RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 21, 2015 at 3:44 pm
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2015 at 3:45 pm by Heywood.)
(January 21, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Procedural gen can't mean anything, it's a very specific term. They exist, and as long as they exist and you cannot let it go..you're never going to get this right. Could I argue your point by different means, sure, but I don't have to. You're the one who decided to make the claim (and you're the one who pretends to have let them loose while continuing to claim them). This has been your baby from the word go. I haven't seen a single observation from you that supports the claim -other- than what you -thought- a procedural gen was. Reformulate, show a little integrity, give me something else to chew....and you know I will. I'll comment on your other failed observations the moment that you show me you're interested in a reasonable conversation..or that you even know -how- to have a reasonable conversation. I'm starting to think that -you- are a pretty good example of an evolutionary system with no requirement or involvement of intelligence.
Do work.
Give us an example of a procedural gen which is also an evolutionary system which doesn't/didn't require intellect to be implemented.
You won't because you can't.