The problem knowledge poses to atheism

[FBM]

...Our consciousness is probably an illusion...

It's all but guaranteed.

[Toontown]

By the mid-1960's I had developed a programming technique, the genetic algorithm, that is well suited to evolution by both mating and mutation. During the next decade, I worked to extend the scope of genetic algorithms by creating a genetic code that could represent the structure of any computer program.

To evolve classifier rules that solve a particular problem, one simple starts with a population of random strings of 1's and 0's and rates each string according to the quality of the result. Depending on the problem, the measure of fitness could be business profitability, game payoff, error rate or any number of other criteria. High-quality strings mate; low-quality ones perish. As generations pass, strings associated with improved solutions will predominate.

As you can see in the above, an intelligence designed the computer code. So you have not proved that species can arise at random.

There was no claim to have proved that species can arise at random. Nor have you come anywhere near raising any serious question about evolution theory or the biogenesis hypothesis. Come back when you can address what was actually said and quoted.

The point is that genetic algorithms are modeled along the lines of evolution theory, and have used randomness in a way similar to the the mechanics of evolution theory. And have gotten similar results, which were not crude or rudimentary, contrary to your crude misstatements about the imagined limitations you have arbitrarily placed on randomness.

Furthermore, the mating process continually combines these strings in new ways, generating ever more sophisticated solutions. The kinds of problems that have yielded to the technique range from developing novel strategies in game theory to designing complex mechanical systems.

I saw no where in the article where the author claimed that he created a computer like Hal 9000. All he did was write an innovative code. He did not create a computer that has knowledge about reality and power to manipulate reality and the desire to manipulate reality.

Again, you've wandered off into la-la-land. I said nothing even remotely similar to claiming the creation of a Hal 9000. Again, come back when you can address what I actually said.

I simply debunked your crude misstatements about what randomness cannot do:

"There is another problem that randomness is faced with: it can destroy actually quite easily, it can construct only the crudest mechanisms."

Debunked. Randomness is the driving wheel of evolution theory, and it has been shown empirically that a system modeled after evolution theory, using randomness as the driving wheel, produces results which are sometimes beyond the ability of sentient programmers to fully comprehend, let alone create.

[JimC]

Toontown wrote:

...Randomness is the driving wheel of evolution theory...

As a preamble, I appreciate the example of generating useful algorithms by Darwinian mechanisms you provided. It is very widely used, and is an excellent field to bring up in debates like this.

However, I have cherry-picked a phrase of yours, and want to add to it a very important idea...

Randomness, or stochastic processes are certainly both an inevitable and a vitally necessary component of any model of evolution. However, I would contend that it makes no sense by itself, and always needs to be linked to the critically non-random bias delivered by some selective mechanism. In the case of the computer code, it was selection based on criteria (such as efficiency or speed) specified in the whole set-up by the original programmers.

In the case of artificial selection, say for milk yield, it is a criteria set by the farmer, used to judge which animals to breed from.

In the case of natural selection, it is the bias provided by an environment not only full of passive physical factors such as climate, but actively inimicable agents, other organisms with their own selfish interests (technically, following RD, a panoply of other selfish genes...)

To theists who bleat endlessly about randomness not being enough, a clear understanding of the non-random sieve through which randomly generated combinations of alleles must pass may prove enlightening; at least if the blinkers of religious dogma are removed...

[drl2]

Oddly enough Gawd's avatar is an almost exact representation of what happened to my head when I tried to read that long-winded nonsense at 1:30 AM...

[spinoza99]

Our consciousness is probably an illusion.

Eriku, I'm happy that someone is finally willing to defend monism. Before we go further let me just make sure we understand each other's position. I really don't know what you mean by consciousness so let me ask you a few questions.

here's what i believe in order for the human mind to work: an immaterial force needs three things: will, power and knowledge. Knowledge is that ability to know what bodies in the universe to move and where in order achieve certain results. power is that ability to move the bodies to the place you want. and will is the ability to want to do it. furthermore, these 3 properties are not located in a body, rather they are the ability to move bodies. the most common body the mind controls is the neurons in the brain.

either: will, power and knowledge exist
or: will, power and knowledge do not exist

are you to defend the or statement?

when you say consciousness i assume you're referring to what i call the mind, the definition for which stands above.

