushed into a corner." One may have slightly different blood flow
than the other, etc. There WILL be differences in environment, even if very
minute.
- what
difference is there as regards external influences for the first nine
months (or thereabouts) of development are there if they are genetically
identical and share placentation?
"External" here means external to their body and not external to the womb.
Many things can affect how they develop. Even things internal to themselves
can be different. Maybe the acidity surrounding one embryo at day 10 is 6.10
and the acidity around the other is 6.11 and that affects how the cells
divide. Maybe they split at the 8-cell stage and thus have 4 cells each and
one cell gets hit with a gamma ray and develops a minor mutation. That would
affect 1/4 of that twin's body. There are any number of things that will
cause them to develop slightly differently.
- would you expect
monozygotic twins to behave identically on the basis that they are
identical?
No. They have identical genes but they are NEVER identical.
Never? - How soon after the single egg is fertilized do the differences
begin to occur, particularly in the case of monochoriotic monozygotes?
As soon as the cells split into two groups to form the two twins.
You are making the mistake of thinking that if two things start out the
same, they'll end up the same and that's not the case. ONLY if two things
remain under identical environments will they remain the same. That's why
computer simulation is so helpfull; because we can control the "environment"
so exactly and see what would happen with just a single change. We can
simulate, for example, the weather pattern of a hurricane and change the
tempurature just a couple of degrees but yet keep everything else exactly
the same and see how things develop. But even just a tiny change in the
initial parameters can have huge effects on the end result.
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
14 Jul 2006 06:46:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:25:20 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e995kf$vcq$2@emma.aioe.org> wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1152844091.691413.276210@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ft@wd.fc wrote:
On 12 Jul 2006 02:12:03 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Genetic Programming:
http://tinyurl.com/mobp7
http://genetic-programming.com/published/usnwr072798.html
Simulations:
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm
Budikka
Cool. I have the game Civilization III so that must prove that I am
the Creator of the Earth and rule of my people with an iron scepter!
You can easily manipulate software to do whatever you please
therefore it is proof of nothing.
If you manipulate software so it adds numbers - it proves numbers can
be added.
Right?
If you manipulate software so it evolves new software that performs a
function - it proves things can evolve.
Right?
That is you vavent "proved" that you or I evolved - but you have proved
that something can "design" itself.
If a computer program can design itself then why not a population of
cells or a poulation of apes?
Although the advanced math that a
computer can do does help scientist solve problems and help create
useful things.
One thing they have created is a thing which evolves - which solves
problems without being told how to solve problems.
That's what life does.
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Please detail where something other than natural law was involved.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
15 Jul 2006 04:32:35 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m5bgb2t9bm21r2np2j8g47nn30227oqgc9@4ax.com...
One thing they have created is a thing which evolves - which solves
problems without being told how to solve problems.
That's what life does.
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Please detail where something other than natural law was involved.
First you need to prove that natural 'laws' exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
15 Jul 2006 06:39:49 PM |
|
|
In article <e9bmta$30d$1@nntp.aioe.org>, says...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m5bgb2t9bm21r2np2j8g47nn30227oqgc9@4ax.com...
One thing they have created is a thing which evolves - which solves
problems without being told how to solve problems.
That's what life does.
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Please detail where something other than natural law was involved.
First you need to prove that natural 'laws' exist.
Do you deny that things exist? Things such as matter, for example?
Don't those things have properties or "natures" to them that describe
them? The sum total of all those "natures" is *Nature*. When we say
there are "laws" of nature we mean that we can create general
descriptions of the way nature seems to behave on a consistent basis.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
16 Jul 2006 01:43:42 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f232aae68a3ea66989b26@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <e9bmta$30d$1@nntp.aioe.org>, says...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m5bgb2t9bm21r2np2j8g47nn30227oqgc9@4ax.com...
One thing they have created is a thing which evolves - which solves
problems without being told how to solve problems.
That's what life does.
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Please detail where something other than natural law was involved.
First you need to prove that natural 'laws' exist.
Do you deny that things exist? Things such as matter, for example?
