davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
A.I has moved on quite a bit since the late 90s. I agree with Cris on this issue, your mobile phone could beat Kasparov now.
Denial of Evolution VII (2015)
- Thread starter davewhite04
- Start date
A.I has moved on quite a bit since the late 90s. I agree with Cris on this issue, your mobile phone could beat Kasparov now.
Bells
Staff member
Isn't it..
Leopold, we all know you found the link on a creationist site. It's kind of obvious. Because the very arguments you are using is exactly what creationist sites say.
The article first appeared in Science. JSTOR then also published it.
Now, creationist sites love misrepresenting quotes. As I noted in the previous post, they will always provide the original source, which is Science Magazine. Lewin misrepresented and possibly misquoted what Ayala had said. Ayala has corrected that misrepresentation. And the numerous papers and books Ayala has written on evolution is clear evidence that he is an evolutionist and clearly shows that the quote was taken out of context in that paper by Lewin.
As a moderator, Leopold, it is unfortunately my duty to keep up with this issue. Yazata's comments were very much pertinent to what we are currently discussing. Your refusal to even answer his questions shows that you are doing what you always do, which is to dodge and focus solely on this one quote.
No Leopold. I said you quote mined and then followed the source to the article. There are theist sites that even explain how to pull these stunts. There are even creationist sites that tell people like you, for example, what to say and not to say. Which arguments are the best to use when debating evolution.
I don't need to, Leopold. Because Ayala himself corrected Lewin's impression of what he believes Ayala said.
You are the only person who seems to have an issue with this.
No Leopold. If you were a creationist, at least you would be arguing from that standpoint. Instead of trying to hide behind the "I am not a theist" while using creationist arguments. You would at the very least, be admitting to the truth.
Do you often argue like a 3rd grader? Is this an sad attempt to offend or get a rise out of people?
More dodging.
*Yawn*
Same shit, different day.
yes, but it was by intelligent intervention.
the rotary phone of the 50s did not "evolve" into that cell by itself.
nor will it EVER be able to.
it will rust into dust before it does.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
It might be "intelligent intervention" but the "intelligent intervention" didn't and couldn't beat Kasparov, the computer did.
maybe you can teach exchemist a thing or two.
the program was written by a human.
even giving machines the head start of computers on a chip, they will NEVER be anything else without intelligent intervention.
it's an incorrect analogy anyway because they can't link up like molecules can.
i wrote a program some years back to simulate a spirograph set.
it can generate some really interesting designs.
that's all it will ever be though, it will not "evolve" into a CAD program unless i program it to be.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)
Each game was "processed" by a computer. Kasparov could have studied EVERY chess game in history and still not come close. This machine, not the programmers, won the match fair and square. Machines have a massive future, like it or not.
Machines will evolve, eventually to a point when they will not need us to hold their hand.
quite possibly . . . but only through intelligent intervention.
a box full of computer chips will still be a box full of computer chips a billion years from now without it.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
I think you need to be a bit more open minded and pat your computer on the head for allowing you to do so much more then we could without them.
Technology unfortunately is a double edged sword, you'll get maniacs using technology to blow up Earth if they had a chance.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
As far as your article goes, I'd recommend http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Content...ion+lewin&pebp=1421329139624&peasin=226476510
Then ask questions.
the genius belongs to humanity.
a computer is indeed a marvel, it's so complex that it needs code just to sit there and idle
but, it's about as intelligent as the eraser on your pencil.
all the apparent intelligence comes from humanity
i have an article where NASA discusses setting off a nuke on the moon.
i don't think it was ever seriously considered though.
but, you are correct, there are some truly despicable people out there.
i've read parts of his book.
i ran across the following link last night.
the thread itself is, well, not quite kosher, but the references cited seems legit:
www.sciforums.com/threads/is-the-neo-darwinian-view-of-evolution-dead-and-outdated.122512/
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
The machines wouldn't of existed if it weren't for humans, so yes we deserve the credit.
