(October 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Lets look at the definitions of intelligence and random.

Intelligence: the ability to apply knowledge.
Random: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method.

An intelligent processes decides by appling some knowledge learned from the situation i.e. it is using a method to decide. A random process is the opposite of that by definition.

Tell to the evolutionary process which, as some people have boldly asserted, has been able to solve a vast number of problems of building highly complex biomechanical systems in cells, organs, and the entire human body, with the help of trial-and-error random mutations (and natural selection).

Even a blind watchmaker has some IQ.

Here's the old evolution is a random process BS. Evolution is not random. Also, a blind watchmaker is a bad analogy for a random process. A better analogy would be a dice roll or a coin flip.

Quote:

Quote:I have no idea what Buridan's ass comes into play. It has to deals with free will, which is not what we are talking about.

Every number looks the same to me; so, I can't choose any particular one.

Thats because you're not picking randomly.

Quote:

---

Anyway, I think we've already agreed to disagree whether a mechanical RNG can pick a random number from -infinity to +infinity, (1) such that it is possible for it to pick every number and (2) given that the probability of choosing any given number is zero.

An intelligent world generator is also in trouble when dealing with actual infinities. But at least he can narrow down the choices to a finite set by considering the purpose to which he wants to put the world to be picked.

Our disagreement is your assertion that a random choice requires intelligence. From the definitions of intelligence and random, your assertion is wrong. I'm still waiting for a good counter to this.

Also, I can create a RNG that can pick a number from -infinity to infinitiy. All I need is a exisiting non-repeating RNG like this one, scale the result from 0 to 1, take the natural log, and get another random number to decide if I multiply my result by -1 or not. Tada, I have a mechanical random number generator from -infinity to infinity.

(October 23, 2014 at 10:34 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm)datc Wrote: Tell to the evolutionary process which, as some people have boldly asserted, has been able to solve a vast number of problems of building highly complex biomechanical systems in cells, organs, and the entire human body, with the help of trial-and-error random mutations (and natural selection).

Even a blind watchmaker has some IQ.

Here's the old evolution is a random process BS. Evolution is not random.

Did I say evolution was random? Wtf? I explicitly pointed out that evolution involves a random process of mutations which is complemented with a deterministic process of natural selection.

Both randomness and necessity are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for evolution to proceed.

Random mutations provide the variations necessary to sort organisms into fit and unfit. The fit survive, and the unfit perish deterministically.

Quote:Our disagreement is your assertion that a random choice requires intelligence. From the definitions of intelligence and random, your assertion is wrong. I'm still waiting for a good counter to this.

The bug in my example has been programmed whether by evolution or by something else to engage its RNG routines to escape from danger.

Randomness solves problems; hence it is low-level intelligence. It's an analogy.

Quote:Also, I can create a RNG that can pick a number from -infinity to infinitiy.

Only if you have infinite computational resources.

(October 23, 2014 at 11:15 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 10:34 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Here's the old evolution is a random process BS. Evolution is not random.

Did I say evolution was random? Wtf? I explicitly pointed out that evolution involves a random process of mutations which is complemented with a deterministic process of natural selection.

Both randomness and necessity are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for evolution to proceed.

Random mutations provide the variations necessary to sort organisms into fit and unfit. The fit survive, and the unfit perish deterministically.

It's good that you don't subscribe to the evolution-is-random BS. Your response was typical of many that do, hense my responce. I'm sorry for grouping you with the evolution-is-random croud.

Quote:

Quote:Our disagreement is your assertion that a random choice requires intelligence. From the definitions of intelligence and random, your assertion is wrong. I'm still waiting for a good counter to this.

The bug in my example has been programmed whether by evolution or by something else to engage its RNG routines to escape from danger.

Randomness solves problems; hence it is low-level intelligence. It's an analogy.

You keep on using the word intelligence, but it seems like you don't know it means. You should look up its definition. And look up the definition of random while your at it.

Random is not a low-level intelligence, it is ZERO INTELLIGENCE. Just because it sometimes stumbles on a solution, does not mean it is intelligent.

Quote:

Quote:Also, I can create a RNG that can pick a number from -infinity to infinitiy.

