From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
>At 04:18 PM 10/02/2000, you wrote:
>
>>****If I might comment on Nelson's comments....see below...
>>mine are preceded by *****
>>
>>
>>
>> >I spoke at the University of Colorado a couple
>> >of weeks ago, a bright undergraduate came up after
>> >the talk and said, "Dr. Nelson, you've just GOT to
>> >go on the net and play Conway's 'Game of Life' --
>> >that will answer all the questions you have about
>> >natural selection!" I listened as this young man
>> >described the remarkable, organismal-appearing
>> >patterns that arise from what he called "a few
>> >simple rules."
>>
>> >Interesting, I replied. But then there's Conway.
>> >Right?
>>
>>Ed
>>***Do you think this scores a point for I.D.?
>>I still see it at best as a stalemate.
>>If Conway's program was invented to mimic random
>>mutation and selection then it doesn't matter WHO
>>or WHAT came up with the original program.
>>Obviously the human mind has a lot of knowledge at
>>it's disposal with which it can do marvelous things,
>>but it was not always so. Mankind's own knowledge
>>was gained over hundreds of thousands of years,
>>and began to advance most rapidly after the advent
>>of written languages and numbers. In fact, one might
>>argue that it often advanced by trial and error,
>>or mutation and natural selection.
>
>Further, the computer and the software are only a means of experimenting.
>The question is, do (or can) any of these programs relevantly model
>*unintelligent* natural events, such as autocatalytic molecule evolution?
>The answer is that they can, in various ways.
[...]
Chris, I'm probably just repeating something you've already written, but I
I'd like to restate it in my own words...
If a computer simulation faithfully models a natural process, then it is not
displaying any more intelligence than the natural process itself (and
probably *less*, since real computer simulations are actually simplified
models of natural processes). Thus, a computer simulation of evolution is no
more intelligent than the natural process of evolution itself.
The intelligence of the computer designer or programmer is irrelevant. Is a
computer simulation more intelligent if it's run on the latest Cray
supercomputer than if the identical simulation is run on an old TRS-80? Is a
computer program more intelligent if it's written by Einstein than if the
same program was written by a trainee programmer? Of course not. The
intelligence of the simulation is purely a function of the algorithm that is
being executed. And, if the simulation is running the same algorithm as
natural evolution (or a simplified version of it), then the simulation is no
more intelligent than the natural process of evolution.
Phew... it's *difficult* explaining the obvious!
When IDers claim that there's a fundamental distinction between the
algorithm as it's executed in nature and the same algorithm as it's executed
by a computer, because the latter is somehow infused with the intelligence
of the programmer, they're effectively denying the value of computer
simulations in general. Oh dear...there goes *another* field of endeavour
sacrificed on the altar of Intelligent Design, before which knowledge
and reason must bow their heads.
And yes, Bertvan, I freely admit to wielding the whip of sarcasm. I can't
help it. When the Luddites of ID write such nonsense, the target they offer
is too tempting. ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 05:49:43 EDT