On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Whoever said that does not know what he says: > > "There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational > design, rational designs are, well, rational, but > evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and > stupid tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it > couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 > degrees! Rational designers had less difficulty coming up with the wheel. > The only advantage Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains > it was the only way complex objects could get built." > > > First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in the flagela of the > bacteria, invented about 3800 million years ago under intense comet > bombardement. > Try to do it yourself in the same conditions ;). If there is no weel in > natural evolution is because legs are far superior. > > And if you think that weels are superior, NS invented it, because the > invertor of the weel was a product of natural selection. Even your feeling > of superiority of the weel and the very feeling of superiority of reason is > a product of natural selection. The claim of superiority of reason over > nature is the last vestige of unjustified antropocentrism in its most > dangerous form: Pride and self worship. > > And second, with more relaxed mood, I have to say, as I said many times > here, that evolution works simultaneously with infinite variables and > problems at the same time: log term and short term. Therefore we NEVER are > sure of knowing in FULL the reasons behind an evolutionary design and > therefor we can not understand FULY an evolutionary design. That gives > evolutionary design an appearance of mess poor design and so on. This is NOT > the case. If evolution and reason collide, the prudent is to consider that > the reason don´t know enough. > > That is because Reason work to solve a single problem, Cognitive scientist > say that can handle no more than seven variables at the same time for a > single problem. > > THAT is the reason WHY the human designs are made of modules with discrete > interfaces. No matter if we talk about architecture, computer science or > social engineering, Each rational design module solves a single problem and > comunicate with other modules in discrete ways. This is what is considered > "good designs" ,. BUT THESE RULES OF GOOD DESIGN ARE A CONSEQUIENCE OF THE > LIMITATIONS OF REASON. Reason does not produce optimal solutions. it > produce the optimal solution that he can handle without breaking. > > Natural selection takes the whole problem and produce the optimal solution > without modular limitations. Starting from scratch, evolutionary algoritms > have designed electronic circuits with a half or a third of components, that > are more fast that the equivalent rational designs. As Koza, for example > has done: > > http://www.genetic-programming.com/johnkoza.html > > These circuits designs are impossible to understand rationally. why? because > they are not modular. There is no division of the problem in smaller > problems. a transistor may be connected to more than one input or output and > so on. But they are better, ligther, faster. it seems a "Bad" design but > this is a subjective perception, as a consequience of our rational inherent > limitations. > > It is not a casual that genetic algoritms are used whenever 1) it is or > very difficult to break a problem in parts 2) is easy to measure how good a > solution is. > > I have used genetic-evolutionary algoritms for deducing the location of > extinction resources in a simulated firing. The algoritm deduced the optimal > location every time. the only problem is that we did not know WHY this was > the optimal solution. > > In the same way, an human organ can perform 3 4 5 functionalities at the > same time. the capillar tubes in a tree act as pumps, conducts, > architectural sustaining foundation and may be many more that still we don´t > know. > > In the same way societies are subjects of evolution. A natural > socio-biological institution, like the family has many functions, far more > than the social engineers think. Its functions can not be extracted away by > public institutions ruled by social engineers without a failure of the > whole society. > > That is why conservatives rely on nature where progressives rely on reason > and this is the reason why the latter fail. > > But natural evolution does not start from scratch it has to modify previous > designs for new needs, while reason without the help of tradiction, operates > from scratch. But this is not a drawback but an advantage for evolution, > since the problems of the past may not happen in the present, but probably > they will happen in the future. Evolution design not for today, but from all > times to al times, taking into account past, present and probable future > events. > > Natural adaptation exceeds not only the capabilities of rational design > but also the rational understanding, as I have demonstrated
If we encounter a new problem, say invasion from space, would you prefer to rely on natural evolution or human ingenuity for a solution? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.