[MrFungus420]

As you can see in the above, an intelligence designed the computer code. So you have not proved that species can arise at random.

Of course not. NOBODY, except those that are either incredibly ignorant about evolution or dishonest, says that speciation is a random event. This has probably been explained to you before, so we can most likely rule out ignorance.

Besides, it doesn't have to be proven. Speciation has been observed.

Finally, for the moment, evolution is not atheism, atheism is not evolution.

[MrFungus420]

To design the proteins the body needs you need to beat odds greater than one in 10^150, roughly speaking.

When is an "argument from made-up big numbers" going to be recognized a a fallacy?

[spinoza99]

Randomness is the driving wheel of evolution theory, and it has been shown empirically that a system modeled after evolution theory, using randomness as the driving wheel, produces results which are sometimes beyond the ability of sentient programmers to fully comprehend, let alone create.

Do you believe those computer programmers can program a being to write something like a symphony of shostakovich?

[FBM]

either: will, power and knowledge exist
or: will, power and knowledge do not exist.

False dilemma, black-and-white thinking, etc etc. Typical of the religious mindset.

[spinoza99]

Randomness, or stochastic processes are certainly both an inevitable and a vitally necessary component of any model of evolution. However, I would contend that it makes no sense by itself, and always needs to be linked to the critically non-random bias delivered by some selective mechanism.

In the case of natural selection, it is the bias provided by an environment not only full of passive physical factors such as climate, but actively inimicable agents, other organisms with their own selfish interests (technically, following RD, a panoply of other selfish genes...)

To theists who bleat endlessly about randomness not being enough, a clear understanding of the non-random sieve through which randomly generated combinations of alleles must pass may prove enlightening; at least if the blinkers of religious dogma are removed...

Natural Selection can only delete a defective being, it can't do the required coordination and engineering needed for complex design. It's like in the free market. The free market deletes faulty products by the maxim: you produce a bad project you go out of business, but it is human ingenuity that creates the products.

[spinoza99]

I'm still waiting for some atheists to state their belief that the brain is an input/output machine. Plus, I still haven't gotten an answer to this:

The number of correct sentences a human can utter are roughly infinite, as well as the number of uncorrect sentences. You can't program a computer to speak language because you have to program every input and output. If the human brain is just an input/output device then there isn't code large enough to write the code needed for language since the number of outputs are over a googolplex. The human brain is not an input/output device. You need a mind which knows which neurons to fire and has the power to command those neurons to fire.

Natural Selection can't construct language because one, species can get by without language, (natural selection only deletes that which is defective, it does not delete that which is mediocre), two, natural selection does not even know what language is.

[spinoza99]

either: will, power and knowledge exist
or: will, power and knowledge do not exist.

False dilemma, black-and-white thinking, etc etc. Typical of the religious mindset.

Do you know of a third way?

[Thinking Aloud]

I'm still waiting for some atheists to state their belief that the brain is an input/output machine.

I'm still waiting for some cosmologists to state their belief that fingernails are useful as car radiator elements.

Plus, I still haven't gotten an answer to this:

It's not a question.

(This is a hit and run post, by the way, as I'm bored, and not worthy of a response.)

[Santa_Claus]

I'm still waiting for some atheists to state their belief that the brain is an input/output machine. Plus, I still haven't gotten an answer to this:

The number of correct sentences a human can utter are roughly infinite, as well as the number of uncorrect sentences. You can't program a computer to speak language because you have to program every input and output. If the human brain is just an input/output device then there isn't code large enough to write the code needed for language since the number of outputs are over a googolplex. The human brain is not an input/output device. You need a mind which knows which neurons to fire and has the power to command those neurons to fire.

Natural Selection can't construct language because one, species can get by without language, (natural selection only deletes that which is defective, it does not delete that which is mediocre), two, natural selection does not even know what language is.

a) i've got a headache
b) I've no idea what folks are banging on about
c) I don't care

but FWIW I still don't think the moon was made of cheese. by a sky fairy.

d) i'm off to have a wank on a bus

[Feck]

hang on this skipped a bit .. we were talking about a god that was so tiny he was hiding in the maybe/might be possible of quantum physics ,
Now we are Talking about Knowledge will and POWAH !

I think if you named your God ,Random then this thread would be even more fun