How do mutations code sequence to symbols?

a reply to: dragonridr

More nonsense. You said:

Do you even know what the answer is? Here a computer would evaluate the given data and say yes. Except there is one key piece of information missing making the answer C. You know there is more than one grade in a school because of experience and you dont know what grade sally is in.

Yes, I answered the question in the post above. Do you even read the post you're responding to? How do you know a neural network wouldn't answer C. Where's your evidence to support this?

You then said:

Your definition of intelligece is severely limited your doing this on purpose.

My definition of intelligence minus consciousness and awareness is exactly right. Your definition defines human intelligence. Let's look how Webster defines artificial intelligence.

1: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers 2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior

www.merriam-webster.com...

The 1st definition is what I'm talking about. Intelligent behavior in computers not human level intelligence which you are stuck on. You're stuck on it because you don't want to admit you lied when you said this.

Finding corelations in data is not intelligence

That was a lie and then I asked these questions.

So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?

The 2nd definition is talking about General Purpose A.I. which hasn't been achieved yet. Sadly, your message board ego will not allow you to simply say "I was wrong."

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

My definition of intelligence minus consciousness and awareness is exactly right. Your definition defines human intelligence. Let's look how Webster defines artificial intelligence.

1: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers 2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior

sim·u·la·tion
/ˌsimyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
imitation of a situation or process.
"simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"
the action of pretending; deception.
"clever simulation that's good enough to trick you"

Since you seem to be in a programing loop i will send you back here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Of course it's simulated intelligence. It's called artificial intelligence. So it's not exactly like human intelligence which includes conscious and awareness.

Of course you keep making these asinine posts because your message board ego is bruised because you were caught in a lie. You said:

Finding corelations in data is not intelligence

That was a lie and then I asked these questions.

So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?

You have said around 5 times now that you're done with this thread but your message board ego can't accept that you just lied and you simply can't say "I was wrong."

a reply to: neoholographic

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

You're losing it man. You said:

So im done arguing now time to let this thread die we can revisit it in a decade or so and see where we are then.

LOL!!

Some of you guys are funny. You're message board ego is so bruised, so you make these asinine arguments. You have cried that you're done with this thread like 5 times now and all because you don't want to simply say "I was wrong" when you said:

Finding corelations in data is not intelligence

That was a lie and then I asked these questions.

So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?

a reply to: neoholographic

It blows my mind that humans who are capable of intelligent discourse are using that privilege to try to argue that there is no intelligence involved in our world.

a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Why are you so bitter? Its because you have no rational argument left so you have to resort to insult.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Wonderful!

10,000,000 years, gives us 10,000,000 errors affecting the code, such that what was first coded as a perfect being, fit for survival in its environment, is now horribly degraded & less fit for the environment as that environment is modified by the weathering effects of geological time. A horribly degraded encoded creature is now dying off, and only those of its relatives which by fortune have retained more of their original perfect coding (IE - those beings with far less errors in their encoding sequences) can be strong enough to adapt to the changing circumstances of geological time. Errors in the coding (mutations) make a creature less fit for survival through degradation which the tendencies towards entropy as described by thermodynamics suggests is inevitable. If we become adept in the biological sciences we may be able to tinker with the coding of various among our fellow creatures, hence we can breed new types of goats, cattle, sheep, dogs & so on. But this is an art of selecting highly fit specimens, with a quirk of a mutation which we think is kinda cool, which we select for in our breeding program. But this is guided evolution, breeding largely entirely fit creatures with a few tactically inserted lines of code via the quirky one-off mutation donkey that we happen to like, because of its stubby, muscular legs, perfect for carrying heavy loads over long distance.

Now we get into the matter of how we achieved a perfectly encoded being at the beginning, which then degrades..? In my opinion, the majority of the 'stock' of creatures useful to humanity (IE those with primary & important uses - such as sheep for wool, cattle for milk, dogs for a huge variety of purposes including hunting & guard duties) were transplanted from another Earth somewhere else, where some of these creatures had evolved naturally, while others had themselves been transplanted from earlier expeditions from other Earths before then, by custodians entrusted with that purpose (ad infinitum).

I believe that in this expeditionary manner, generations after generations, a crew of 'Watchers' (guardians & husbandry specialists) utilised a database of useful creatures, compiled & transplanted here under the auspices of a massive genetic engineering program, to populate the Earth with creatures good & pleasant for the use of the Humans who were themselves created whole cloth, in a perfect form, with perfect encoding in their genetic profile - strong, physically elegant, intelligent, sentient - the soon to be custodians & stewards over this marvellous Garden of Paradise that was entrusted to them.

Later, the divine right of Kingship in a certain place was approbated to a single man, 'perfect in his generations', the once & future king chosen from the earliest among us, with a name not given to him of his own accord, which forever would be enshrined in legend - this was Adam, his wife named Eve, and they represented the first in lineage of the nation that was to come, Israel - recorded as being selected by God to inherit the promise of glorious life to all nations under the Sun, for the time of His own incarnation as one of us.

You know the rest...

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: neoholographic

It blows my mind that humans who are capable of intelligent discourse are using that privilege to try to argue that there is no intelligence involved in our world.

Exactly! It makes no sense.

They don't know the origin of life they don't know the origin of information encoded on a storage medium, they don't know the origins of the organization of information and they don't know the origins of modularity wchich are a hallmarks of intelligent design yet they still believe in the impossibility that randomness can create modular designs to carry out different tasks.

a reply to: neoholographic

They don't know the origin of life they don't know the origin of information encoded on a storage medium, they don't know the origins of the organization of information and they don't know the origins of modularity wchich are a hallmarks of intelligent design yet they still believe in the impossibility that randomness can create modular designs to carry out different tasks.

