On Sep 7, 4:10=A0pm, Gary Bohn <gary.b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Joseki359 <Xabr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
innews:cc52cc76-2213-492b-90c1-cde4a3=
34eab3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> s.com:
>
>
>> Don't know if you saw the original post, but it was stated
>> that a computer program
>> made digital organism to reflect evolution.
>
>
>
>Evolution is a process that directs changes in populations of
>already existing imperfectly self replicating collections of
>molecules.
>
One of many defintions no doubt, and no one disagree with this, the
disagreement is in form of a question, where is the evidence which
demonstrate this known process can evolve one form of life into
another?
>The program does not develop a new organism from nothing, that
>isn't it's purpose.
>
However it is presented here iwith that intent.
>
>> Computer programing 101 states a program is designed to do
>> what the programmer wants it to do. Therefore I find hard to
>> understand how a program however sophisticated it may be to
>> accomplish this task.
>
>
>
>Take some CS400 level cl*****.
>
>
Yeah, and I also play may ai games from westood. please explain your
point.
>> So there is intelligence behind the designing of the digital
>> organism, their not just floating random bits in an electronic
>> vat..
>
>
>
>Yes there is intelligence in the use of computers and code to
>model nature. But we can also emulate nature and make the
>variable under study change unpredictably within our
>constraints.
>
Notice whay you just wrote: "But we can also emulate nature and make
the
variable under study change unpredictably within our
constraints."
I would say that is pretty predictable. You have more ramdoness with
computer models forcasting the direction of hurricanes.
>
>> I can make a program and call it God 2.0 ad have simulate
>> creation. Would that be proof of a divine creator? No!
>
>
>
>Of course not. But the program is set up not to test the
>existence of evolution but to test the ability of one of
>evolution's processes to produce the predicted effects, in this
>case the ability of selection to balance a diversity of
>organisms given certain constraints.
>
This occurs in nature already, my biology teachers of long ago calls
it "foxes and hares"
Again I noterd you mentioned: " in this
case the ability of selection to balance a diversity of
organisms given certain constraints"
>Nature changes constriants, we change constraints. Nature has no
>control of the exact adaptation, the program has no control of
>the exact adaptation. The program is a valid test of the process
>under study without injecting intelligence into it.
>
You are saying nature is chaotic. However how do you readily define
Nature?
and How do you determine if a specie will adapt or not. by computer
modeling?
I don't think so.
>
>> Neither are designed digital organisms is evidence of
>> evolution. If you have to make a program to emulate evolution,
>> it need to be pointed out, that scientists are not sure
>> Evolution as the origin of man is a fact and they recognized
>> they have a faulty basis for such an assumption.
>
>
>
>Considering I have a B.Sc. in CS, I think I understand what it
>takes to write a program.
>
Irrevellant to the discussion however, if we are going to go on
crapshoot of degrees, I am the guy to test the code that you write
after you are done with 'clear box'
hence I think I understand when a program is econimcally feasible or
useless and inform management it should be flush down the tubes.
>If you think a program cannot introduce random actions where the
>programmer has no control you are mistaken. It is quite easy to
>write a program where the outcome is unpredictable. We can
>predict the format, the range, (the constraints) but we cannot
>predict the value.
>
Golly sound like Will Adam eat the fruit or not? question. Let wait
and see.
>Evolutionary programs are used to test specific processes in
>evolution such as natural selection. Selection is based on
>changes in physical constraints controllable by the environment
>and the physical constraints of natural laws coupled with the
>current state of the organism.
You said this before. However in this case the constraints are what
ever the programmers want it to be. And Natural laws are not exactly
bounded on a quantum level, if it was the Hardon collider is a big
waste of money.
>
>We can model the constraints after nature and leave the
>organisms to randomly adapt just as natural processes do.
>
>
>The program may control the environment but the organisms are
>free to develop their own adaptations.
>
The organism still need to be designed and instructed how to adapt.
It seems to me that I would not even bother and tell "mamagement" to
flush it.
I bid thee a good day.
|
