Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DieCommie] * 1
    #22478446 - 11/04/15 09:26 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22478555 - 11/04/15 09:53 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
    #22478619 - 11/04/15 10:04 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

All of that sounds cool but until you can define what novelty is (Was it the Atomic bomb?  Or was it the math/physics performed months/years earlier?) and what a unit of novelty is, you can't start to scientifically investigate the hypothesis.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #22478880 - 11/04/15 11:10 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cognitive_Shift said:
All of that sounds cool but until you can define what novelty is (Was it the Atomic bomb?  Or was it the math/physics performed months/years earlier?) and what a unit of novelty is, you can't start to scientifically investigate the hypothesis.



Not necessarily. Novelty here simply means new.

A unit of novelty can be described as an originality which contributes to complexity.
I should also mention that my tying novelty into the proposed paradigm shift, is simply me having some intellectual fun.

Consciousness being primary to evolution stands on its own without the need for musings on novelty.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Edited by hTx (11/04/15 11:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Evolution Dogma-Even if Darwin were proved an idiot [Re: hTx]
    #22479303 - 11/05/15 02:33 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

to explain silence is to destroy it while talking
the hand cannot grasp itself
the eye cannot see it self
by definition, time has no beginning
by definition space is already infinite, it does not expand
we can never directly see our own heads
the world is very wierd

this is what is common sense

to accept this sort of thing
opens one to wonder

so no, one cannot "picture time as the beginning of the universe" as you suggest.
it sounds nice but is logically speaking meaningless.
What is really weird is space has no shape
and
time has no duration,
why?
because they cannot be outside of themselves to measure themselves -
they are themselves
and they are incomprehensible.

the attempt to explain everything, seems to be an effect of fear, of the mysterious uncontrolled infinite.
Religion is more arrogant, than science, because it attempts to explain everything and tell us what to believe.
Science divides itself up into specialities that investigate separate aspects of reality, by people who are curious.
Only the physicists recently have gotten a little cuckoo, with their theories of multiple universes and so on.

But contrary to the right brain thinking of many adults
ultimate explanations are logically impossible.

the "big bang' theory doesn't really satisfactorily answer:
Where space or time come from,
why it happened,
what came before …etc.
all conceptual thinking the human does is with the context of space and time

As 'die commie' says this thread really sounds like an attempt to sneak religion in the back door of science.

Religion explains nothing ultimate about origins or purpose satisfactorily. And has contributed nothing to technological progress. It is a recent phenomenon in the US, that some Christians for some reason have gotten all relied up about abortion and evolution, while in the moral sphere which one might think should be the field of Religion there has been no progress in this Christian nation, of ours, in 200 years. People have had to fight for every right gained.
Religion has contributed pedophilia and sexual abuse and coverups all the way from the top down. There is a new movie out about this story.

'Consciousness' is an undefined term that for some reason seems to excite people today. That 'Consciousness' implies a self is frequently ignored in discussions about it.
And what ever a 'self' is it must manifest motivation, or else it would not be distinguishable from random forces in the environment.

Anyway humans themselves are not very conscious. Perhaps a few yogis can go consciously in and out of the dream state, the rest of us have no idea how we fall asleep or wake up. And except for a few lucid dreamers no control of our dreams. And of course obviously the state of the environment speaks poorly of any real consciousness on the part of 'humanity', to say nothing of endless war, violent crime, and poverty continuing for centuries. Humans would seem to be far more vain and emotionally reactive than anything one might call "conscious".

The older I get the less I am enthralled by idealism.

Wether you call it 'god' or 'consciousness' or 'universal spirit' or what ever, the idea of an ultimate cause, is a logically bankrupt notion, although perhaps emotionally satisfying for a percentage of people. Every two year old knows this. 'Why? Why? Why?' they say, and they are answered: 'Because I say so', 'because god wants you to be good', … etc. This is how adults kill openness of spirit, because they are afraid of their own ignorance. But not knowing is ok.

Even if Darwin were proved an idiot it would not rescue the logical fallacies inherent in notions of 'ultimate cause'. Theravada Buddhism does not trouble itself with 'ultimate cause', dogma vis vi a deity (aka: 'god' or 'consciousness' or 'universal spirit'), or a self, and yet seems to satisfy the religious needs of millions.

The older I get, the more I see, the less I am enthralled by any idealism.

