Detecting design or intent in nature

[The Grand Nudger]

Then it's observation (as per your reasoning) that requires intellect, not evolutionary systems, isn't it?
Epic Fail.

[Heywood]

Then it's observation (as per your reasoning) that requires intellect, not evolutionary systems, isn't it?
Epic Fail.

I agree that to observe requires an intellect. But observing isn't the only thing an intellect can do. Is this a claim you are making....that the only thing and intellect can do is observe? If so I would like to see you try to substantiate it.

Why can't intellects put together "procedural generations"? It seems they did when they created a simulated world and evolved a spider in it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's the claim you made, jesus christ Heywood.....I think it's as idiotic as your last claim. You keep gutting your own argument.

Let;s summarize. We began at
"evolutionary systems require intellect"

presented with an evolutionary system (your own, no less) that, by definition, does not, you claim

"we wouldn't be able to observe it without intellect doing x"

Now intellect "doing x" is required for us to -observe- evolutionary systems...but not for evolutionary systems to exist,

Understand?

[Heywood]

It's the claim you made, jesus christ Heywood.....I think it's as idiotic as your last claim. You keep gutting your own argument.

Let;s summarize. We began at
"evolutionary systems require intellect"

presented with an evolutionary system (your own, no less) that, by definition, does not, you claim

"we wouldn't be able to observe it without intellect doing x"

Now intellect "doing x" is required for us to -observe- evolutionary systems...but not for evolutionary systems to exist,

Understand?

Your position is the computer generated spider evolved to follow a red dot does not require an intellect to exist. You're wrong. It does. It required a lot of intellects. Including one who designed the "seed" organism from which it evolved in the first place.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, my claim is that procedural gens do not require intellect, by definition. You're the one that decided to call a procedural gen an evolutionary system. You can always retract that. The "seed" doesn't require intellect either, again, nothing about a procedural gen requires an intellect, by definition. It takes intellect to get a procedural generation to do specific work directed by an intellect...but that's pretty much a "no shit" statement, huh? This was all explained to you near the beginning of this thread, and in the last thread regarding the same.

[Heywood]

No, my claim is that procedural gens do not require intellect, by definition. You're the one that decided to call a procedural gen an evolutionary system. You can always retract that. The "seed" doesn't require intellect either, again, nothing about a procedural gen requires an intellect, by definition. It takes intellect to get a procedural generation to do specific work directed by an intellect...but that's pretty much a "no shit" statement, huh? This was all explained to you near the beginning of this thread, and in the last thread regarding the same.

An evolutionary system is more than a procedure. A procedure is just one component of the system.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then lets remove that "observation" of yours (and also anything else that a computer does...and anything else that can be boiled down to a procedure)...since you've decided that this no longer fits whatever definition you're using for an "evolutionary system" eh?

So, minus one (plus). Which one of your other "observations" would you like to discuss next?

[Heywood]

Then lets remove that "observation" of yours (and also anything else that a computer does...and anything else that can be boiled down to a procedure)...since you've decided that this no longer fits whatever definition you're using for an "evolutionary system" eh?

So, minus one (plus). Which one of your other "observations" would you like to discuss next?

Lets not remove that observation.

No amount of word salad on your part will ever convince me that that a virtual world designed by a intellect, which exists in a computer designed by an intellect, in which is placed a seed organism designed by an intellect, that follows a particular procedure dictated by an intellect......didn't require an intellect.

Intellects don't simply disappear because your atheistic faith demands it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You either cut it loose, or you have an example of an evolutionary system which does not require intellect, by definition. The implementation was designed, sure, procedural generation is not. The procedure followed by a procedural gen has no requirement of intellect either. It only needs to exist. A random number generator can decide the procedure (or even a wide range of procedures) - and often does. Procedural generation is a function of a universe in which logic is possible and interaction occurs, there is no requirement of intellect - and no specific implementation is required to achieve it (which is why we can make them out of almost anything, string, analog gates, digital circuits....rolls of toilet paper), but also why they are so prevalent in nature with no finesse required on our own part (river systems, stalagtites and stalagmites, snowflakes etc).

That's what you asked for, that's what you got. Don't bitch and moan about a "single example", and then balk when you get it; unless you're determined to make a liar of yourself, again.

[IATIA]

I agree that to observe requires an intellect.

Another sourceless claim without proof or evidence.

I guess if one cannot beat them, join them.

I assert that the original intellect and observer is a pink unicorn. I know this to be absolutely true because I have faith that it is true, so I must be right according to your logic.