'pin, I'll respond to you later today or tomorrow when I'm not this drowsy, but I see m'boys Rob and Leo are doing a great job on their own

(August 18, 2015 at 1:16 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: 'pin, I'll respond to you later today or tomorrow when I'm not this drowsy, but I see m'boys Rob and Leo are doing a great job on their own

No worries.  I don't mind discussing with Rob and Lucanus in your absence.  They are both sensible and respectful.

(August 18, 2015 at 10:36 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 10:33 am)Pizza Wrote: Machines can product complexity. Why not something like a computer?

And do computers/machines arise by natural unguided processes to produce the complexity?  No they are designed by intelligent minds to do so.

All that is needed for falsification is one case of complexity created by something that isn't an intelligent mind.

(August 18, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Pizza Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 10:36 am)lkingpinl Wrote: And do computers/machines arise by natural unguided processes to produce the complexity?  No they are designed by intelligent minds to do so.

All that is needed for falsification is one case of complexity created by something that isn't an intelligent mind.

But a computer or machine is not such an example.  They are a tool created by an intelligent mind to automate production of a complex object.  An intelligent mind is still required.

(August 18, 2015 at 2:14 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Pizza Wrote: All that is needed for falsification is one case of complexity created by something that isn't an intelligent mind.

But a computer or machine is not such an example.  They are a tool created by an intelligent mind to automate production of a complex object.  An intelligent mind is still required.

Wikipedia Wrote:The significance of the Blondie24 program is that its ability to play checkers did not rely on any human expertise of the game. Rather, it came solely from the total points earned by each player and the evolutionary process itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondie24

Quote:An  evolutionary  algorithm  has  taught  itself  how  to  play  the  game  of  checkers  without  using features that would normally require human expertise. Using only the raw positions of pieces on the board and the piece differential, the evolutionary program optimized artificial neural networks to evaluate alternative positions in the game. Over the course of several hundred generations, the program taught itself to play at a level that is competitive with human experts (one level below human masters).

Evolving an Expert Checkers Playing Program without Using Human Expertise

---

Quote:In radio communications, an evolved antenna is an antenna designed fully or substantially by an automatic computer design program that uses an evolutionary algorithm that mimics Darwinian evolution. This sophisticated procedure has been used in recent years to design a few antennas for mission-critical applications involving stringent, conflicting, or unusual design requirements, such as unusual radiation patterns, for which none of the many existing antenna types are adequate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

(August 18, 2015 at 8:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 2:14 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: But a computer or machine is not such an example.  They are a tool created by an intelligent mind to automate production of a complex object.  An intelligent mind is still required.

Wikipedia Wrote:The significance of the Blondie24 program is that its ability to play checkers did not rely on any human expertise of the game. Rather, it came solely from the total points earned by each player and the evolutionary process itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondie24

Quote:An  evolutionary  algorithm  has  taught  itself  how  to  play  the  game  of  checkers  without  using features that would normally require human expertise. Using only the raw positions of pieces on the board and the piece differential, the evolutionary program optimized artificial neural networks to evaluate alternative positions in the game. Over the course of several hundred generations, the program taught itself to play at a level that is competitive with human experts (one level below human masters).

Evolving an Expert Checkers Playing Program without Using Human Expertise

---

Quote:In radio communications, an evolved antenna is an antenna designed fully or substantially by an automatic computer design program that uses an evolutionary algorithm that mimics Darwinian evolution. This sophisticated procedure has been used in recent years to design a few antennas for mission-critical applications involving stringent, conflicting, or unusual design requirements, such as unusual radiation patterns, for which none of the many existing antenna types are adequate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

Thanks jorgmunder quick question

Did blondie24 or the evolved antenna occur by unguided natural means or was there a person behind initial programming and designing it to have those capabilities?

It doesn't matter that humans created computers. Computers are not minds and yet they produce complexity.

(August 18, 2015 at 10:18 pm)Pizza Wrote: It doesn't matter that humans created computers. Computers are not minds and yet they produce complexity.

You miss the point. Would computers be capable of producing complexity without humans? No. It requires an intelligence to make it.

(August 18, 2015 at 10:22 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(August 18, 2015 at 10:18 pm)Pizza Wrote: It doesn't matter that humans created computers. Computers are not minds and yet they produce complexity.

You miss the point. Would computers be capable of producing complexity without humans? No. It requires an intelligence to make it.

In the right physical and chemical conditions they could. Those conditions are very unlikely to be met, though, and humans act as a catalyst by making them way more likely.
Still, computers are examples of something non-conscious that can operate on its own, generating complexity in the process, independently from the existence of someone who built it. Once it's there, it works and it generates complexity, and it's still something that could be produced by natural means - no magic involved.

The fact that we design complex stuff is not evidence that it must always be the case. We have plenty of evidence to infer that life arose spontaneously on this planet just because the chemical conditions were right.

If you're gonna argue that the universe was fine-tuned for that, well, then why limit life to the grain of sand that earth is, compared to the size of the universe? Was your "omnipotent" God bound by something?


PS:
If you want a nice read on biology and complexity, there's this book called "Power, Sex, Suicide: mitochondria and the meaning of life" by Nick Lane which makes some excellent points about the origin of life and the rise of the eukaryotes.

Well, we came about by natural processes. We evolved. I know Kingpin doesn't believe that, but that's scientific fact. There is no need for an assumption of intelligence behind our "design". (Our design is terrible, by the way. I want a fucking refund.)

(As usual, I don't talk about absolute certainty. I'm talking about things that are true beyond reasonable doubt. To doubt absolutely everything is to fail to have a discussion at all. I'm as hard solipsist-vulnerable as they come. I get it!)

So even though we, intelligence, built computers, we're really nothing more than mobile complex organic computers, and no intelligence designed us. So ultimately, computers came about by natural processes. We are nature. If intelligence was involved in our universe, it was at its inception, and not since.

Complexity is not evidence of design; simplicity is. We're really complicated and contrived. That does not point to a creator, even within the arguments which consider such a thing. It points to natural processes.

I understand it's natural to want to expect intelligence being behind everything. But the argument fails immediately. If intelligence must be behind everything, then intelligence must be behind "God" which raises way more questions than he answers. And an intelligence must be behind that intelligence, and so on.

Just giving God super intelligence-created-immune powers isn't reasonable, it's an admission that your own premise is flawed and the explanation doesn't actually work. Making god so ethereal that he doesn't actually "exist" either shows that he doesn't exist, or that again the argument is flawed. You're just making him out of paradox playdough. You're saying, "Everything needs a designer. That raises an impossible infinite regression paradox. But there can't be this paradox, and so something must fix the paradox. I call this thing God." You're literally saying God does the impossible, it fixes a paradox. But there is no paradox in the first place.

Maybe there is intelligence behind our reality somehow, maybe not. If there is, maybe there is intelligence behind that intelligence, maybe not. But at some point, the "maybe not" has to come true. Insisting that the answer is yes and then no is arbitrary. We simply have no clue at all. The parent reality, if there is one, could well be the ultimate one, but there's no reason it has to simply contain some weird supreme being and not much else.

What the fuck am I talking about? Get me my meds. Nurse, I think I'm lost, take me to my room...