After global warming, there will be another ice age, then the sun will turn into a red giant, and incinerate all on planet earth, and after some further millions or billions of years the entire milky way galaxy will collide with the andromeda galaxy.** It's an interesting world but not benign, in anyway, by any stretch of the imagination.

The older I get, the more I see, the less I am enthralled by any idealism.

As I said above: Consciousness is an undefined term, but it does imply a 'self '.
And what ever a 'self' is it must manifest motivation, or else it would not be distinguishable from random forces in the environment. So although "Consciousness" sounds somehow like an exhaled principle it is in essence just a linguistic stand in for anthropomorphic mythology. This is easily seen in the Greek myths, and also in the bible, where god gets angry all the time. Perhaps, not really very 'godlike'?

So saying  "Consciousness" causes events, really implies a 'self', and therefore motivation, and motivation is how humans have explained actions for thousands of years. And it works for 'explaining', or more accurately predicting, human social behavior, but is not an objective methodology suitable for the experimental approach used by science which has made all technological progress possible.
As we already know science investigates, things like electrical force, magnetism, nuclear force, chemical bonding, gravitation, and such like, which are emotionless, amoral, and devoid of desire or motivation, and devoid of self. Atoms are busy doing their thing in both the lion and the zebra being eaten alive, the secret police torturers and their victims.

The older I get, the more I see, the less I need idealism.

** The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World by Peter D. Ward , Donald Brownlee
Paperback: 256 pages
Publisher: Holt Paperbacks; 2 Reprint edition (January 1, 2004)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0805075127
ISBN-13: 978-0805075120


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma-Even if Darwin were proved an idiot [Re: laughingdog]
    #22479429 - 11/05/15 04:05 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

While seemingly mystical, everything i've written is derived from objective observation.
I defined consciousness earlier. Also you seem to be contradicting yourself a lot, for example by saying consciousness is undefined yet you impose your own definitions of what consciousness is throughout your post.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Edited by hTx (11/05/15 04:08 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
Re: Evolution Dogma - Is Evolution Intelligent? [Re: hTx]
    #22769470 - 01/12/16 10:35 AM (8 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:


Why evolution may be intelligent, based on deep learning

Like neural networks, evolution appears to "learn" from previous experience, which may explain how natural selection can produce such apparently intelligent designs
January 11, 2016
http://www.kurzweilai.net/why-evolution-may-be-intelligent-based-on-deep-learning




A computer scientist and biologist propose to unify the theory of evolution with learning theories to explain the “amazing, apparently intelligent designs that evolution produces.”

The scientists — University of Southampton School of Electronics and Computer Science professor Richard Watson* and Eötvös Loránd University (Budapest) professor of biology Eörs Szathmáry* — say they’ve found that it’s possible for evolution to exhibit some of the same intelligent behaviors as learning systems — including neural networks.

Writing in an opinion paper published in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, they use “formal analogies” and transfer specific models and results between the two theories in an attempt to solve several evolutionary puzzles.

The authors cite work by Pavlicev and colleagues** showing that selection on relational alleles (gene variants) increases phenotypic (organism trait) correlation if the traits are selected together and decreases correlation if they are selected antagonistically, which is characteristic of Hebbian learning, they note.

“This simple step from evolving traits to evolving correlations between traits is crucial; it moves the object of natural selection from fit phenotypes (which ultimately removes phenotypic variability altogether) to the control of phenotypic variability,” the researchers say.


Why evolution is not blind

“Learning theory is not just a different way of describing what Darwin already told us,” said Watson. “It expands what we think evolution is capable of. It shows that natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem-solving.”

Conventionally, evolution, which depends on random variation, has been considered blind, or at least myopic, he notes. “But showing that evolving systems can learn from past experience means that evolution has the potential to anticipate what is needed to adapt to future environments in the same way that learning systems do.

“A system exhibits learning if its performance at some task improves with experience,” the authors note in the paper. “Reusing behaviors that have been successful in the past (reinforcement learning) is intuitively similar to the way selection increases the proportion of fit phenotypes [an organism's observable characteristics or traits] in a population. In fact, evolutionary processes and simple learning processes are formally equivalent.

“In particular, learning can be implemented by incrementally adjusting a probability distribution over behaviors (e.g., Bayesian learning or Bayesian updating). Or, if a behavior is represented by a vector of features or components, by adjusting the probability of using each individual component in proportion to its average reward in past behaviors (e.g., Multiplicative Weights Update Algorithm, MWUA).”


