5 ms·

It makes sense to explore outside the box if your problem can't be found in a very limited search space. However the statement > Many natural processes don’t a

It makes sense to explore outside the box if your problem can't be found in a very limited search space. However the statement > Many natural processes don’t appear to be objective based. Natural evolution and human innovation are cases in point. Is not correct. Evolution is highly objective based and micro-incremental.

mirceal 9y ago
No it's not. Evolution itself does not have the objective of creating something. Regarding evolution, having read both Kenneth's book and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins I can tell you that Kenneth rediscovers what Dawkins explained in his book in 1986. The experiment Dawkins describes in his book resembles the picbreeder experiment a lot.
- MyObjective4 9y ago
  Wouldn't humans creating recognizable images by choosing a particular aberration that looks like something familiar be more akin to intelligent design? Without this intelligence and creativity to see something in each new breed and branch, coupled with the ability on the site to rank images and label images. The final images would have ever existed. According to Dawkins, Evolution has two objectives. Optimizing survival and procreation. We saw how the randomness toward an objective failed to produce anything meaningful in this example so how is this similar to natural evolution? I see no similarities.
  - mirceal 9y ago
    the point is that you cannot design it. you're exploring the space looking at what is interesting. So if you're given a start image and an end image (an objective) you cannot reach the end image. In the case of pic-breeder you are playing the role of a fitness function not that of an intelligent designer.
mfoy_ 9y ago
The "objective" part is a bit confusing. Evolution doesn't have objectives like "create the turtle, elephant, and man". Which is what is meant by "The Myth of the Objective". Evolution has two eyes on the path (optimizing survival and procreation) and none on objectives (concrete outcomes, i.e. specific organisms).
monktastic1 9y ago
This sounds like anthropomorphizing (or at least teleologizing) evolution. "Evolution" is just the name we give to the observation that some random adaptations confer survival advantages and thus are seen more frequently in later generations. At no point is there any intention, direction, or goal.

mirceal 9y ago

No it's not. Evolution itself does not have the objective of creating something. Regarding evolution, having read both Kenneth's book and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins I can tell you that Kenneth rediscovers what Dawkins explained in his book in 1986. The experiment Dawkins describes in his book resembles the picbreeder experiment a lot.

MyObjective4 9y ago
Wouldn't humans creating recognizable images by choosing a particular aberration that looks like something familiar be more akin to intelligent design? Without this intelligence and creativity to see something in each new breed and branch, coupled with the ability on the site to rank images and label images. The final images would have ever existed. According to Dawkins, Evolution has two objectives. Optimizing survival and procreation. We saw how the randomness toward an objective failed to produce anything meaningful in this example so how is this similar to natural evolution? I see no similarities.
- mirceal 9y ago
  the point is that you cannot design it. you're exploring the space looking at what is interesting. So if you're given a start image and an end image (an objective) you cannot reach the end image. In the case of pic-breeder you are playing the role of a fitness function not that of an intelligent designer.

mfoy_ 9y ago

The "objective" part is a bit confusing. Evolution doesn't have objectives like "create the turtle, elephant, and man". Which is what is meant by "The Myth of the Objective". Evolution has two eyes on the path (optimizing survival and procreation) and none on objectives (concrete outcomes, i.e. specific organisms).

monktastic1 9y ago

This sounds like anthropomorphizing (or at least teleologizing) evolution. "Evolution" is just the name we give to the observation that some random adaptations confer survival advantages and thus are seen more frequently in later generations. At no point is there any intention, direction, or goal.