Don't those things have properties or "natures" to them that describe
them? The sum total of all those "natures" is *Nature*. When we say
there are "laws" of nature we mean that we can create general
descriptions of the way nature seems to behave on a consistent basis.
Since when did reductionist descriptions of reality become 'laws'? A
description is just that; a description - not a law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
16 Jul 2006 01:52:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:43:42 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<> in <e9e1ci$391$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f232aae68a3ea66989b26@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <e9bmta$30d$1@nntp.aioe.org>, says...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m5bgb2t9bm21r2np2j8g47nn30227oqgc9@4ax.com...
One thing they have created is a thing which evolves - which solves
problems without being told how to solve problems.
That's what life does.
One thing you have proven is that something can be created that has the
ability to 'design' itself. You have not proven that software that can
'design' itself can arise via any other method than creation by an
intelligent external force.
Please detail where something other than natural law was involved.
First you need to prove that natural 'laws' exist.
Do you deny that things exist? Things such as matter, for example?
Don't those things have properties or "natures" to them that describe
them? The sum total of all those "natures" is *Nature*. When we say
there are "laws" of nature we mean that we can create general
descriptions of the way nature seems to behave on a consistent basis.
Since when did reductionist descriptions of reality become 'laws'? A
description is just that; a description - not a law.
Natural laws are not simply descriptions, they are predictive models
as well. Can you make any predictions at all with your undefined
"intelligence" as a "force"?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
16 Jul 2006 04:39:45 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fm2lb2pkq64jpv7v2f7q7sfi39v5b7pc0u@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:43:42 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e1ci$391$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
Since when did reductionist descriptions of reality become 'laws'? A
description is just that; a description - not a law.
Natural laws are not simply descriptions, they are predictive models
as well. Can you make any predictions at all with your undefined
"intelligence" as a "force"?
Predictive models are not laws any more than descriptions are.
I have not suggested intelligence as a force - You have misconstrued
statements that refer to 'forces' that have intelligence as a force called
'intelligence'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
16 Jul 2006 04:57:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:39:45 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9ebml$frf$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fm2lb2pkq64jpv7v2f7q7sfi39v5b7pc0u@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:43:42 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e1ci$391$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
Since when did reductionist descriptions of reality become 'laws'? A
description is just that; a description - not a law.
Natural laws are not simply descriptions, they are predictive models
as well. Can you make any predictions at all with your undefined
"intelligence" as a "force"?
Predictive models are not laws any more than descriptions are.
Gee, I can make predictions using f=ma and f(g)=G(mM)/r^2. Are those
not laws? Anyway, this thing about the nature of laws is a
distraction. You propose that somehow intelligence can affect things,
I am trying to see how intelligence, separate from physical entities
and physical actions, plays a role. You seem unwilling to help me with
that.
I have not suggested intelligence as a force - You have misconstrued
statements that refer to 'forces' that have intelligence as a force called
'intelligence'.
So how does "intelligence" act on things.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
17 Jul 2006 08:10:27 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:jddlb2hnpm6l4km7jbaen29g658sng4cth@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:39:45 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9ebml$frf$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fm2lb2pkq64jpv7v2f7q7sfi39v5b7pc0u@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:43:42 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e1ci$391$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
Since when did reductionist descriptions of reality become 'laws'? A
description is just that; a description - not a law.
Natural laws are not simply descriptions, they are predictive models
as well. Can you make any predictions at all with your undefined
"intelligence" as a "force"?
Predictive models are not laws any more than descriptions are.
Gee, I can make predictions using f=ma and f(g)=G(mM)/r^2. Are those
not laws? Anyway, this thing about the nature of laws is a
distraction. You propose that somehow intelligence can affect things,
I am trying to see how intelligence, separate from physical entities
and physical actions, plays a role. You seem unwilling to help me with
that.
Why should I help you with that when that is not what I have suggested?
I have not suggested intelligence as a force - You have misconstrued
statements that refer to 'forces' that have intelligence as a force called
'intelligence'.
