Step aside Darwinism, say hello to "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization"

What none of you have picked up on is how this could lead to real breakthroughs for artificial intelligence.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
What none of you have picked up on is how this could lead to real breakthroughs for artificial intelligence.

i dont see the invention of artificial intelligence as being nearly as encouraging as what you make it out to be. artificial intelligence could mean a new age in customer service or a new age in terrorism.

I propose that in addition to calling those who accept the evidence supporting modern evolutionary synthesis "Darwinists", we call those who accept the evidence supporting general and special relativity "Einsteinists".

a reply to: TzarChasm
Lol I merely pointed out that itmcouod lead to breaktroughs, I didn't say if not was good or bad.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs

I did not, probably because it's in business insider rather than livescience or sciencedaily.

Read my earlier replies to this statement.

If if you want I will change the title, and maybe then you can attempt to understand this theory a bit better? Please

That would be great, as the title is a bit misleading. It comes off as if you're trying to start another battle against evolution thread and it's attracting negative attention.

From what I've read, it doesn't seem liek natural selection will get replaced, it would be another way creatures could adapt. To suggest this would suddenly mean that better adapted creatures are not favored for survival over weaker ones would be nonsensical. It doesn't replace it, it adds on to it IF proven (and that's a huge IF).

How fascinating..

The hypothesis isn't as far along as more obscure research organizations but the premise is what's important.

This line of thinking leads to some very, very interesting implications and results. It will be interesting to see how some certain anomalies are reconciled.

Thanks for posting OP!

I'm not too hot on a theory of everything but I guess if someone can actually prove they'd unlocked a key to all existence chances are they will have become God and would not be interested in us puny mortals. Details, we need details.



a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Great hypothesis, but it's an old article actually, that appeared in Quanta magazine back in January, and it's parent mag SA. I think there might be a thread or two about this floating around the ATS archives.

a reply to: Barcs

There's no such thing as Darwinism. We aren't living in the 1800s.

My guess is he meant Neo-darwinism. Which I suspect you knew already.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, please enlighten me. How is the theory of natural selection bloated?

I'll take a crack at this...

It's because Neo-Darwinists (aka "Modern Synsthesists") think that natural selection is the main "mechanism" driving evolution. Well, natural selection does no such thing. There's nothing to it actually.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How does natural selection have human characteristics (what anthropomorphic means)? Please explain yourself better.

Think about the language biologists use to explain evolutionary change in light of natural selection. Words like "selecting"; and "favoring". These were taken by Darwin from the literal usage of a human beings selecting certain traits for breeding and applied to his theory in the same exact way; except now it's nature and the environment doing the selecting. The driving theory behind evolution, and it's all metaphorical.

a reply to: Barcs

What exactly is a Darwinist? It originally was used to distinguish advocates of Darwinian evolution from advocates of Lamarckian evolution when they were competing hypotheses, but that no longer applies.

How about the Neo-Darwinist- which you clearly are. You know what he meant- so let's stop picking the low lying fruit here.

I did not, probably because it's in business insider rather than livescience or sciencedaily. In your title it says "Step aside Darwinism", when the article does not suggest "Darwinism" (you mean modern evolutionary synthesis right?) would be falsified.

It was originally printed in scientific magazine> www.quantamagazine.org...

Not that that changes anything for you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But that's not true, the theory of natural selection DOESN'T say that there is a sentient, driving force propagating genes. It actually DOES say that it is being driven by natural laws of mechanics and biology. That is why this hypothesis merely fills in the blanks as opposed to overwrites the idea of natural selection.

Natural selection says what now?

Please explain.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs

I did not, probably because it's in business insider rather than livescience or sciencedaily.

Read my earlier replies to this statement.

If if you want I will change the title, and maybe then you can attempt to understand this theory a bit better? Please

That would be great, as the title is a bit misleading. It comes off as if you're trying to start another battle against evolution thread and it's attracting negative attention.
It doesn't replace it, it adds on to it IF proven (and that's a huge IF).

All I can say is bring it. This theory stands for itself and I've got nothing to loose by taking trolls who refuse to think to town.

From what I've read, it doesn't seem liek natural selection will get replaced, it would be another way creatures could adapt. To suggest this would suddenly mean that better adapted creatures are not favored for survival over weaker ones would be nonsensical.

Maybe i should learn chinese on this forum. Is this a chinese forum? Are we all speaking chinese? "IT" you mean DDAO would not be anything. It either is or isnt. Dont use the word creature here either, its too specific. This is a theory of everything including all organisms, not just "creatures". They adapt according to this theory not due to Darwinian concepts of natural selection, but due to entropy based dissipation theory. Its a completely different paradigm to the one being regurgitated thoughtlessly by others here. Weaker does not necessarily mean less well adapted, and no one is saying any such nonsensical thing. The theory is not trying to refute the laws of nature, it will introduce new ones entirely and simply re explain the existing ones, possibly shedding many bloated theories along the way such as the darwinian theories.

You didn't read jack #, and you don't know what on earth you're saying.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa
Well done you have failed to understand both evolution and the article you have linked to.
It quite clearly explains in the article that it doesn't in anyway replace evolution. Unless you think you understand better than the author?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

This is the most pants on head stupid analysis of terminology I think I've ever seen. Really dude, really?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Are you a Neo-Einsteinist? Or are you just making ad hominem attacks because you have no argument?

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, youre right it doesn't say explicitly, but it assumes in many ways, that there IS. For example the notion of survival of the fittest. DDAO refutes that by saying it is survival of the most dissipation driven adaptive organism. Lol ok you could saynfittest... WHATEVER

No it doesn't assume anything. Survival of the fittest only works for that organism's current environment. Just because it is fit to survive in one location doesn't mean it is fit to survive elsewhere. Also, as can be seen through the evidence of vestigial organs, evolution is very haphazard. It doesn't necessarily give you the BEST mutations, just the ones that work best for your environment. There is no implied guiding force behind this unless you invent one yourself.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Do you have any evidence to show that it isn't?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How does natural selection have human characteristics (what anthropomorphic means)? Please explain yourself better.

Think about the language biologists use to explain evolutionary change in light of natural selection. Words like "selecting"; and "favoring". These were taken by Darwin from the literal usage of a human beings selecting certain traits for breeding and applied to his theory in the same exact way; except now it's nature and the environment doing the selecting. The driving theory behind evolution, and it's all metaphorical.

What does that have to do with anything? Laymen have loose definitions of words (that's why everyone confuses the definition of theory). Scientists have STRICT definitions of words, so if a scientist uses a word to describe an event, he is being very specific in his wording.