Can Evolution Learn?

a reply to: Astyanax

While the paper we’re discussing is no exercise in metaphysics, it does posit a discernible end that evolutionary processes have in view: adapting successfully to ambient conditions. That’s where the teleology comes in. Evolution may be showing signs of having an object. This is no part of the Modern Synthesis. This is from out of left field.

I have to disagree with you.

I mean, I get what you are driving at here, but your assertion that 'This is no part of the Modern Synthesis' is simply, flatly, untrue.

Evolution has always been described in discussions of the MES has having no purpose except that of providing an organism with the means of survival; no direction except that of increasing the chances of survival. There is no 'end game', no 'ultimate goal' - except survival. Survival means passing on your genes to the next generation and thus ensuring the survival of the population as a whole, not necessarily of an individual organism (though of course an individual has to survive long enough to reproduce).

To the extent that it can be said that Aristotle's acorn has the teleological 'goal' to become an oak tree, then it can be said that 'genes' have the Aristotelian teleological 'goal' to reproduce themselves in the next generation. But Evolution whether as an abstract noun or not, does not have that 'goal'. A shovel might have the Aristotelian teleological 'goal' to dig a hole, but it doesn't do the digging by itself; the 'goal' is accomplished when the shovel is used - and who is to say that the shovel's REAL teleological goal was actually to fill in that hole?

a reply to: rnaa

Evolution has always been described in discussions of the MES has having no purpose except that of providing an organism with the means of survival; no direction except that of increasing the chances of survival. There is no 'end game', no 'ultimate goal' - except survival.

We do, indeed, disagree. This is not my view of evolutionary theory. In my understanding of it, the theory holds that evolution has no more purpose than water has in flowing downhill; it is an effect, not a cause.

originally posted by: LSU0408
Meh... If we came from monkeys then there wouldn't be anymore monkeys. But we're all entitled to our opinions so if you wanna believe, that's your choice.

But we didn't come from monkeys. We came from other primitive primates though. So did monkeys.

I can totally see how as evolution and complexity increases certain patterns and tendencies could develop that would start to react and behave in ways similar to what learning might look like.

I don't know if Learning is exactly the right word for it though. Learning would imply some type of intent or awareness or something. But I can imagine natural process that would look similar to intelligence in what results come from it. But still isn't intelligent in the way we normally think of it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I can totally see how as evolution and complexity increases certain patterns and tendencies could develop that would start to react and behave in ways similar to what learning might look like.

I don't know if Learning is exactly the right word for it though. Learning would imply some type of intent or awareness or something. But I can imagine natural process that would look similar to intelligence in what results come from it. But still isn't intelligent in the way we normally think of it.

That's about as good an analogy as could be made based on what information we have to work with.

Inevitably, what I think we're seeing is likely to be patterns favored by evolution, for lack of a better phrase, based on things that have quite simply just worked well And done so consistently over time. It's much more nature than nurture. Just my opinion, So I look forward to any future research and seeing new conclusions.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: rnaa

Evolution has always been described in discussions of the MES has having no purpose except that of providing an organism with the means of survival; no direction except that of increasing the chances of survival. There is no 'end game', no 'ultimate goal' - except survival.

We do, indeed, disagree. This is not my view of evolutionary theory. In my understanding of it, the theory holds that evolution has no more purpose than water has in flowing downhill; it is an effect, not a cause.

Then we do agree because that is what I was trying to say, rather clumsily perhaps. However there is a reason that evolution is what it is and that reason is that it works. There is no teleology involved and the MES has ALWAYS discussed evolution in terms of enabling survival - always.

That is not what it seemed you were saying in the post. Perhaps I just misunderstood.

Evolution=adaptation to adversity

We tend to create a lot of adversity that is un-needed and unwarranted either intentionally or un-intentionally.

The ethics of such creation of adversity; becomes something of the highest order, when the highest order is in the view of profit over saftey or levels of human misery such creates? Then of course such things are going to become unbalanced; not only in social spheres but in those of environmental spheres and when such is set in motion on a very large scale? Then either adaptation occurs or there is a lot of casualty this may be unforseen or forseen some of it is created or manufactured purposefully to create industry in anticipation of whatever system is put into place.

a reply to: peter vlar

I just makes sense that there is something like that happening. That's built in how things become more complex in nature. There are lots of examples of "intelligent like" behavior that we see all over that we still have trouble classifying what it is that's making intelligent or semi intelligent changes or actions.