So how does "intelligence" act on things.
You tell me. I have not suggested it does - I have suggested that forces
(people, apes etc) that can be described as 'intelligent' can act on things.
I suspect you deliberately misunderstand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
17 Jul 2006 08:41:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:10:27 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9hcdm$dhp$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:jddlb2hnpm6l4km7jbaen29g658sng4cth@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:39:45 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9ebml$frf$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fm2lb2pkq64jpv7v2f7q7sfi39v5b7pc0u@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:43:42 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<tabula@bulldoghome.com> in <e9e1ci$391$1@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
Since when did reductionist descriptions of reality become 'laws'? A
description is just that; a description - not a law.
Natural laws are not simply descriptions, they are predictive models
as well. Can you make any predictions at all with your undefined
"intelligence" as a "force"?
Predictive models are not laws any more than descriptions are.
Gee, I can make predictions using f=ma and f(g)=G(mM)/r^2. Are those
not laws? Anyway, this thing about the nature of laws is a
distraction. You propose that somehow intelligence can affect things,
I am trying to see how intelligence, separate from physical entities
and physical actions, plays a role. You seem unwilling to help me with
that.
Why should I help you with that when that is not what I have suggested?
No, you, like most people who profess some fondness for "Intelligent
Design" have been quite coy about your position.
I have not suggested intelligence as a force - You have misconstrued
statements that refer to 'forces' that have intelligence as a force called
'intelligence'.
So how does "intelligence" act on things.
You tell me. I have not suggested it does - I have suggested that forces
(people, apes etc) that can be described as 'intelligent' can act on things.
I suspect you deliberately misunderstand.
No, I suspect that I deliberately refuse to be misled. I also notice
that you refuse to explain why "intelligence" is a significant aspect.
Most people when they profess fondness for anything close to
Intelligent Design refuse to explain what they mean by either
Intelligent or Design.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tabula Rasa" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution Demonstrated Via Software |
18 Jul 2006 06:29:46 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:iseob2h6lbs3uqf94tlohomrcmder76m9a@4ax.com...
Since when did reductionist descriptions of reality become 'laws'? A
description is just that; a description - not a law.
Natural laws are not simply descriptions, they are predictive models
as well. Can you make any predictions at all with your undefined
"intelligence" as a "force"?
Predictive models are not laws any more than descriptions are.
Gee, I can make predictions using f=ma and f(g)=G(mM)/r^2. Are those
not laws? Anyway, this thing about the nature of laws is a
distraction. You propose that somehow intelligence can affect things,
I am trying to see how intelligence, separate from physical entities
and physical actions, plays a role. You seem unwilling to help me with
that.
Why should I help you with that when that is not what I have suggested?
No, you, like most people who profess some fondness for "Intelligent
Design" have been quite coy about your position.
I have not suggested intelligence separated from physical entities and
physical actions. Thay may be how you have interpreted what I have
suggested, though as far as I am concerned I have not been coy in the
slightest.
I have not suggested intelligence as a force - You have misconstrued
statements that refer to 'forces' that have intelligence as a force
called
'intelligence'.
So how does "intelligence" act on things.
You tell me. I have not suggested it does - I have suggested that forces
(people, apes etc) that can be described as 'intelligent' can act on
things.
I suspect you deliberately misunderstand.
No, I suspect that I deliberately refuse to be misled. I also notice
that you refuse to explain why "intelligence" is a significant aspect.
Most people when they profess fondness for anything close to
Intelligent Design refuse to explain what they mean by either
Intelligent or Design.
I'm happy with the dictionary definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design
You are welcome to consider for yourself why I suggest 'intelligence' is a
significant aspect while you are waiting for your non-intelligent rocks to
build a computer and write a working simulation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Stop being a fucking moron, Pabula Drossa. |
19 Jul 2006 11:38:36 AM |
|
|
In article <e9jqss$tqs$1@nntp.aioe.org>, says...
