On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

    On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
        Dear john:

        2012/10/4 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com 

             Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com 
<mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>> Wrote:

                    >> Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, 
it had
                    over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't 
                    come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 

                > First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in the flagela 
of the
                bacteria, invented about 3800 million years ago

            I know, that's why I said "macroscopic". It's easy to make if the 
wheel is
            microscopic because nutriments can just diffuse in and waste 
            diffuse out; but as parts get bigger the volume increases by the 
cube of
            the radius but the surface area only increases by the square, so 
            things get big diffusion just isn't good enough. Evolution never 
            out how to do better and make a wheel large enough to see, but 
people did.

         I explained in a post above why evolution does not select  weels. An
        autonomous living being must be topologically connected, and weels are 
        This is a neat consequence of the need of repairability. No autonomous 
        with weels can work for long time without supoort.. This is explained in
        detail somewhere above.

        I can imagine a design in which wheels are connected to the circulatory 
        just as some vehicles are built with hydraulic motors in their wheels.  
Or the
        wheels might be separate organisms in a symbiotic relation.  Those are 
        - but it's too hard to get there from here.  So you make the point 
        evolution is constrained in ways that rational design is not.

    Do we know that imagination doesn't use an evolutionary process (behind the 
    to come up with new ideas?  Could it be that our brains use evolutionary
    techniques, combining different things we know in random ways and running 
    testing and selection of those ideas, before they bubble up into an Ah-Ha 
    that we become conscious of?

    Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and then 
those that
    reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness?  THAT would be a 
Darwinian theory
    of consciousness.

The only known implementations of artificial creativity involved genetic programming. In fact, this computer used such techniques to invented patent-worthy designs: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=

When I try to conceive of how creativity works, it is hard for me to to imagine it could be anything other than random permutation and cross pollination of existing ideas, which must then be evaluated and the nonsensical ones pruned. New (good) ideas do not fall from the sky, nor are they directly implied by the existing set of ideas. It seems then that the process involved is to generate a bunch of new ideas (using methods similar to the tools of evolution works), and then apply selection criteria to determine which are the good ones and which are the useless ones.

This strikes me as disingenously stretching meaning to fit an argument. Yes, random variation and recombination of ideas and selection according to some values is probably how creativity works. But do you really think that shows "Evolution outshines reason"? Aren't you overlooking the fact that reason does all this in imagination, symbolically, not by reproducing and competing for resources and suffering and dying?


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