In response to a certain idea put forward regarding the inability of natural selection to create neural structures capable of arriving at or determining true ideas or beliefs.
- i.e. The frog believes eating the fly will turn it back into a prince. Or something.... -
Say what???
(Fer determinin' tru beleefs ta okur we rekwahrs, G! On account'a G is th' only'est sorce a nolledge bout anythin wurth knowin what ther iz! Ur so this hyar pertikaler theist sez. Sept he sez it with lots o' big wurds an fermyulaz, an such lahk. Them durn theists, they's persistent! Ah'll give em thet!)
- This is part of the never ending nonsense theists engage in left and right. Like attempting to calculate probabilities, after the fact. [1] Which is just about the most pointless and futile exercise there is, and which, realistically, can't be done. (At least according to all the genuine mathematicians/statisticians I've read to date.)[2] I mean, you can play with all sorts of numbers, (but you have to make them up, because you have no actual data...), and say you're calculating actual probabilities.
But you're not.
Q. What are the actual odds of life arising on earth?
A. 1 in 1, or 100%, unless I miss my guess.
To give them credit, it looks really impressive, cause it looks just like real math! (Just like theology speak sounds like it should mean something. But if you parse the sentence, it, (any actual meaning)[3], kinda disappears in a puff of hot air.) But that's what ya gotta do when you start from the premise that G exists!
If the existence of G is a given, then everything else has to be made to fit, no matter how much damage you have to do to it to make it give the forgone conclusion. -
Regarding evolved neural networks inability ascertain truth or falsehood, I posit the following, (and really, I'm certain the frog itself doesn't have any beliefs regarding the fly. Beliefs about the fly are irrelevant. Anyway, even if it could think, should the frog take the time to think about the fly, the frog will starve), hypothesis.
Faulty reality testing will be strongly selected against.
(This is, in fact, not at all subtle, and is constantly observed, i.e. "I know I can levitate you! Trust me! Go ahead and step off the cliff. You won't plummet to a gruesome death on the razor sharp rocks 1,000 feet below. I promise!" But, even if it were subtle, and not easily observed, it could easily be tested. Though certain forms of testing would definitely be unethical, if not immoral. (See above.))
or
Any sensory system which is incapable of determining, accurately, what is actually going on out there, by itself, or in combination with, a downstream neural system which is also incapable of accurately interpreting that data, in order to determine an appropriate course of action, will be highly, (and swiftly), selected against.
One of the many reasons that neural and brain systems DO NOT function as digital serial devices is really quite simple. Just think about it for a minute. A single corrupted bit, (and yeah, before you even start, I know bit is singular, and I'm being redundant. Lord give me strength! Just come over here - so I can smack you! Computer geeks, jeez.... Get A Life!), anyway, a single corrupted bit will cause a digital computer to either crash, or give a grossly incorrect result.
So - just imagine the reproductive success rate of a creature whose processor seizes up completely, or has to "reboot", every time there's a hiccup in the system. (Say an unconstrained or missing variable.) While that creature is rebooting, I, with my naturally selected, sloppy, noise tolerant, massively parallel processing systems, (yes, systems, plural), am having that creature for lunch.
(I hope it's yummy!)
Burp!
Which is not to say that these systems cannot be hijacked by other life forms for other purposes, (see: the insect mimic orchids). The fun thing is this, the orchid does such a good job of being a female wasp that, according to the input received, the male wasp is not making a mistake, misinterpreting data, or engaging in false belief, when it tries to boink the flower! (Yes, we are ALL like that.) The wasp is doing the best it can with the limited processing power it has available. (Who'd think a plant could be so clever? Well, it's not! There's no clever involved, if it doesn't fool the wasp, it doesn't reproduce either.) Also observe, there is usually little cost to the insect for the mistake, merely the loss of a mating opportunity, often balanced by the acquisition of calories.
Another point to be made here is the very bad choice/design, (you know, we need a word that doesn't have the connotations/baggage that design/choice, etc have. I'll work on it....), inherent in this degree of specificity. To whit, if anything happens to that particular wasp species, that particular orchid species is in deep, deep, shit.