I'm happy with the dictionary definitions:
That's spoken like the prek-kindergarten intellect that you've shown
yourself to be. The only evidence we have for intelligence suggests that
it is a biological process. How, therefore could any intellect arise
prior to the biology which implements it? IDiots, such as yourself are
ultimately forced to postulate an intelligence which is not physically
based. But you have no evidence to suggest that this is possible.
The evidence suggests that intelligence emerged, except perhaps in your
absent case, from biological processes, rather than the other way around.
Get it now, you fucking moron?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design
You are welcome to consider for yourself why I suggest 'intelligence' is a
significant aspect
It's not the significant factor in this experiment because intelligence
on the part of the researcher is involved in ALL experiments, you
fucking moron. Thus, it was not the goal of this experiment to prove
that intelligent people can write a computer program, your feeble-minded
ability to miss the point notwithstanding. Stop being a time-wasting,
fucking moron, and finally be intellectually honest enough to admit that
you were wrong in your analysis, since it's patently obvious to anyone
else analyzing your pathetic excuse-mongering, that you are in fact
wrong.
while you are waiting for your non-intelligent rocks to
build a computer
Rocks are already made out of atoms, which are themselves nano-computers,
you fucking moron. Pay attention, fucking moron.
and write a working simulation.
Nature is already the real thing, you fucking moron. They don't have to
write a simulation when they have the real thing, you fucking moron. Try
again, you fucking moron.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Precision" |
|
| Title: Re: Stop being a fucking moron, Pabula Drossa. |
20 Jul 2006 03:04:32 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f280dfa60282300989b4f@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <e9jqss$tqs$1@nntp.aioe.org>, says...
I'm happy with the dictionary definitions:
That's spoken like the prek-kindergarten intellect that you've shown
yourself to be. The only evidence we have for intelligence suggests that
it is a biological process. How, therefore could any intellect arise
prior to the biology which implements it? IDiots, such as yourself are
ultimately forced to postulate an intelligence which is not physically
based. But you have no evidence to suggest that this is possible.
The evidence suggests that intelligence emerged, except perhaps in your
absent case, from biological processes, rather than the other way around.
Get it now, you fucking moron?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design
You are welcome to consider for yourself why I suggest 'intelligence' is
a
significant aspect
It's not the significant factor in this experiment because intelligence
on the part of the researcher is involved in ALL experiments, you
fucking moron. Thus, it was not the goal of this experiment to prove
that intelligent people can write a computer program, your feeble-minded
ability to miss the point notwithstanding. Stop being a time-wasting,
fucking moron, and finally be intellectually honest enough to admit that
you were wrong in your analysis, since it's patently obvious to anyone
else analyzing your pathetic excuse-mongering, that you are in fact
wrong.
while you are waiting for your non-intelligent rocks to
build a computer
Rocks are already made out of atoms, which are themselves nano-computers,
you fucking moron. Pay attention, fucking moron.
and write a working simulation.
Nature is already the real thing, you fucking moron. They don't have to
write a simulation when they have the real thing, you fucking moron. Try
again, you fucking moron.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Speak for yourself because
I'm not likely alone in finding Tabula Rasa's arguments quite compelling.
With all due respect, Quibbler, considering your bedside manner is shall we
say rough around the edges, you haven't read the book 'How to Win Friends
and Influence People'. ;-)
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Stop being a fucking moron, Pabula Drossa. |
20 Jul 2006 09:34:05 AM |
|
|
In article <1153382130_70239@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
says...
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
No, what Pabula is, is a failure to be educated.
Speak for yourself because
I'm not likely alone in finding Tabula Rasa's arguments quite compelling.
Then again, you find the watchtower magazine "quite compelling" despite
the massive evidence to the contrary. So I'm not surprised that you'd
find your witless sockpuppets like Pabula to be "compelling" as well.
With all due respect, Quibbler, considering your bedside manner is shall we
say rough around the edges,
What would you know about medicine, quack. You're too much of a fucking
caveman to even receive a blodd transfusion.
you haven't read the book 'How to Win Friends
and Influence People'. ;-)
I've read it more than once. I don't want you, or your sockpuppets as my
friends.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