Oh great one, please answer all these questions for us. Please show us the empirical experimental science that led you to these discoveries. Oh great one, we wait patiently for your divine wisdom. Until such time, I will rely on my inhaler for relief.

A being of water from this era of earth... creating her thoughts... puts us in a predicament.

Thought like all of the seasons are only applicable during it's appropriate tenure.

Like dead skin dying and falling off for the new...
We must create a designer, soon it must be killed...
That is the natural law, plenty try deviating... they still die alone, chaff like the smartest genius... as the most unintelligent handicapped...
Make no mistake, we are still earth and only earth...
But the earth also came from the same exact micro dot of nothing... And back into that singular insignificant pulse shall she go...
We will fall and evaporate too and fro with our best friends, the clouds... that's not necessarily bad nor spectacular,

naturally...

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: neoholographic

It blows my mind that humans who are capable of intelligent discourse are using that privilege to try to argue that there is no intelligence involved in our world.

Exactly! It makes no sense.

They don't know the origin of life they don't know the origin of information encoded on a storage medium, they don't know the origins of the organization of information and they don't know the origins of modularity wchich are a hallmarks of intelligent design yet they still believe in the impossibility that randomness can create modular designs to carry out different tasks.

a reply to: cooperton

Ahh yes, because the genetic code doesn't give you a good enough hint that there is a Coder.

Because it isn't actually a 'code' in the way that a computer program or Morse code is a code.

Its a process involving molecules whose chemical and physical properties define reactions that govern the interactions between those molecules.

Describing it as a 'code' is merely a (more or less lazy) convenient shorthand description for a MODEL of that process.

The MAP is NOT the TERRITORY

Confusing the use of the SHORTHAND description of a MODEL of a process for the ACTUALITY of the very complicated concept is putting up a wall between you and the possibility of ever understanding the actuality of existence. You will never understand until you learn and internalize the difference between a model and the actuality that the model seeks to describe in simple terms.

a reply to: cooperton

Stubborn subjectivity is not the answer. Regardless of any purpose we "give" to gravity, it still perpetuates at a predictable rate. We didn't contrive gravity with our imagination, we identified the acceleration rate that this intelligible law imposes on objects on earth. Anything that acts according to mathematical predictability by definition has an objective truth to it... these Laws were implemented by something Intelligent.

Your 'answer' is a non-sequitur.

You are asking about assigning meaning to evolutionary processes, not gravity. If you want to bring gravity into the discussion for a comparison point then you have to ask what meaning is there to gravity. And the answer will be the same: the only meaning to gravity is that which we assign OURSELVES.

Gravity just is. Evolution just is. Both gravity and evolution are ESSENTIAL EXISTENTIAL FEATURES of the Universe.

That is worth repeating: their EXISTENCE is not open to question - they are existential FEATURES of the Universe.

We don't actually know WHY gravity is or exactly HOW it works and that doesn't change the fact of its existence. We know a lot more about evolution that we do about gravity, but what we do know enables us to fly airplanes and land men on the moon.

a reply to: neoholographic

I didn't say the IQ test were perfect but it does quantify intelligence.

No. An IQ test DOES NOT quantify intelligence. It just doesn't.

An IQ test measures how well a person performs on a particular test that someone has labeled 'IQ Test'. That's it. No more, no less.

I grant you that lots of very 'intelligent' psychologists have spent lifetimes trying to figure out different angles for approaching the measuring intelligence, but its just too slippery a concept - there are thousands of aspects to whatever it is that makes up what we think of as 'intelligence'.

No psychologist worth their PhD will ever tell you any different.

originally posted by: rnaa

Because it isn't actually a 'code' in the way that a computer program or Morse code is a code.

Its a process involving molecules whose chemical and physical properties define reactions that govern the interactions between those molecules.

Describing it as a 'code' is merely a (more or less lazy) convenient shorthand description for a MODEL of that process.

It's actually a very accurate description. Polymerase enzymes literally parse the code to either copy it (ctrl+c) or submit its data to further parsing as an mRNA strand which codes for the hardware of the biological system (proteins). Polymerase also looks for errors to correct in the code. There's biofeedback mechanisms that resemble algorithmic if-else programming in computers. There is Homeostatic control in biological organisms much like a cooling fan or voltage regulator in a computer. There are even biological termination mechanisms (i.e. apoptosis) which are like a failsafe mechanism to help save the computer as a whole.

originally posted by: rnaa
We know a lot more about evolution that we do about gravity

Gravity is repeatable in a lab, and has remained consistent throughout known history. Evolution has never been observed in a lab. No population of organisms has ever evolved into something else, despite over 100 years of trying with artificial selection. Gravity and evolution are opposites... Gravity is demonstrable in a lab, evolution is not.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution has never been observed in a lab. No population of organisms has ever evolved into something else, despite over 100 years of trying with artificial selection.

Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.

In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species -- a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The virus is still a virus. Organisms can adapt, but they can't evolve into something else.

a reply to: cooperton

Speciation IS evolution. Evolutionary biology NEVER said that a virus turned into a dog or a cat turning into a bacteria. Please cite a textbook that says the above.

Speciation:

Speciation is an evolutionary process by which a new species comes into being. A species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another to produce fertile offspring and is reproductively isolated from other organisms.