Unsupervised learning


An even more interesting process in evolution is unsupervised learning, where mechanisms do not depend on an external reward signal, the authors say in the paper:

    By reinforcing correlations that are frequent, regardless of whether they are good, unsupervised correlation learning can produce system-level behaviors without system-level rewards. This can be implemented without centralized learning mechanisms. (Recent theoretical work shows that selection acting only to maximize individual growth rate, when applied to interspecific competition coefficients within an ecological community, produces unsupervised learning at the system level.)

This is an exciting possibility because it means that, despite not being a unit of selection, an ecological community might exhibit organizations that confer coordinated collective behaviors — for example, a distributed ecological memory that can recall multiple past ecological states. …

Taken together, correlation learning, unsupervised correlation learning, and deep correlation learning thus provide a formal way to understand how variation, selection, and inheritance, respectively, might be transformed over evolutionary time.

The authors’ new approach also offers an alternative to “intelligent design” (ID), which negates natural selection as an explanation for apparently intelligent features of nature. (The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute. See Are We Spiritual Machines? Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong A.I. — a debate between Kurzweil and several Discovery Institute fellows.)

So if evolutionary theory can learn from the principles of cognitive science and deep learning, can cognitive science and deep learning learn from evolutionary theory?



* The authors are also affiliated with the Parmenides Foundation in Munich.

** Watson, R.A. et al. (2014) The evolution of phenotypic correlations and ‘developmental memory.’ Evolution 68, 1124–1138 and Pavlicev, M.et al. (2011) Evolution of adaptive phenotypic variation patterns by direct selection for evolvability. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 1903–1912



Abstract of How Can Evolution Learn?
The theory of evolution links random variation and selection to incremental adaptation. In a different intellectual domain, learning theory links incremental adaptation (e.g., from positive and/or negative reinforcement) to intelligent behaviour. Specifically, learning theory explains how incremental adaptation can acquire knowledge from past experience and use it to direct future behaviours toward favourable outcomes. Until recently such cognitive learning seemed irrelevant to the ‘uninformed’ process of evolution. In our opinion, however, new results formally linking evolutionary processes to the principles of learning might provide solutions to several evolutionary puzzles – the evolution of evolvability, the evolution of ecological organisation, and evolutionary transitions in individuality. If so, the ability for evolution to learn might explain how it produces such apparently intelligent designs.






Edited by DividedQuantum (01/12/16 10:40 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Evolution Dogma - Is Evolution Intelligent? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22769658 - 01/12/16 11:16 AM (8 years, 1 month ago)

Nice, i was wondering when CS would get thrown into the mix..
I have been studying programming and CS recently in an eventual attempt at doing something similar to what they have shown here.

Bravo, i also made a post on the pub as well as shared with my professor, some of the ideas i was working on regarding AI and evolution.

I proposed it would likely be easier to make an AI if you could write a sort of evolutionary program, based on recent observations of science and alternative evolutionary theory.

Looks like the butterfly effect in action :laugh:


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Evolution Dogma - Is Evolution Intelligent? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22769694 - 01/12/16 11:25 AM (8 years, 1 month ago)

video of Mathematician John Conway talking about his "the game of life" with sequences of the simulations. Quite interesting.

Also interesting is that the
human brain evolved to assume agency,
because on the African plane if the grass moved in a way that might be a lion, if one assumed it might be the wind, and waited to be certain, one's odds of reproducing were less that those who assumed it was caused by a lion, and simply ran.
This (ascribing of agency, where there might be none) is a deeply ingrained unconscious prejudice that has been observed experimentally in very young children. Perhaps it is relevant here.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* DNA - Further Proof against Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
rizingfire 7,883 85 12/13/09 11:25 AM
by EntheogenicPeace
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,958 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Why evolution isn't a scientific theory.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
Mr. Mushrooms 13,870 267 04/20/09 03:22 PM
by zouden
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )
Smack31 5,730 57 09/25/02 04:27 PM
by shii-tan
* The History of Evolution
( 1 2 all )
rizingfire 4,461 26 12/19/09 09:30 PM
by Icelander
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )
top 5,371 54 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* is scientism a kind of dogma?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
DividedQuantumM 3,876 103 02/05/14 06:32 PM
by lessismore
* Deconstructing evolution.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
daytripper23 4,508 75 01/13/10 04:22 PM
by andrewss

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
29,259 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.02 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 13 queries.