3 ms·

Evolution. How does large scale randomness result in such complicated and intelligent systems, while after decades of research and all the computing power we h

Evolution. How does large scale randomness result in such complicated and intelligent systems, while after decades of research and all the computing power we have today, we still struggle to model and reproduce the intelligence of an insect.

dreamcompiler 7y ago
"The Selfish Gene" was the book that finally made this click for me.
- yamrzou 7y ago
  Unfortunately, The Selfish Gene leaves it an open question of how the brain developed its capacity to represent and model the world, which is the very notion of intelligence. From the book: > The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology. There is no reason to suppose that electronic computers are conscious when they simulate, although we have to admit that in the future they may become so. Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself.
pajaroide 7y ago
Four billion years is a lot of time for that randomness (via selective pressure of the environment or of life itself) to produce tons of crazy results.
xabotage 7y ago
Agreed. I find it difficult to even ask for a deeper understanding of evolution without first explaining yes, I know basically how DNA works; yes, I understand natural selection; no, I'm not a young-earth creationist. I have a solid grasp of basic biology and genetics and I'd just like to comprehend how randomness can lead to such incredible complexity of organisms within billion-year timescales (and not, say, million-trillion-trillion year timescales). I feel as though it's simply Occam's Razor to assume that evolutionary complexity is the result of randomness because I know of no better explanation. Is there a self-reinforcing process at play? (Natural selection partially counts as reinforcing, I just feel like randomness is still the engine that powers it).
jryb 7y ago
Simulating trillions of moving parts is not the same as explaining or even understanding something. If you want to feel the truth of evolution in your bones, you really do need to be familiar with biology on both the molecular and cellular level. You can get a feel for it with less, but it won't ever be obvious how and why it works unless you know it at that level. I don't mean to sound exclusionary - it really just does require a ton of background knowledge.

dreamcompiler 7y ago

"The Selfish Gene" was the book that finally made this click for me.

yamrzou 7y ago
Unfortunately, The Selfish Gene leaves it an open question of how the brain developed its capacity to represent and model the world, which is the very notion of intelligence. From the book: > The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology. There is no reason to suppose that electronic computers are conscious when they simulate, although we have to admit that in the future they may become so. Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself.

pajaroide 7y ago

Four billion years is a lot of time for that randomness (via selective pressure of the environment or of life itself) to produce tons of crazy results.

xabotage 7y ago

Agreed. I find it difficult to even ask for a deeper understanding of evolution without first explaining yes, I know basically how DNA works; yes, I understand natural selection; no, I'm not a young-earth creationist. I have a solid grasp of basic biology and genetics and I'd just like to comprehend how randomness can lead to such incredible complexity of organisms within billion-year timescales (and not, say, million-trillion-trillion year timescales). I feel as though it's simply Occam's Razor to assume that evolutionary complexity is the result of randomness because I know of no better explanation. Is there a self-reinforcing process at play? (Natural selection partially counts as reinforcing, I just feel like randomness is still the engine that powers it).

jryb 7y ago

Simulating trillions of moving parts is not the same as explaining or even understanding something. If you want to feel the truth of evolution in your bones, you really do need to be familiar with biology on both the molecular and cellular level. You can get a feel for it with less, but it won't ever be obvious how and why it works unless you know it at that level. I don't mean to sound exclusionary - it really just does require a ton of background knowledge.