Which is NOT what one expects from an Omniscient designer....
Still it seems to me, (though I admittedly have no Phd, and therefore lack any qualifications to speak about anything), that natural selection would tend to evolve systems that are very good at quick and dirty determination of true vs false "beliefs".
Still, why are we so bad at certain forms of reasoning?
My belief, (that's toooo funny), is that those forms of reasoning provided no natural survival or reproductive advantage.
Seriously, algebra, while useful under certain circumstances, is really no help whatsoever when hunting, or gathering, or courting the cutie from the next village. (I can guarantee you, women who think your ability to do proofs in your head is HOT, and would be willing to fuck you because of it, are few and far between, if they exist at all - but that's an ontological question, so I'm not gonna pursue it here.) However, if the ability to do algebra means the King uses you to keep track of certain things, for which you are amply compensated, with status, and funds, you will be able to acquire that hot cutie! (She'll still fuck the boneheaded, but hunky! soldier anyway, however, if she's smart, she'll still come home to you, and hope to fool you into raising her babies. "Oh look honey, isn't he cute? And he's got your eyes!" But hey, life's not perfect.) And anyway, if you've got money and status, there will be competition for your attentions among the other nubile cuties too. (As many a woman who's married a rock star, millionaire, or golf pro, has found to her chagrin and sorrow.) And yea, verily I say unto thee, thusly shall thine algebra gene spreadeth throughout the kingdom, even unto the fourth generation.
But I could be mistaken.
Nevertheless, I do have to make the observation that in the contest between the use of pure reason, (unconstrained by actual data), to make sense of the world, and experimental systems, which accumulate data sets and engage in proposed hypothesis testing against the actual observed results, it's pretty clear which is the winner. Leastways if you're reading this on the lcd screen of your laptop, (as opposed to consulting a crystal ball, or your local medium).
- i.e. The frog believes eating the fly will turn it back into a prince. Or something.... -
Say what???
(Fer determinin' tru beleefs ta okur we rekwahrs, G! On account'a G is th' only'est sorce a nolledge bout anythin wurth knowin what ther iz! Ur so this hyar pertikaler theist sez. Sept he sez it with lots o' big wurds an fermyulaz, an such lahk. Them durn theists, they's persistent! Ah'll give em thet!)
- This is part of the never ending nonsense theists engage in left and right. Like attempting to calculate probabilities, after the fact. [1] Which is just about the most pointless and futile exercise there is, and which, realistically, can't be done. (At least according to all the genuine mathematicians/statisticians I've read to date.)[2] I mean, you can play with all sorts of numbers, (but you have to make them up, because you have no actual data...), and say you're calculating actual probabilities.
But you're not.
Q. What are the actual odds of life arising on earth?
A. 1 in 1, or 100%, unless I miss my guess.
To give them credit, it looks really impressive, cause it looks just like real math! (Just like theology speak sounds like it should mean something. But if you parse the sentence, it, (any actual meaning)[3], kinda disappears in a puff of hot air.) But that's what ya gotta do when you start from the premise that G exists!
If the existence of G is a given, then everything else has to be made to fit, no matter how much damage you have to do to it to make it give the forgone conclusion. -
Regarding evolved neural networks inability ascertain truth or falsehood, I posit the following, (and really, I'm certain the frog itself doesn't have any beliefs regarding the fly. Beliefs about the fly are irrelevant. Anyway, even if it could think, should the frog take the time to think about the fly, the frog will starve), hypothesis.
Faulty reality testing will be strongly selected against.
(This is, in fact, not at all subtle, and is constantly observed, i.e. "I know I can levitate you! Trust me! Go ahead and step off the cliff. You won't plummet to a gruesome death on the razor sharp rocks 1,000 feet below. I promise!" But, even if it were subtle, and not easily observed, it could easily be tested. Though certain forms of testing would definitely be unethical, if not immoral. (See above.))
or
Any sensory system which is incapable of determining, accurately, what is actually going on out there, by itself, or in combination with, a downstream neural system which is also incapable of accurately interpreting that data, in order to determine an appropriate course of action, will be highly, (and swiftly), selected against.
