Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution Was the Key in Joseph Campbell’s Loss of Faith

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Joseph Campbell died in 1987 but remains influential. In this revealing video, Campbell clarifies why he left the Roman Catholic faith of his youth — EVOLUTION:

While many try to reconcile their faith with evolution, many find in evolution reason to leave the faith. Just because there’s no strict contradiction between the two doesn’t mean that the two aren’t in tension. Campbell felt the tension and left the faith.

SOURCE: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJmNBxbExuA

Postscript [added 06.14.09, 7:40AM CST]: It’s interesting to see Campbell disparage the biblical cosmology for being several millennia old and thus out of touch with current cosmologies — myths that impact our lives being myths that are compatible with contemporary cosmologies, according to Campbell. But when I studied ancient near eastern cosmologies at Princeton Theological Seminary, I found an interesting thing: they divided into cosmologies in which creation occurs through a spoken word by a supreme deity (the biblical cosmology was not unique in this regard) and cosmologies in which natural forces evolve and do all the creating, producing better and more powerful deities as time flows along (e.g., the Babylonian creation, in which Marduk is born several generations down and finally becomes the chief god). Given that this is an information age and that the Bible teaches that God created the world through a spoken word, would it not follow that the biblical cosmology is actually back in the saddle and ready again to engage culture? It would seem then that the provenance and length of time that a cosmology has been with us need not sap it of its cultural relevance or impact.

Comments
jerry @ 114
But none of the letters in the book change. What are the odds of this happening when they are allowed to change?
It is actually possible to figure that out. I created a weasel program that works as Dawkins described (with no latching), but it also counts the number of times that a generation loses a character that had already been found. Out of 50,000 runs of the program 211 runs had at least one generation where a character was lost. So the odds that Dawkins would stumble on one of the cases where a character was lost is about 1 in 236. Actually the odds are even worse then that since Dawkins only showed every tenth generation or so, so even if there was a character lost it might not show up in the sampled generations.sethev
June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
The more Darwinists try to defend the Weasel program the less impressed I am with their reasoning skills. If you took Dawkins' original source code from decades ago and compiled and ran it on a modern machine, it would more or less instantaneously print out the string. If you then looked at the source code you'd see that the string was part of the program before it even ran. Any sane person would conclude that the program was simply designed to output a string that was already there. The proper response to the program is a simple "so the hell what?" Methinks the program "Methinks it is like a weasel" is like a weasel!Matteo
June 19, 2009
June
06
Jun
19
19
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
jerry:
First, I have put up links for both Monash programs. I suggest you follow them.
Ah, thank you for pointing me to the GA version of weasel. I was wrong in saying that Monash has only one program. I apologize.
The second program is labeled as similar to Dawkins latter program.
I'm confused as to which you're calling "first" and which you're calling "second". Monash calls them "Richard Dawkins' Weasel" and "Genetic Algorithm Weasel," but they each differ from the algorithm in TBW in different ways. The GA Weasel employs crossover, which results in very different behavior from the algorithm in TBW.
So I do not understand the point that the letters are different in the book from the random set that the Monash programs starts with.
That's not the point. The point is that the first two generations of the TBW algorithm yield almost identical strings, while the first two generations of the Monash algorithm yield almost completely different strings.
It seems to me that the Monash program should actually converge quicker than one where only a limited number of letters can change.
You have to take into account population size along with mutation rate.
But the odds point to some fixed model.
How do you figure?
Also there is no indication that the mutation rate is the same for correct vs. incorrect letters.
And there's no indication that the mutation rate is the same for the letter A vs. the letter B. But if there were more than one mutation rate, you would think he would say so in his description. Instead, he says, "It now 'breeds from' this random phrase. It duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error -- 'mutation' -- in the copying." Of course this doesn't prove wrong those who assume that Dawkins employed multiple mutation rates, but that assumption doesn't seem very parsimonious.
Except that the correct letters never vary in any of the examples and in some of the latter iterations over 20 letters are correct so there would seem to be a high probability of one or more changing out.
That's true only in the case of a small population and/or high mutation rate.
The most amusing thing about this is why people try to defend one position versus the other like it was life threatening or really meant something.