Like insects, take ants for example. They're very primitive and work by scent mostly but somehow operate as a single unit and achieve amazing things. Some even take aphids and farm them for milk. It's crazy. So if you think about it, just the way intelligence happens it even grows with time and evolution and the seeds of how that even happens would have to be found in evolution somehow or we wouldn't have anything that is in stages of learning.

Even we make artificial intelligence now where we have some of the basic framework to make it work.

a reply to: mOjOm

If you get on your hands and knees and decide to start crawling around... the tenderness of the hands and knees on the surfaces will eventually go away and callus over in an evolution or adaptation to the adversity crawling around instead of your usual ambulatory method of getting around.

This is simply how it works in all systems of life known and unknown... creating adversity such as a ruler saying; nothing else but crawling around for everyone. Becomes an adversity and of course those not wanting to crawl around? The ruler becomes an adversary; of course fear of what may happen? Will be cause for a lot to crawl around; and of course defiance of crawling around cause to over throw the ruler.

Looking at that entire senario as real? Then a lot of evolution is taking place; not only physically in knees and hands adapting to what they are not used too; perhaps industry making a killing on hand and knee wear to make it easier, to political and social evolution of thought about how to avoid being placed in such extremes by those given authority over the people in the future.

That's how it works as a mechanism; on the physical and mental level... the old "those that do not learn from the past; are doomed to repeat it." of course as politics go? We have been through and other countires have been through the same cycles and experiments over and over... repeating the mistakes of them in the name of patriotism, traditionalism, or anything else is a sure sign of the height that human stupidity can climb too simply from clinging to what is known; or comfortable...

Those knowing that people are prone to resist change; then manipulate the systems in place to their own advantage in corruption; using buzz words, ramping up fear of the unknown and using statistics accepted stereotypes whether factual or not to keep or retain power in the sphere of influence they may have, want, or wish to keep or maintain, for a sense of power, authority or control.

There is a great responsibility in such a thing; and when those appointed as leaders use it to their advantage and those that stand to benefit directly from such things; then the people simply get in the way and become a hinderance to their agendas, plots and plans... of course there is disinfo, and contengency plans to be able to run damage control to make sure keeping people on their hands and knees as desired occurs and of course making them think it is what they were asking for or desiring to begin with? Is the ultimate in psychological operations to do so; and of course rousing sentiments of particular or known attachments can make for one hell of a populist, someone that appears to promise all things to all people and be all things to all people... when such a thing is an impossibility, there will be those... I dont have the money for hand and knee protection to crawl around; those saying don't be such a puss check out the callouses on the poster boy to make them appear awesome.

Such is the nature of how things work and have worked in human history when the people do not actually have the power or are given the power through those meant or supposed to represent them as a responsibility to the whole.

Evolving comes at various speeds; facing as much adversity intentionally as one can and keeping the mental fortitude strong; regardless of all that faces you without breaking or collapsing from such a thing? Gives one a sort of evolutional mental headstart in strength and endurance for no matter what arises. From those that assume to lead means to cease control and power from the people; to choose or decide what is best for them; not only as a whole but as an individual.

Adaptation to adversity... simple life crawling around for however long; to advance to such heights as a form of life, only to be told to crawl around yet again by anyone real or imagined? Absurdity

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

The political angle was an interesting way to branch off there.

But ya. The idea of it responding to adversity is a good way to phrase it. Because a non purposed random mutation process wouldn't respond in the same way as what it seems evolution and complexity do.

That's like saying crawling around on your hands and knees sometimes would make hands more hardened but other times make them softer, or furry or webbed. There's no connection to what is causing the adversity. So evolution from a land to water animal doesn't keep randomly making fish with feathers but with fins because that solves the problem. Like a feedback of some sort.

Although I think there is also still plenty of neutral randomness too in there but there is going to be an element that would manifest patterns and increase it's efficiency over time too.

