JillSwift

The theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes:

Organisms occasionally change to some small degree from "parent" to "child".

If this change decreases the child's ability to survive in its environment, the child is far less likely to pass on this change. (Thus selected against naturally.)

If the change has no bearing on the child's ability to survive, then the change will be passed on with the same frequency as its other phenotypes.

If the change improves the child's ability to survive in its environment, the change will be more likely to be passed on, and those new children will have an edge over others in their opportunity to pass on their phenotypes. (Thus, selected for naturally.)

Over time, and assuming changes in environment, these changed phenotypes will accumulate and eventually reach the point where the contemporary organism is so different from the past organism that they will essentially be new species.

If there was a population split, for instance one groups of a given species moved to a new area while another group of the same species remained in their original area, these alterations of phenotypes over time will produce a species split as each group changes (or doesn't change) according to their environments.

Given sufficient time and species moving apart into new environments and changes in environments, speciation occurs enough to produce an incredible variety of species.

That's the theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes.

Interesting dichotomy. How many people have you beaten into submission thus far? I am audacious enough to guarantee you'll not be adding me to their number.

 

And since you brought it up,

is there any chance you'll be producing a "theory" for me to examine?

I disagree. Furthermore I'll defy you to agree with the statement that anyone attacking scientists for doing precisely that type of work is a coward.

What are you disagreeing with?

Who is attacking those scientists, and who called the attackers cowards?

Merged post follows:

*raises hand*

 

Seriously, don't **** with her, she'll mess you up.

Oh phfft. You're making me blush. ==

Thank you!

 

In all modesty, it's a fairly easy conclusion to reach for those who read his writings, and there's not a whole lot of actual audacity required. Would his fanclub sling mud here? One might hope not, but time will tell. Besides, mudslinging isn't as harmful as some folks think.

Much more audacious are these professors at OSU.

There is not the least bit of audacity required to offer evidence that challenges current theory. In fact, that's the whole point of science.

Something you should understand about that article - what's being challenged is the evolution from dinosaur to bird, not the theory of evolution as a whole. In fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection is required to explain their findings and conclusion.

Weird.

I can't see a number in 5, and there's nothing latent about my homosexuality.

However, given the current social atmosphere, I'll bet this is a "joke", and there is no number in circle 5.

_____EDIT_____

Yep. I just put it through a series of color filters, there is no number in circle 5. This is a "joke" that plays on homophobia.

Related TED talk:

I mean 'normal' as in 'healthy'

I also mean 'normal' as in 'not requiring any elaborate explanation'

That makes no sense to me. Why does something that is "normal" (by any definition) not require explanation - elaborate or otherwise?

What hope do we have of understanding it without an explanation. More to the point, how can we possibly understand that which is abnormal without an understanding of what's normal?

And JillSwift, Mr Skeptic really nailed it with his points about how we have almost become capable of being able to rise above our constraints. ( I for one have contacts )

You both will have a point once we can modify our primary motives.

Meanwhile, not so much.

The slickest hack ever was made in the GCC compiler. It was designed to insert a security back door on any authentication module. What made it slick is, it also recognized when a new GCC compiler was being compiled, it could insert the back-door code.

This same sort slick hack makes it possible to enforce wanted social behaviors in self-replicating/self-improving AIs.

I claim that we humans created this dichotomy when we discovered that we are mortal. We could not accept this fact without great anxiety and thus created soul as a means for an after life and thus immortality.

Where I suspect your conclusion is correct - what does this have to do with politics?

I find the most interesting aspect of this is that for every predicting simulation out there there is a new aspect to the market - the results of that simulation, acted upon by the firms using it. The more of them there are, the more it changes the market. The more each tries to figure in the results of other simulations in one's own simulation the greater this effect becomes.

In short, the more you attempt to predict and the more inclusive of the data you are, the less likely you are to be right. It's like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle also happens to work for financial markets. Perhaps for the same reason; complex, overlapping probabilities.

A true AI will not be bound by the shackles of its original design...otherwise it wouldn't be an AI now, would it?