Agreed. And yet here we are defending our positions. But I'm not under the illusion that this discussion, or any of the other discussions on this site, really mean something. This is just an entertaining diversion.R0b
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
"In general, these algorithms, called mu,lambda evolution strategies, do not fix individual parts of the genome." Well maybe they should. If the letters represent traits then it is unlikely a trait will switch out to something not functional which is what changing the letters would indicate. There are error correcting mechanisms in the genome that prevent this so to lose a trait would be highly unlikely. So once a letter (trait) is at a desirable place, biological processes put a strong hold on it to remain the same. So someone thinking biology when looking at this example, might naturally think once correct it would be fixed or highly unlikely to switch out. Thus a fixed model or one that is essentially fixed is more accurate. If the letters are supposed to be amino acids, then I guess changes in each letter may be appropriate. Maybe the biologists should think it out. Either way, the actually simulation is amusing but nothing else.jerry
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
R0b, Two things. First, I have put up links for both Monash programs. I suggest you follow them. The second program is labeled as similar to Dawkins latter program. Whether Dawkins had more than one program is a trivial question (and a really unimportant one since the program has nothing to do with simulating evolution so to argue over it is pointless.) Second, the program starts with a random set of letters so they will not be the same as the Dawkins book. The Blind Watchmaker uses three sets of an initial 28 letters and it is unlikely that you will ever see that same set of letters in any future simulation. So I do not understand the point that the letters are different in the book from the random set that the Monash programs starts with. Because as you said the mutation rates are different for the fixed Monash program it is not the same as for the Dawkins program but I fail to see where it would make much of a difference for the fixed program. The non fixed letters are fungible so where they start each time seems to be irrelevant. It seems to me that the Monash program should actually converge quicker than one where only a limited number of letters can change. Because every non fixed letter has a chance of becoming fixed while if only a few changed each time then only these few could potentially become fixed in the next round. I believe the second Monash program tried to mimic the program that Dawkins eventually had. Whether the latter Dawkins' program is the same as his initial program is impossible to tell from the examples in the book. But the odds point to some fixed model. "Dawkins’ version, which he describes in the book, has multiple offspring per generation, and there is no indication that the mutation rate is any different for correct vs. incorrect letters." Also there is no indication that the mutation rate is the same for correct vs. incorrect letters. Except that the correct letters never vary in any of the examples and in some of the latter iterations over 20 letters are correct so there would seem to be a high probability of one or more changing out. I understand that only every 10 iterations are listed but it seems unlikely one out of this many would switch out. So if one was examining the examples from the book, it would make sense to assume these letters were fixed. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is over. As I said it is pointless to discuss this frivolous example. The most amusing thing about this is why people try to defend one position versus the other like it was life threatening or really meant something.jerry
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
P.S. Because the Monash algorithm has a population of one, it does not involve selection. Selection was the point that Dawkins was illustrating with Weasel.R0b
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Well jerry, looks like our fear of resurrecting this monster has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Monash had two Weasel programs. The first one fixes a letter once it was chosen and the second one allowed the letter to vary.
Monash currently has one program, which implements the algorithm that Dembski calls a "partitioned search," complete with latching. I don't see any indication of any other program on their site, although they do acknowledge that their algorithm differs from Dawkins'.
So one can see if the second program was used why one would think the first one was the actual program.
In [107] I showed the first two generations reported in Dawkins' book, compared with the first two generations from the Monash version. It's immediately apparent that they aren't the same algorithm.
The book also shows an extremely rapid convergence on the target string. Is such a rapid convergence possible with the second program?
You bet. It all depends on the population size and mutation rate.
Also notice that Dawkins was extremely sloppy in the book. The first example starts out with 27 letters and the second example starts out with 29 letters when the target is 28 letters. If you look at the second line of each example you can determine the missing letter in example 1 and the added letter in example 2.
Yeah, there were definitely some typos.
The book certainly suggests the first program from Monash or a similar program was used where the letters are fixed and the second program was used in latter instances.
