RE: random mutation, selection and low probabilities

Hi Steve,

Mutation and selection is much more of an intelligent way to design a system
whereby the system can self-correct itself, so I agree with your viewpoint
here. But Kenotic is not exactly the word I would use. It is more like God
created von Neumann machines.

I was at ARCO from 1973-1986. Did our paths cross?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Petermann [mailto:steve@spetermann.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:36 PM
> Glenn,
>
> I'm sure you are right that some anti-evolutionary models would
> not like the
> implications of the seismic processing you describe, however, it
> seems to me
> that it actually sounds like a very viable candidate for a kenotic
> intelligent design model. If the purpose of the designer is to
> create more
> of a bounded(safe) design instead of some rigidly specific design, various
> mutation schemes and their effects could be evaluated and compared to that
> bounded goal. This would also mean that "imperfect" solutions would not
> only be accepted but encouraged because of the novelty they produced. As
> long as intelligence is used to prevent things from getting too far afield
> from telos, this type of design process could be very interesting and
> rewarding. It creates a safe environment, yet also one where
> freedom can be
> expressed.
>
> Steve Petermann
>
>
> PS, when I was a research engineer at ARCO I worked on several land,
> downhole, and water based seismic sources and receivers. Very fun work.
Received on Mon Dec 1 19:17:50 2003