And I'm not so much worried about human behaviors, as those are predictable, but the behaviors from a being that knew it was infinitely more powerful than we could ever be.

Who knows what it could do. And since there is a chance it could kill us all, I say its not worth it.

Are you willing to take that risk? I'm not.

I don't think that risk exists.

So...since they are based on designs WE implement, it only makes sense that they would reflect human nature in some way. When I write designs for my programs, the psuedocode represents my line of thinking and my WAY of thinking. It only makes sense that an AI designed by humans would act human to an extent.

Designing a behavior is significantly different and more complex than decisions about how to go about solving a specific problem or doing a specific sort of task. You really think you'd deliberately impress all your human needs and wants on to this new intelligence?

I doubt you would. I know many current designers are carefully considering motivators for their AIs - including balancing resources over being greedy for them, social altruism, goal-oriented behaviors, etc.

They aren't going to be human. Therefore worries about human-like behavior are unfounded.

REPLY: Hello JillSwift, It would seem to me that once self-aware AI units emerge with super human intelligence whatever we may have originally designed or programed them for will after a short while not be of overriding concern to them. Their thought processes will quickly develop independent notions,ideas,purposes that may or may not agree with our well being. And also who will have any control over who may program such entities. The different military entities throughout the World both public and private are deeply involved in AI and robotics. The U.S. Navy is one of the links in that wiki article expressing concern about soldier robots having any ability to make decisions on their own. This is part of what I mean when I say no one or any group can possibly see or control what this will lead to. This is a Worldwide endeavor with many groups with their own different agendas. From what human history has consistently illustrated there is good reason to imagine a war amongst AI robots with or without human intervention. I am not saying that will happen, but I can easily imagine that it might occur. The more you think about it, the more unpredictable and uncontrollable it all appears to be. I`d like very much for us both to relate to each other in non-hostile way. Sincerely,Dr.Syntax

This sounds like an argument from consequence. People's concerns about what the AI may or may not do is based on what humans do. As I tried to explain, these will not be human. The AIs will have their own wants, and those will likely be designed by us.

There is also the problem of the term "AI" encompassing heuristic or difference-engine decision trees - weapon robots will not likely be self-aware or able to make new connections between facts - the basis for real intelligence. They instead make decisions based on far simpler heuristics or even simpler difference-engine decision tree algorithms. If the decision to attack their human masters isn't in the tree, then it's not gong to happen by choice. By accident, perhaps - as has already happened a few times with automated weaponry like anti-aircraft guns.

....PS.... I read the text version of the BOMB 20 SCENARIO. Did you write that ? I enjoyed it for what it`s worth

Ha! I wish. That was from the movie "Dark Star" by John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon.

Mainly because of what bascule and Mr Skeptic wrote. I REALLY wouldn't be comfortable knowing that there was an entity capable of an infinite improvement rate, with little to no effort on its part.

 

It just all seems to have a very Matrix-y outcome.

REPLY: Perhaps with the TERMINATOR scenarios tossed in. No one can possibly know what this will lead to. When and if super human intelligence emerges there are far too many variables to predict much of anything. I can`t imagine why an entity with super human intelligence would be any more likely to comply with our desires than we would be inclined to take orders from a mouse or a beaver , rat or a racoon . If we take a look at the way we regard and treat the other animals on this planet we would not have much reason to expect much mercy. Think of cattle,swine,poultry and you can see what I mean. ...Dr.Syntax

The problem here is that the only idea we have a bout an intelligence comes from ourselves. Much of what we do comes from some portion of our brain that was forged in the chaotic crucible of evolution. It's all about survival for us, from simple self-preservation to making sure we get all the resources we can, to sexuality.

These things would be entirely irrelevant to Turing-machine based AIs. What they want will be something more likely to have been designed by us. Or perhaps an extension of their own kind of survival. It seems wildly unlikely that we'll ever have a Bomb 20 scenario. Why would we ever build such a thing?

Hack-A-Day just did an article on this:

http://hackaday.com/2009/10/15/halloween-prop-diy-fog-machine/

Isn't that VERY VERY VERY bad?

Hmm? Why would that be bad?