If DNA had no feedback mechanisms, and was technically was unable to "learn", we would be giving birth to sponges.
Seriously, if God exists, it is replicated in DNA.

a reply to: mOjOm

Well, sharks used to be immune to everything we threw at them even HIV and cancer their immune system said nope beyond that silliness; millions and millions of years more evolved than us... then all the plastic and radioactivity in the water? Made adversity; sharks are now being found with cancer constantly being in an environment that they are adverse too from human fault.

It is said something like 90% of primates will go extinct within the next 10 years simply because we as an invasive species have crowded and polluted them out.

Nothing can compete with human endeavor; not even humans.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'm not sure the effect is as high-level as that. I suspect it's more like chirality in organic molecules; compounds formed from them have the same chiral orientation as their components. So obviously it makes sense for genes to express proteins that are homochiral. And so they do, not because they 'want' to but because that is their natural (evolved) behaviour anyway.

a reply to: rnaa

That is not what it seemed you were saying in the post. Perhaps I just misunderstood.

What I was saying is that the postulation of a tropism or bias towards selectively beneficial adaptations, however it arises, introduces a telic element into the evolutionary process.

Much the same can be said of Prof England's postulate that physical conditions in our universe made the emergence of life inevitable.

Those whose concerns regarding abiogenesis and evolution are principally religious are reminded that such ideas as these can be used with equal effect to sap or reinforce faith in a Creator. It depends how you deploy them. Despite appearances, science has absolutely nothing to say on this subject.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Please read the link and comment.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thought isn't a self it is a form; taken to be a self... cease all thought and form shifts and changes not only in oneself but the environment around you. Having worked to make this state the operating norm; thoughtless yet awareness and interaction still persists? In observation phenomina arising and passing as more of a flux and fluidity has been far more interesting to behold than dwelling in thoughts and some idea of solidity of objects in awareness.

That's a vaccancy of thought, with simply seeing with no labels or attachment... hearing being the same when things arise and pass and left to be undefined phenomina? They too become interesting to observe with simply hearing as an awareness.

It is said from some of the oldest philosophies and texts that all of this is simply a thought form; agreed to to be solid and stable and having thoughts about it? Is what keeps the illusion or delusion of it as a subjective reality together.

However; I honestly cannot say that subjective reality is real when in the absence of "the mind" perpetuating it as the illusion. Dwelling continuiously in the absolute itself all else falls apart... the only one's holding it together as a subjective reality? Seem to be those local to me; in sort of persistence of memory instead of an actuality of reality itself.

So of course; consciousness being confined in the ego self as some I? When it is really just five sense consciouness sphere's with varying degrees of attachment with a central consciousness awareness that is typically erred to be thought of as a "self" in conglomerate via attachment.

Consciousness spontaneously arising; in form or formlessness is a given, just not typically one observed; due to all the mental labels and grasping in what is called thought and knowledge. Throw all of that away and reality truly presents itself... takes a lot of practice and effort but well worth it; as suffering does end... sadly not for those still tusly attached to the illusion the subjective conceptual as reality when it isn't, but what can you do?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Thanks for the sermon. Did you read the link?

Evolution is a complex adaptive system. The genome is exposed to an environment, is impacted by the environment so it learns from an environment. I think it's aware of its environment - an awareness that isn't obvious or is understood by us (yet).

The anti-evolutionists tend to define evolution as a static, non-responsive mechanism which "adapts" but doesn't change. Complex adaptive systems do not require input other than from their environment. They self assemble, organize their networks and change based on how the environment forces them to change. It is never in equilibrium and never static. It's a nested network of constant learning and change.

Humans have taken examples from evolution and applied them to AI and deep learning networks. Can an AI "learn"? Of course it can. Will it evolve? Yes. Will it change? Yes. Will it have progeny? Who knows? Perhaps.

a reply to: Astyanax

Yes I did and I told you my observation of it in action; and how anyone else can see the "theory" directly in action.

Is sarcasm how you typically respond to someone showing you courtesy enough to do what you ask?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I’m very sorry, but I can see no connexion at all between your post and the topic under discussion. I tried to read it twice, by the way.