Only if you have infinite computational resources.

No. If I really spent the time to make it, it would take me about 1 hour to make the RNG. And a fraction of second to for the RNG to pick a value.

(October 23, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Surgenator Wrote: No. If I really spent the time to make it, it would take me about 1 hour to make the RNG. And a fraction of second to for the RNG to pick a value.

e is an irrational number. Your RNG wouldn't take the natural log but only an approximation of it. It wouldn't give every real number equal probability of "hitting".

(October 23, 2014 at 11:47 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Surgenator Wrote: No. If I really spent the time to make it, it would take me about 1 hour to make the RNG. And a fraction of second to for the RNG to pick a value.

e is an irrational number. Your RNG wouldn't take the natural log but only an approximation of it. It wouldn't give every real number equal probability of "hitting".

Never said mine wuld give equal probability of hitting every real number. That requires some fancy scaling that I really don't want spent time thinking of how to do.

Nevertheless, me creating one is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point being, random processes requires no intelligence.

(October 23, 2014 at 11:58 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Never said mine wuld give equal probability of hitting every real number. That requires some fancy scaling that I really don't want spent time thinking of how to do.

Nevertheless, me creating one is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point being, random processes requires no intelligence.

Here is a previous thread that talked about the nature of randomness that you and the OP might be interested in viewing.

Who rolls the dice for atheist?

(October 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 7:49 pm)whateverist Wrote: The question is pointless. It can only be asked from the point of view of something that is already here. So you might just as well conclude there is something rather than nothing because the question has been asked.

I am looking for a causal explanation of the something. My asking the question did not cause the actual world.

Got any promising leads? Do you really think we're qualified to ask or answer such a question? What about our evolution do you think would have equipped us for such tasks?

(October 23, 2014 at 6:47 pm)datc Wrote: A bug flies into a room through the open door, and starts fluttering about wildly, obviously hoping that these (mostly) random motions will, with a bit of luck, allow it to find the door and get back outside.

If the bug were smarter, it might be able to find its way out by thinking. But it's stupid, so it relies on the primitive random path generator to escape the trap of the room. Yet for all that, it may nevertheless succeed, which means that randomness is a form of intelligence.

No, it doesn't. That makes no sense on any level.

---

(October 23, 2014 at 11:15 pm)datc Wrote: Did I say evolution was random? Wtf? I explicitly pointed out that evolution involves a random process of mutations which is complemented with a deterministic process of natural selection.

Both randomness and necessity are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for evolution to proceed.

Random mutations provide the variations necessary to sort organisms into fit and unfit. The fit survive, and the unfit perish deterministically.

No, natural selection is not deterministic. Where did you get that idea?

It is contingent, it is probabilistic.

(October 24, 2014 at 1:01 am)Chas Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 6:47 pm)datc Wrote: A bug flies into a room through the open door, and starts fluttering about wildly, obviously hoping that these (mostly) random motions will, with a bit of luck, allow it to find the door and get back outside.

If the bug were smarter, it might be able to find its way out by thinking. But it's stupid, so it relies on the primitive random path generator to escape the trap of the room. Yet for all that, it may nevertheless succeed, which means that randomness is a form of intelligence.

No, it doesn't. That makes no sense on any level.

Sure it does.

Suppose you are tasked with opening a safe whose combination is unknown to you. Employing a strategy of trying random combinations until you get the right one will succeed. Randomness will solve the problem.

In the broadest sense, intelligence is the ability to navigate a reality. A being which tries random paths until it gets the right one navigates reality....it is able to deal with a novel situation...it is in a small sense...intelligent.

Understanding what intelligence is helps us to understand something about God. DATC if you read this post, consider the following argument.

Premise 1. Intelligence is the ability to navigate a reality.
Premise 2. In order to navigate a reality, that reality must exist.
Premise 3. God is and always has been intelligent.
Conclusion: Therefore God has always existed in a reality.

What does it say about the nature of God?

(October 22, 2014 at 10:52 pm)datc Wrote: I ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Everything is, including nothing. Each are something, as is something itself. There is no conflict of existence between nothing, something, and everything.

You're setting up an argument that cannot exist if everything is. Or... in your estimation: is everything not?