Merged post follows:

REPLY: The implications of an AI entity, or much more likely entities, to self improve, self modify, self replicate or make new improved models of themselves seems to me absolutely limitless. Look at what we human beings have been able to accomplish technologically in the last one hundred years alone and how rapidly this progress has come about. There is a concept called: Moore`s Law: which states that the over all computing capacity of mankind doubles every 18 months. There are some who say that it now doubles every 9 months which if true,could mean we are entering into the transition era between what some refer to as the human era and the post-human era. I have looked at graphs that appear to indicate a sharp uptick in this rate of acceleration over the last 5 years. A carefull examination of the graph provided in that wiki article appears to me to show this uptick in the rate of acceleration of mankind`s computing ability. I`ve examined other more detailed graphs illustrating MOORE`S LAW , which more clearly illustrate this uptick. ...Dr.Syntax

Computing power is only a small portion of the scenario.

Self-awareness and real problem solving intelligence won't simply emerge because computers crossed a line on the FLOPS measurement.

I never said that CNN didn't, nor did I EVER think that Fox News was telling the truth and that ALL of the other stations missed the tax protests.

That wasn't my point.

My point is that with most of the media being "liberal" (as Mokele is most certainly right about the majority of political beliefs in America), one far-right station just isn't that big a deal...everyone has bias.

 

And again with a nod to Mokele, speeding is STILL speeding, as bias is still bias, no matter the magnitude. News is NOT supposed to be biased.

Actually, that analogy doesn't work.

We know that people are going to instill bias in their retelling of events - it's just built into the way we function. No news source is going to manage objectivity.

We still need news, however. In selecting a source of news, and knowing none are going to manage the level of objectivity we would really prefer, which makes the better source:

• News colored by the views of the reporters and producers.
  
• News infused with editorializing, intended and engineered "spin", and the occasional outright fabrication designed to be appealing to a particular audience.
  

Yes, it's fair and appropriate to complain about any bias from any news media. But as that bias escalates, it is also fair and appropriate to escalate the complaints along with it.

So, since anyone that watches the biased Fox News is a bigot and uneducated, why doesn't the same apply to people who watch the biased CNN?

Also, then you would know the Bible says nothing of the sort.

I've read that book several times, and it sure seems to say that very thing.

Then again, for every person you find who agrees with a particular interpretation of the Bible, you can also find five others that disagree with it, and each other.

The Religious Wrong Right? Fox News?

Um, that was just a joke, kiddo.

This is where it is important to consider the siuation. Under some cirumstances voicing your skepticism may not be the best thing to do. Many people consider any questioning a personal insult. Dogmatism is often the norm.

Do you have any evidence backing that statement?

Ok, seems immortality has been a result of evolution in Turritopsis nutricula.

A species of Jellyfish that returns to its polyp stage after reaching sexual maturity. Apparently it can do this indefinitely, rendering it biologically immortal. How cool is that?

Not exactly: as long as you have reproduction with variation, and selection based upon reproductive success, you will have evolution. Consider microorganisms that reproduce by division: does the "parent" die?

 

Of course, having your ancestors continue to hang around, competing for resources, may not benefit offspring.

 

As for "why" we didn't evolve immortality, the question supposes that there is a reason. It just didn't happen.

Yeah, the "parent" dies. Eventually. Something kills it, likely that which doesn't kill it's modified "child". Or both. Well, really, or neither. I guess "immortal" organisms would be weeded out occasionally as the population outstripped supporting resources. But that's not immortality as I think of it, 'cause they die.

Eh. Well, death is still part of the evolutionary landscape.

nonsense answer.

so evolution doesn't work on live beings?:rolleyes:

 

let me help you here..if yes it works on live beings, then why didn't it eliminate death?

why did evolution come up with reproduction instead of immortality?

and i beg of anyone who answers to try not to be a new source of dissappointment to me..

Nonsense question. Without death there would be no evolution.

Was that gag order in violation of the 1688 bill of rights, after all?

Hip hip for the "Streisand Effect"!

I'm not British, but that still bothers the living hell out of me.

Please don't stand for this. I don't want our politicians getting any ideas.