5 ms·
Nature "learns" by trial and error while humans have the capacity to reason about things. In the long run intellect will win (although in most cases we are far
by std_throwaway 9y ago
Nature "learns" by trial and error while humans have the capacity to reason about things. In the long run intellect will win (although in most cases we are far far from that point).
- coldtea 9y ago>In the long run intellect will win Citation needed. What's even more possible is that in the long run nature will win -- it is a far more powerful force than intellect. In the very least, let's see how intellect fares against the heat death of the universe...
- dmichulke 9y agoI think GP means to that for many problems, the time span for finding a local optimum in an evolutionary way ("nature") is longer than in a scientific way ("human trial and error + reasoning"). Of course, there are probably species that burn through a few generations per hour but these are not really suited to solving problems that mammals can.
- coldtea 9y ago>I think GP means to that for many problems, the time span for finding a local optimum in an evolutionary way ("nature") is longer than in a scientific way ("human trial and error + reasoning"). For some problems regarding the functioning of living things yes, but for other problems evolution doesn't apply, and nature (aka the universe) can "strike" before science had the time to find anything to protect against them (e.g. a meteor hit). And for other problems still, science might be the one that created them (e.g. nuclear annihilation, global warming, etc). >Of course, there are probably species that burn through a few generations per hour but these are not really suited to solving problems that mammals can. No, but some of them could e.g. mutate and kill all humans or enough to destroy civilization.
- rimliu 9y agoI always consider intellect to be a part of the nature. It is a nature's way to reason about itself after all.
- coldtea 9y agoIn an abstract way yes. But in another sense, intellect vs nature is a useful distinction to make. (E.g. blind forces of evolution through selection/mutation/etc, vs conscious targeted changes).
- roceasta 9y agoThe work of Karl Popper suggests than human knowledge also progresses in an evolutionary manner, by conjecture and refutation. So something resembling natural selection must be going on in our brains. http://www.the-rathouse.com/CRContents.html http://www.the-rathouse.com/CRContents.html
- coldtea 9y ago>The work of Karl Popper suggests than human knowledge also progresses in an evolutionary manner, by conjecture and refutation. Human knowledge in general might, but I'm talking about how humans take action and shape the world around them vs how evolution does. Conjecture and refutation are not like random mutations -- that's just the "survival of the fittest" part of evolution, which is not the actual mechanism and which applies to everything (after all, anything that survives is fitter that what didn't).
- BasDirks 9y agoWhat is this "force" you call nature that you are plotting against intellect?
- coldtea 9y agoWell, if you ever witnessed first hand an earthquake or something like Harvey you wouldn't have to ask.
- ourmandave 9y agoSMASH CUT: ESTablishing shot: Motorhome parked in remote field. SUPER: Meanwhile, at the Soylent lab...