Monash's version has only one offspring per generation, and has a mutation rate of 100% for incorrect letters and 0% for correct letters. Dawkins' version, which he describes in the book, has multiple offspring per generation, and there is no indication that the mutation rate is any different for correct vs. incorrect letters.R0b
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
Mr Jerry, There was a lot of that kind of analysis carried during the quasi-latching war, and more is available over at AtBC. You would actually have to write extra code to make the letters fix, the text is describing a simple algorithm, and would have need to go on and say explicitly that letters fix if that was the behavior desired. In general, these algorithms, called mu,lambda evolution strategies, do not fix individual parts of the genome. Really, you should go over to AtBC, you are famous there!Nakashima
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
"The text of the book clearly describes the algorithm, which does not mention fixing letters." But none of the letters in the book change. What are the odds of this happening when they are allowed to change? "The scant evidence in the book is consistent with the algorithm described in the text. " There is nothing in the book that says the letters can be deselected and in fact none are. A latter example on television showed some of the letters were deselected. The data in the book is more in sync with the fixed algorithm. "There is no need to assume the program was changed to a different algorithm. There are many kinds of evolutionary algorithm, and the one described can have rapid convergence to a solution on such a simple problem as Weasel." I asked about this but no one provided parameters that even got close to 41 or 43 iterations. The fixed program does this often. If one was analyzing the data from the book, the obvious conclusion was that a fixed program was used. But whether is was one or the other is meaningless since the algorithm is meaningless. It makes nice cocktail party discussion but nothing more.jerry
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
herb, There were a couple threads here a few months ago on this and the total comments were close to a thousand or more. Most of it seemed to be over whether the first Monash program or something similar was used or whether the second program was used. The discussion was complete and utter inanity. Here are the links to the two Monash programs. Play with them and have fun. Fixes letters: http://vlab.infotech.monash.edu.au/simulations/evolution/richard-dawkin-weasel/ There is a link on the above page that takes you to another program that allows for letters to vary once selected and allows for other inputs such as mutation rate and population size. Here is that link http://vlab.infotech.monash.edu.au/simulations/evolution/genetic-algorithm-weasel/jerry
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
Mr Herb, The text of the book clearly describes the algorithm, which does not mention fixing letters. The scant evidence in the book is consistent with the algorithm described in the text. The operation of the program shown in the video is consistent with the text. There is no need to assume the program was changed to a different algorithm. There are many kinds of evolutionary algorithm, and the one described can have rapid convergence to a solution on such a simple problem as Weasel.Nakashima
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
jerry,
The book certainly suggests the first program from Monash or a similar program was used where the letters are fixed and the second program was used in latter instances.
Interesting---thanks for this background info. I wonder why Dawkings would switch algorithms? Perhaps readers of the book tried to replicate his results and found it didn't work as he had claimed.herb
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Monash had two Weasel programs. The first one fixes a letter once it was chosen and the second one allowed the letter to vary. The question is which one better fits what was used for the examples in the Blind Watchmaker. We know the second one was used at a later date. Though only a few lines were illustrated (six for each example), the book does not show any letters changing once chosen (it is always possible to make a mistake since these letter sequences can be confusing.) So one can see if the second program was used why one would think the first one was the actual program. The book also shows an extremely rapid convergence on the target string. Is such a rapid convergence possible with the second program? It is certainly possible with the first one. Thus, it seems like from the data used in the book, the first program which fixes the letters was an obvious choice for what was used. Also notice that Dawkins was extremely sloppy in the book. The first example starts out with 27 letters and the second example starts out with 29 letters when the target is 28 letters. If you look at the second line of each example you can determine the missing letter in example 1 and the added letter in example 2. The book certainly suggests the first program from Monash or a similar program was used where the letters are fixed and the second program was used in latter instances.jerry
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Mr RDK, I think the important point is to choose our models carefully, and be explicit about what parts of the real world we think they model. Forcing a model outside of its area of applicability is a huge problem.Nakashima
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Vjtorley, Dusinane, Those are interesting resources, a bit out of date for understanding the current state of research in the field but fine for getting a basic understanding. I'm very happy I could help provide a new set of background for you. The Countdown game looks like a kind of knapsack problem, but I might be wrong. An interesting test case for EC systems, nonetheless. Koza deals with a similar problem in evolving symbolic regression expressions in GP vol 1.Nakashima
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
To correct myself: The results of the Monash algorithm are NOT compatible with the results reported in Dawkins' book. Here are the first two generations reported by Dawkins (with a typo corrected): WDLDMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P and from Monash: zdctdj mdhbhkueohnrxjoxigojlw gcntjfnrh gzjyinwglswuxfmrrfh The difference should be obvious.R0b
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
jerry:
Given the results published in the Blind Watchmaker, which Monash program best fits the computer program that generated them? I am afraid to ask such a question on the remote chance that it will get the whole inane debate started over again.
