Re: "We Believe in Design"

--- Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/05, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Why? I fail to see how us using biologically
> > inspired algorithms shows that intelligent design
> > was needed.
 
 
> Because every example of us using biologically
> inspired algorithms that I've ever come across
> requires us to do the intelligent pre-programming -
to
> stack the deck at the start of the
> learning/optimization process in order to make it
> work.

Aha, that seems to be the ID fallacy of argument from
ignorance. Does this mean that just because we design
and optimize algorithms that therefor in biology the
same has to apply?

> I've not seen any example in the machine learning
> literature that suggests that the intelligent
> pre-programming can be done "by natural
> selection" as you seem to claim. That's not to say
> that biologically inspired algorithms are a useless

> tool - the applications of Neural nets are
> many, and I have seen quite a few useful
> applications of GA's that it's hard to see how you
> could do any other way ( I recently saw a very
> impressive application where subjects could
assemble
> a "photofit" picture of an assailant using a
> technique that seemed very similar to Dawkins's
> "Biomorphs" for example - but the design of the
> "chromosomes" in this case was very clever indeed,
> using eigenvalue/eigenvector decompositions of
facial
> shapes and textures - THAT was the intelligent part
of
> the work, for which the author deserves full credit
-
> not the evolutionary part).

Yes, the problem is that any of our applications of
genetic algorithms can be argued to require
intelligent design. But to extend this to nature,
where all that is needed is variation and selection,
it seems harder to argue that an actual intelligent
designer is needed.

> But the fact remains that these are not magic tools
> that will solve your problems without you putting
in
> the design effort simply because they are
> biologically inspired.

True, Evolution is no guarantee for solutions.

> > For instance, science has been studying
evolvability
> > and shown how evolvability can be under control of
> > selection. In fact, Toussaint and others have
shown
> > how neutrality becomes an essential component in
> > evolvability and that neutrality becomes subject
> > to selection.
> > So if natural selection can influence
evolvability,
> > why is intelligent design **required**?

> We seem to come from different disciplines. I work
> on optimization and learning systems - you seem
more
> familiar with the biology. I think it would
> be helpful if you could explain what you mean by
> natural selection influencing evolvability. Do you
> mean that it shapes the fitness surface?

You and Glenn seemed to suggest that pre-programming
was needed. What I am pointing out is that
evolvability, that is the ability to evolve, can be
under natural selection.

Wagner and Altenberg
http://dynamics.org/~altenber/PAPERS/CAEE/

Toussaint "Neutrality: A Necessity for
Self-Adaptation"
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mtoussai/publications/toussaint-igel-02-cec.pdf

> Could Natural Selection somehow magically produce a

> coding of a human face by doing Eigenvector
> decompositions of a large database of faces?

What relevance does this have to the discussion?
Received on Fri May 27 15:50:39 2005