Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    To arcane for me, bro. The intelligence which led to the lunar lander degenerated into the intelligence that led to Iraq, and now we have Syria. Is this a Darwinian progression?
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    I'm talking about the specific chain of logic involved-using "intelligence" in a specific sense. I just find it interesting how what went on in the designers' minds must to some extent parallel the DNA development leading to the animal.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    Oh, and how's arcane today?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    Posted By: loremanI'm talking about the specific chain of logic involved-using "intelligence" in a specific sense. I just find it interesting how what went on in the designers' minds must to some extent parallel the DNA development leading to the animal.


    To be blunt: the resemblance is superficial, and the reasons for the resemblance are minimal and easily understandable. You have an expensive bit (DNA, astronauts) which are best enclosed in a housing, you have to attach to a surface (landing gear, filaments) you have stuff to connect it together. I can't see anything particularly deep in the moon lander/bacteriophage superficial similarity.

    But if you find it marvellous that the same problems lead to the same solutions, then reflect on the thought that this means that there are no options: there is only one physics.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: loremanI'm talking about the specific chain of logic involved-using "intelligence" in a specific sense. I just find it interesting how what went on in the designers' minds must to some extent parallel the DNA development leading to the animal.


    To be blunt: the resemblance is superficial, and the reasons for the resemblance are minimal and easily understandable. You have an expensive bit (DNA, astronauts) which are best enclosed in a housing, you have to attach to a surface (landing gear, filaments) you have stuff to connect it together. I can't see anything particularly deep in the moon lander/bacteriophage superficial similarity.

    But if you find it marvellous that the same problems lead to the same solutions, then reflect on the thought that this means that there are no options: there is only one physics.


    "there is only one physics"

    Just so, but the analogy between evolution and logic is still interesting, to me anyway.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013 edited
     
    Ah well - interesting often leads to unexpected advances, so I applaud your interest.

    But you said evolution and logic. In the example cited we were comparing the construction of a bacteriophage with the lunar lander. What did I miss? The evolution-logic connection certainly sounds interesting, but this does not seem like an example.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013 edited
     
    The bacteriophage was presumably "constructed" in the course of an evolutionary process involving mutations in DNA where the outcome had to fit a particular set of circumstances (otherwise it would not have come about). The lunar lander was constructed as part of a process involving the application of logic to a problem with a desired outcome.

    The two outcomes are similar (for arguments sake). Are there similarities in the processes?
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    "interesting often leads to unexpected advances"

    And sometimes to particularly embarrassing rejections
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    Posted By: loreman"constructed" in the course of an evolutionary process


    Interesting statement. The process of evolution is primarily one of rejection, rather than construction. "construction" is postulated to be random; the selective rejection of whatever might have been constructed is the basis of evolution.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: loreman"constructed" in the course of an evolutionary process


    Interesting statement. The process of evolution is primarily one of rejection, rather than construction. "construction" is postulated to be random; the selective rejection of whatever might have been constructed is the basis of evolution.


    That's why I used the inverted commas. I think the intellectual process involved in constructing a lunar lander may similarly involve selective rejection.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    What it comes down to is the question of whether creative thought is the consideration of multiple ideas thrown up at random, and the rejection of the bad ones , or whether it is a guided exploration based on previous knowledge.


    The more I think about it the less I want to say.
  1.  
    Posted By: loremanThe bacteriophage was presumably "constructed" in the course of an evolutionary process involving mutations in DNA where the outcome had to fit a particular set of circumstances (otherwise it would not have come about). The lunar lander was constructed as part of a process involving the application of logic to a problem with a desired outcome.

    The two outcomes are similar (for arguments sake). Are there similarities in the processes?

    Uh, no. This is the teleological fallacy and is where the analogy breaks down.

    The lunar lander _was_ designed with specific goals, definite functionalities, from the outset. It has a teleology, in other words, a purposeful design sequence with articulated goals.

    The phage, if you are a materialist, was not. No product of evolution is "designed" with any purpose at all. Only survivors of populations with some inherent and heritable variability pass on their traits to subsequent generations, and traits that enhance their own propagation... propagate. The heritable variation provides the differential survivability that, along with a bit of luck and random circumstance, provides the material from which nature selects. There is no "goal" in "mind", no Designer set out to make a construction of molecules that could parasitize bacteria, no analogy to the Lunar Lander design and development process.



    Of course if your God is an omnipotent Creator, then all bets are off.
  2.  
    Certainly in any R&D situation there is a "survivability" of ideas and methods. But this is waaaay different from the random survivability that natural selection uses. The only evolutionary advantage that a shrew had, that enabled it to survive when everybody else died, was maybe its small size and its diet. Another type of catastrophe might have favored survival of large carnivores over small insectivores. The happenstance was a random occurrence. This is not the way ideas evolve in R&D.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    Multiple ideas thrown up at random then. Why am I not surprised.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013
     
    "The happenstance was a random occurrence. This is not the way ideas evolve in R&D."

    And yet the happenstance represents a "response" to "information" (in the sense of environmental variations). Ideas in R&D evolve in response to information in the form of situational variables. I still think there's parallels between mutating DNA and logic.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013 edited
     
    We don't need no steenking DNA to stump the best and brightest. Just rocks that skate around and have a good ol' time. Never witnessed in motion, but they do quite obviously move. Why did the rock cross the dry lakebed? To get to the other side...

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/roving-rocks.html
  3.  
    Which all goes to show that aliens. should we encounter them, are going to be embedded in the same old shit in which we find ourselves.

    Left field? Nope
  4.  
    Posted By: sonoboyWe don't need no steenking DNA to stump the best and brightest. Just rocks that skate around and have a good ol' time. Never witnessed in motion, but they do quite obviously move. Why did the rock cross the dry lakebed? To get to the other side...

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/roving-rocks.html
    I think that as long one embraces (as opposed to ignores) the mysteries which abound, everything will be fine.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanRetinoic acid gradients' action on Hox genes, then. Too macro for this to be deduced.

    What's your version of how this is assembled?

    Ever read GEB and the assembly of that phage?


    WRT gears : It is assembled the same way our hand / finger are. Cell death & cell growth in alternated area, driven by the DNA.
  5.  
    "driven by the DNA" - the devil's in the details there. I admit to being utterly boggled by embryology and developmental biology in general.