Today, machines are actually learning humans behavior(even on games consoles) which, I'm pretty confident, will result in self awareness at some point.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Like I said, read the book, cover to cover, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
This is a perverted view of evolutionary processes. For example - the perception is that man created the modern computer, but this is not the case. Try to tell me the name of the person who created the modern computer and the date and instant it occurred? You can't - it didn't happen that way. The modern computer was not created but was/is the result of an evolutionary process that likely began the moment ancient cavemen began to record their kills by marks on a stick.
Computers and intelligent machines are currently evolving into more powerful mechanisms, not because man's intelligence is creating them, but because man's intelligence is merely a component of an ongoing evolutionary process where greater complexity is the result of many smaller earlier changes - that is a major part of how evolution operates.
And why couldn't a program evolve if it were written to do so? I wrote software for much of my career, many millions of lines of code. Writing code that will self adapt and learn is part of the leading edge in software technology. We have been able to do that for decades. The difference now is that we have processing hardware that is orders of magnitude faster than in the past that makes the learning process operate at more reasonable speeds - milliseconds as opposed to hours to make human like decisions.
Your examples of the jeopardy and the chess playing machines were not designed to adapt, much like you as an individual human will not evolve into something else. That is not how evolutionary processes operate.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
An atom is not an element. An element is made up of atoms.
Regarding you seeing "intelligence" everywhere that's because everything that is man made (which is most of what is around us) did obviously involve man's intelligence.
Man didn't make a tree and to jump to the conclusion that a supernatural "God" did it is just ignorant.
Many religious people aren't very educated (and many are). Most creationists and all "young Earthers" are (very) ignorant.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
There is a big difference between a Pentium 4 and a caveman marking his kills. It is debatable who created the first computer, but it was created and didn't evolve from a caveman drawing.
No humans = No computers, simple as that.
Man has been holding the hand of technology for a long time. Why did you get paid money for writing millions of lines of code if the computer could do it? At this point in time computers would be useless, and pointless if it weren't for man.
An Xbox One is an example of evolution of technology. It learns your behavior and voice etc. and performs its chores. It does have limits however, at the moment.
Edit: Caveman drawing
Last edited:
yes, i believe i stated it was an incorrect analogy
you will notice i used terms such as humanity and human intelligence.
i understand your point though.
OTOH, all the "improvements" to computers is the result of human intelligence.
the program i wrote for example, its a simple program that uses the fourier synthesis to generate the designs.
some of them are just unreal and it makes me question whether a computer can actually create something.
but, it's all the result of human intelligence.
and it's also the sole result of human intelligence.
but, like you alluded to earlier, it's a perverted way of looking at biological evolution.
i think computers are an incorrect analogy
not in the case of computers.
human intelligence is at the very root of each and every "improvement".
the computer that beat kasperov can't play a game of tic tac toe unless a human tells it the rules.
the computer that played jeopardy can't spell the word cat unless a human tells it how.
it can, but it can't learn anything outside its programming.
a program that learns biology classifications couldn't add 2 and 2 unless its instructed how to do it.
i hate desk checking.
i understand that, but like i've said above, human intelligence is at the root of it all
if i'm not mistaken, the general public now has access to the computing power of the cray when it was introduced.
some of the prime advantages of computers is their speed, accuracy, lack of fatigue, and the ability to transform software into hardware.
yes, a computer is a remarkable piece of engineering, engineering by humanity.
to reiterate:
i believe the computer analogy to be incorrect when talking about biological evolution.
a man will walk out of a pond of goo before a computer would, my opinion.
i believe both examples are designed to adapt.
how else can they respond to random questions and random moves?
OTOH, they will be nothing else, ever.
that's why i said it's an incorrect analogy.
if we are to compare analogies then we need to stick to something chemical, with the properties of the elements.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
An Xbox One Kinect accessory evolves depending on the user.
wow, this is a response to post 510.
where did all this other stuff come from???
anyway, this is all stored in ROM.
i promise you, the xbox couldn't tell you the difference between a dog and a cat. and never will unless a human tells it how