Gregory wrote
The thread then took a turn so that now Dave and Bill are promoting
'technological evolution' or 'evolutionary programming,' with which I
strongly disagree *on theoretical grounds*.
---------------------------------
Bill responds: Have you read the literature on evolutionary programming? I suspect not. Then how can you disagree on theoretical grounds? I am not promoting technological evolution. I am only using the development of technology as an analogy to show how evolution can work even when intelligent agents are involved.
--------------------------------
Dave has given multiple
examples 'for' the analogy of biology and technology, but has not
addressed the 'theory' behind his claims. Combined, their position is
as controversial as promoting 'intelligent design,' yet it seems that
perhaps in their field, the meaning of evolution can be taken for
granted and anyone (obviosuly an outsider) would have to be a dummy to
question it! Ironically, both positions ('techno eVo' and 'intelligent
design') are using an approach that 'comes from the wrong end' of the
spectrum to the arguments they are trying to proove. IDists commonly
wants to 'start' in biology, yet 'design' is a concept that makes sense
first and foremost in a human-social sense, in engineering, in
programming, in applied sciences, etc. 'Techno eVo' or 'eVo
programming' uses an analogy
that does not privilege human choice, meaning, purpose and
teleology, yet programming a computer is precisely all of those things!
It just doesn't make sense theoretically to confuse things this way,
i.e. to use grammar that quite obviously doesn't fit.
"If I decided to solve a problem...Such a process could be carried out with no human intelligence involved." - Bill
How can you 'decide' to solve a problem without intelligence? Isn't
the decision a reflection of your intelligence to begin with?? I simply
don't understand such dehumanising logic!
----------------------------------------
Bill responds: Now I know you are just arguing for the sake of argument, or you have managed to grow up, be educated and get a degree without learning how to separate illustration from declaration.
The decision to solve a problem is outside of the example, and I would expect most normal people to know that instinctively by the use of the qualifier IF.
---------------------------------------
I used even stronger language
with Dave, 'turning humans into ZEROS' - he made no comment!!
"The point is that the inventors seldom foresee all the possible applications of their inventions." - Bill
With this I have no problem and have not argued against it. I
agree with you, Bill. Did I give the impression that I wanted to
contend such a point? If so, then please excuse the belaboured
misunderstanding.
In this conversation I see no need to entertain an "observer from an alternative universe."
Again, you are arguing for the sake of argument. I have been trying to point out that a process can _appear_ to be evolution. You are objecting to the wrong part of the example.
In the past I have just deleted all your posts because I simply don't understand what you're driving at. Perhaps we don't communicate very well outside our clique. But you need to make an effort to communicate too.
William E. (Bill) Hamilton, Ph.D. Member ASA
248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
http://www.bricolagia.blogspot.com/
Want to help a child?: http://www.compassion.com/sponsor/index.asp?referer=85198
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 27 11:45:30 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 27 2008 - 11:45:30 EDT