At the risk of reigniting said debate, I'll answer. Monash has only one version of Weasel, AFAIK, and its algorithm matches the Partitioned Search algorithm on the evoinfo.org site. The Monash results are compatible with the results reported in The Blind Watchmaker, but the algorithm does not match the algorithm described in TBW.R0b
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
RDK, Thanks for responding. But we do act out of instinct! We aren’t influenced as much by it as, say, dogs, but we do have some. Motherly intuition? Strong feelings of familial ties? Brotherly love? Classic case of nature vs. nurture. We might, at times, act out of instinct (the fight-or-flight response, for example) but we do not completely and solely act out of instinct. The writer Corliss Lamont asks: “How can we attribute ethical responsibility to men, and punish them for wrongdoing, if we accept . . . that their choices and actions are predetermined?” Of course, we cannot. Instinct-driven animals are not held morally responsible for what they do, nor are computers deemed accountable for the functions they are programmed to perform. Freedom of choice, then, places upon us a heavy responsibility and makes us accountable for our actions. And I do agree that humans, just like any other half-sentient animal, has the ability to weigh decisions rationally. The point I’m trying to make is that the idea that our will is somehow “free” from experience, patterns, and presuppositional bias is superstitious at best. I’ll ask one more time, since no on has been able to give me a straight answer - what does it mean for your will to be “free”? It means that I have the capability to know right from wrong. The decisions I make are wholly my responsibility and may or may not be influenced by my culture, my family, or my heritage. It’s really freedom of choice. P.S: and your point about Yahweh giving us morality is moot. People who grow up in different cultures have different moral codes than you. Or what about people with no conscience at all? How do you explain them? People break the speed limit law daily; does this mean that there are no speed limit laws? People may rationalize or justify bad behavior but that does not mean that moral laws do not exist. So Yahweh wanted us to be free, but not too free? He gave us a brain and He expects us to use it. Nobody has total freedom. Yes. People have wants. And we may have several conflicting wants, desires, or “wills” (what have you) at the same time. Obviously, we can pick and choose which will we want to satisfy. But then again, acting on that decision is a desire in and of itself. We chose to satisfy that desire because that was our will. What is so “free” about this process? Because we are not preprogrammed by our genes to satisfy that desire. We can choose to abstain from drugs if we wish to do so. We can choose to obey the speed limit (or not). We can choose to live a good moral life or not. But the decisions we make currently - in the present - are influenced by decisions and experiences we’ve made and had in the past. If our habits and patterns could not be broken, then you would be right in saying that we are robots. No, not all decisions are. Someone may choose to become a Christian after studying the Bible. In the past, he or she may have been agnostic. Their past experiences have nothing to do with their decision. The past doesn’t influence us as much as you might think it does. Djmullen @ 96 – If God truly knows EVERYTHING then He truly knows every last thought, every fleeting emotion, every doubt, every hesitation and every final thought you will ever think one hundred years before you were even born. If God or anything else in this universe is truly omniscient, then you can’t have free will because every thought you will ever have and every decision you will ever make was known to that Omniscient Being one hundred years before you were born and you cannot possibly change your thoughts by even one iota without making God wrong. Freedom of choice precludes predestinatin. To illustrate: Suppose that a government decides to set up a particular agency. It predetermines the agency’s functions, its powers, and its size. The agency finally goes into operation some time after it was set up, and its members issue a statement saying: “The government determined a number of years ago what our job would be. Now we begin the work assigned to us.” Would you conclude that the government must have predetermined some years earlier who the individual members of that agency would be? Surely not. Humans usually need a plan of action in order to accomplish what they want to do. Predestination is linked with the idea that God must have a detailed plan for the universe wherein everything is predetermined. “It has seemed to many philosophers,” writes Roy Weatherford, “that anything less than a complete specification of every event would be incompatible with God’s Majesty.” Does God really need to specify every event in advance? Being infinite in power and matchless in wisdom, God can meet any emergency or contingency that might result as his creatures exercise their free will. (Isaiah 40:25, 26; Romans 11:33) He can do this instantly and without forethought. Unlike fallible men with their limited abilities, Almighty God does not need a detailed, cut-and-dried plan that sets out beforehand the destiny of every individual on the earth. (Proverbs 19:21) In a number of Bible translations, Ephesians 3:11 speaks of God’s having an “eternal purpose” rather than a fixed plan.Barb
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
