On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/4 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com
>> Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer,
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
bacteria, invented about 3800 million years ago
I know, that's why I said "macroscopic". It's easy to make if the
microscopic because nutriments can just diffuse in and waste
diffuse out; but as parts get bigger the volume increases by the
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
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.
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
reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness? THAT would be a
The only known implementations of artificial creativity involved genetic programming.
In fact, this computer used such techniques to invented patent-worthy designs:
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at