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
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to