Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 11-26-2002, 07:14 AM

In <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000722&p=" target="_blank">this very interesting thread in EoG,</a> long winded fool (the name makes me grin every time I address him!) is using a computer program as an analogy for the universe, and stating that a program requires a programmer. (I of course think he is mistaken, but I do *not* think he is a fool!)

Now, I recall a Scientific American article from some time back, which talked about the use of a digital simulation of evolution to generate 'programmerless' programs, which randomly evolved and were selected for their problem-solving abilities. I'm sure this subject has been brought up here many times; I would appreciate it if some of you could point me to some on-line articles or posts, which I can use for evidence to refute lwf's insistence that a Programmer is a necessity for a program/universe. I also ask for any of the specialists on evolution to post in that thread; I think it's one of those rare ones which overlap the topics of both EoG and E/C. J.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 11-26-2002, 07:31 AM

The problem with searching for "programmer less programs" is that, even in those examples, a minor program was put into place to generate them--meaning there is indeed a programmer.

Your best bet would be to simply say his analogy is false--programs are designed with results of some sort intended, the universe has no intent in and of itself. Because of this baisc dissimilarity, his analogy fails.

JayAitch · 11-26-2002, 09:27 AM

It seems to me that the obvious place to look for "unprogrammed programs" is the brain - (and I am NOT trying to equate intelligence, conciousness etc. with a computer program!).

I am no expert in these matters, but it appears the brain does more than supporting conciousness and cognition. For instance, looking at my monitor, my eye responds merely to variations in colour and light intensity but my conciousness 'sees' words with meaning. Between the two, I seem to recall learning, portions of the brain are automatically executing what amounts to sophisticated signal processing and pattern matching algorithms. I think these must qualify as programs.

semyaza · 11-26-2002, 09:34 AM

Useful place to start: <a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/rl_alife.htm" target="_blank">Artificial Life and Evolutionary Computing</a>

You may also want to do a Google search for 'Cellular Automata', 'Genetic Algorithms' or 'Genetic Programming'. It's a pretty wide field.

Happy Wonderer · 11-26-2002, 01:21 PM

You can tell him that this analogy is a beautiful example of the difference between science and apologetics. Apologetics relies extensivly on analogies and "it stands to reason..." sorts of arguments, science relies on observations. One can easily observe the differences between a computer program and the universe...

Analogies are not argument. You cannot convict a person based upon an analogy, nor can you come to any scientific conclusion based upon one. The ancients used to practice science based upon analogies and they didn't do a tremendously good job of explaining the world. The scientific method came about because we eventually realized that the human mind has an immense capacity for deceiving itself. By any objective standard the scientific method works far better than any previous method.

What confuses the apologists is that analogies are sometimes used as a shorthand or prop in science. Humans have a limited capacity to read and process information, so writers often use methods to "gloss over" details that are not critical to the explanation. For example, one may describe two molcules as having an "affinity" for each other. This doesn't mean that they are acting like humans in love, but that they have complicated physical properties that draw them together.

HW

scigirl · 11-26-2002, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer:
For example, one may describe two molcules as having an "affinity" for each other. This doesn't mean that they are acting like humans in love, but that they have complicated physical properties that draw them together.

Oh damn! So when I stated on a bio test that a promiscuos receptor "had sex with lots of other receptors," that was actually wrong?

Good point about analogies and science. We use analogies constantly, but at some point they do break down because they are just analogies.

scigirl

HomerOfBorg · 11-26-2002, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
[QB] I would appreciate it if some of you could point me to some on-line articles or posts, which I can use for evidence to refute lwf's insistence that a Programmer is a necessity for a program/universe. [QB]

These articles are close. I kept these from a long time ago because they are fun to read:

<a href="http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu/pr/golem/" target="_blank">The Golem Project</a>

<a href="http://xxx.infidels.org/~meta/getalife/index.html" target="_blank">Get A-Life</a> Page 4.

Zentraedi · 11-27-2002, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Christ:
<strong>The problem with searching for "programmer less programs" is that, even in those examples, a minor program was put into place to generate them--meaning there is indeed a programmer.

Your best bet would be to simply say his analogy is false--programs are designed with results of some sort intended, the universe has no intent in and of itself. Because of this baisc dissimilarity, his analogy fails.</strong>

That is your own assumption that the universe has no intent in and of itself. The universe could be just one atom a god's toe for all you know.

11-26-2002, 07:14 AM	#1
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Programmerless programs In <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000722&p=" target="_blank">this very interesting thread in EoG,</a> long winded fool (the name makes me grin every time I address him!) is using a computer program as an analogy for the universe, and stating that a program requires a programmer. (I of course think he is mistaken, but I do not think he is a fool!) Now, I recall a Scientific American article from some time back, which talked about the use of a digital simulation of evolution to generate 'programmerless' programs, which randomly evolved and were selected for their problem-solving abilities. I'm sure this subject has been brought up here many times; I would appreciate it if some of you could point me to some on-line articles or posts, which I can use for evidence to refute lwf's insistence that a Programmer is a necessity for a program/universe. I also ask for any of the specialists on evolution to post in that thread; I think it's one of those rare ones which overlap the topics of both EoG and E/C. J.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2002, 07:31 AM	#2
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	The problem with searching for "programmer less programs" is that, even in those examples, a minor program was put into place to generate them--meaning there is indeed a programmer. Your best bet would be to simply say his analogy is false--programs are designed with results of some sort intended, the universe has no intent in and of itself. Because of this baisc dissimilarity, his analogy fails.

11-26-2002, 09:27 AM	#3
JayAitch Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 7	It seems to me that the obvious place to look for "unprogrammed programs" is the brain - (and I am NOT trying to equate intelligence, conciousness etc. with a computer program!). I am no expert in these matters, but it appears the brain does more than supporting conciousness and cognition. For instance, looking at my monitor, my eye responds merely to variations in colour and light intensity but my conciousness 'sees' words with meaning. Between the two, I seem to recall learning, portions of the brain are automatically executing what amounts to sophisticated signal processing and pattern matching algorithms. I think these must qualify as programs.

11-26-2002, 09:34 AM	#4
semyaza Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 104	Useful place to start: <a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/rl_alife.htm" target="_blank">Artificial Life and Evolutionary Computing</a> You may also want to do a Google search for 'Cellular Automata', 'Genetic Algorithms' or 'Genetic Programming'. It's a pretty wide field.

11-26-2002, 01:21 PM	#5
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	You can tell him that this analogy is a beautiful example of the difference between science and apologetics. Apologetics relies extensivly on analogies and "it stands to reason..." sorts of arguments, science relies on observations. One can easily observe the differences between a computer program and the universe... Analogies are not argument. You cannot convict a person based upon an analogy, nor can you come to any scientific conclusion based upon one. The ancients used to practice science based upon analogies and they didn't do a tremendously good job of explaining the world. The scientific method came about because we eventually realized that the human mind has an immense capacity for deceiving itself. By any objective standard the scientific method works far better than any previous method. What confuses the apologists is that analogies are sometimes used as a shorthand or prop in science. Humans have a limited capacity to read and process information, so writers often use methods to "gloss over" details that are not critical to the explanation. For example, one may describe two molcules as having an "affinity" for each other. This doesn't mean that they are acting like humans in love, but that they have complicated physical properties that draw them together. HW

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.