One of the many reasons that neural and brain systems DO NOT function as digital serial devices is really quite simple. Just think about it for a minute. A single corrupted bit, (and yeah, before you even start, I know bit is singular, and I'm being redundant. Lord give me strength! Just come over here - so I can smack you! Computer geeks, jeez.... Get A Life!), anyway, a single corrupted bit will cause a digital computer to either crash, or give a grossly incorrect result.
So - just imagine the reproductive success rate of a creature whose processor seizes up completely, or has to "reboot", every time there's a hiccup in the system. (Say an unconstrained or missing variable.) While that creature is rebooting, I, with my naturally selected, sloppy, noise tolerant, massively parallel processing systems, (yes, systems, plural), am having that creature for lunch.
(I hope it's yummy!)
Burp!
Which is not to say that these systems cannot be hijacked by other life forms for other purposes, (see: the insect mimic orchids). The fun thing is this, the orchid does such a good job of being a female wasp that, according to the input received, the male wasp is not making a mistake, misinterpreting data, or engaging in false belief, when it tries to boink the flower! (Yes, we are ALL like that.) The wasp is doing the best it can with the limited processing power it has available. (Who'd think a plant could be so clever? Well, it's not! There's no clever involved, if it doesn't fool the wasp, it doesn't reproduce either.) Also observe, there is usually little cost to the insect for the mistake, merely the loss of a mating opportunity, often balanced by the acquisition of calories.
Another point to be made here is the very bad choice/design, (you know, we need a word that doesn't have the connotations/baggage that design/choice, etc have. I'll work on it....), inherent in this degree of specificity. To whit, if anything happens to that particular wasp species, that particular orchid species is in deep, deep, shit.
Which is NOT what one expects from an Omniscient designer....
Still it seems to me, (though I admittedly have no Phd, and therefore lack any qualifications to speak about anything), that natural selection would tend to evolve systems that are very good at quick and dirty determination of true vs false "beliefs".
Still, why are we so bad at certain forms of reasoning?
My belief, (that's toooo funny), is that those forms of reasoning provided no natural survival or reproductive advantage.
Seriously, algebra, while useful under certain circumstances, is really no help whatsoever when hunting, or gathering, or courting the cutie from the next village. (I can guarantee you, women who think your ability to do proofs in your head is HOT, and would be willing to fuck you because of it, are few and far between, if they exist at all - but that's an ontological question, so I'm not gonna pursue it here.) However, if the ability to do algebra means the King uses you to keep track of certain things, for which you are amply compensated, with status, and funds, you will be able to acquire that hot cutie! (She'll still fuck the boneheaded, but hunky! soldier anyway, however, if she's smart, she'll still come home to you, and hope to fool you into raising her babies. "Oh look honey, isn't he cute? And he's got your eyes!" But hey, life's not perfect.) And anyway, if you've got money and status, there will be competition for your attentions among the other nubile cuties too. (As many a woman who's married a rock star, millionaire, or golf pro, has found to her chagrin and sorrow.) And yea, verily I say unto thee, thusly shall thine algebra gene spreadeth throughout the kingdom, even unto the fourth generation.
But I could be mistaken.
Nevertheless, I do have to make the observation that in the contest between the use of pure reason, (unconstrained by actual data), to make sense of the world, and experimental systems, which accumulate data sets and engage in proposed hypothesis testing against the actual observed results, it's pretty clear which is the winner. Leastways if you're reading this on the lcd screen of your laptop, (as opposed to consulting a crystal ball, or your local medium).
2. Appeal to authority! appeal to authority! Logical fallacy!!! Gotcha!!!
3. Deconstructionists ALL go to Hell! Where they and the Post Modernists will then spend eternity tormenting each other. (And you thought The Eternal Lake of Fire was bad....)
No comments:
Post a Comment