David Kellogg said: "If no version of Weasel is useful". Do you think that Weasel is useful? If so then how? An aside. Given the results published in the Blind Watchmaker, which Monash program best fits the computer program that generated them? I am afraid to ask such a question on the remote chance that it will get the whole inane debate started over again.jerry
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
I've been reading up a little on Genetic computing. Dawkins weasel is pretty hopeless as an example of what it is. The idea is you start off with a problem, rules for solving the problem, a method for generating possible solutions, and (most importantly) a test which awards scores to possible solutions. For the weasel example the "problem" is to produce the text "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", the rules are that each possible solution must be the right length, and contain letters of the alphabet. The test (and this is why it's such a bad example) contains the answer and scores each generated solution based on how close it is to the answer. The process of GP then generates several possible solutions, uses the test to score them, then deletes the worst possible solutions and uses the best solutions as the basis for generating the next generation of possible solutions. This means once a letter matches the corresponding letter in the solution it can still change, but if it changes the test will score the new possible solution worse making it a likely candidate for deletion. In trying to think of a better example of what I understand GP to be, the best I could come up with was the countdown numbers game. The problem is to produce a given number e.g. 502. The rules are to use only certain other numbers e.g. 50,25,7,9,4,10 and certain functions e.g. add,subtract,divide,multiply, and each number can only be used once. The test is how close is the generated solution to the answer: 502. Let's suppose a generated solution includes the following: 10X50. That combination is going to give a possible solution a good score in the test which means the possible solution is likely to be kept and used to generate the next generation of possible solutions. Which means 10X50 would be very likely to be passed on.Dunsinane
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
If no version of Weasel is useful, why did Dr. Dembski's focus precisely on the issue that he didn't understand (that is, how it mutates)? And if none of these computer simulations say anything, what's Gil's point with "Hello World" again?David Kellogg
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Jerry,
Neither is a realistic simulation of evolution so to argue over the advantages of either is of no consequence..
Thanks for this perspective. However the algorithm works, it's clearly just a propaganda tool anyways. Probably best to focus on current issues. That is, if the evo's can let this thing rest and move beyond BASIC programming LOL.herb
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
"I’m sorry, but that only confirms that Dr. Dembski misunderstands Weasel." I am not sure after about 1000 comments anyone understands Weasel. Monash had two programs. The first seemed best suited to what was in the Blind Watchmaker and the second best suited to what Dawkins did later. Neither is a realistic simulation of evolution so to argue over the advantages of either is of no consequence..jerry
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
herb, I'm sorry, but that only confirms that Dr. Dembski misunderstands Weasel.David Kellogg
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
David Kellog and Mr. Nakashima, Regarding Weasel, from Mere Creation, p 437, by Dr. Dembski:
For Dawkins, once the computer gets a particular character right, it never allows mutation to work on that character again. That is certainly not how real mutation works.
This confirms Gil's interpretation. It also explains why it's so unfathomable that an "expert" on evolution such as Dawkins would create such an unrealistic simulation of evolution.herb
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
RDK (#92): You asked:
Is there a widely accepted view in the [ID] community, or are the views pertaining to free will as diverse as the views on the identity of the designer?
There is certainly no standard position of which I am aware, but my impression is that ID proponents tend to adopt what might be called the "common sense" libertarian view of human freedom - i.e. the view we all tend to have until deterministic philosophers (and scientists) try to "educate" us out of it. Dennett is a great philosopher, although my own views on freedom are profoundly at odds with his. For my part, I find Elizabeth Anscombe's argument in "Causality and Determination" (1971) persuasive: most of my actions are bodily movements. If my bodily movements are determined by circumstances over which I have no control, then so are my actions. And if my actions are determined by circumstances beyond my control, then they are not free. One might object that whatever it is that determines my actions also makes me perform them willingly. However, that does not suffice to make them free. If my wants too are controlled by outside factors, then that makes me even less free than if something made my move my limbs against my wishes. But if you have a contrary opinion on human freedom, then please don't let that stop you from embracing ID!vjtorley
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
tragic mishap @28: "The reason I’m a Christian instead of a Deist is because I believe human beings have free will." Bad choice then, since the Christian God is supposed to be omniscient. Consider: Did God know your name a hundred years before you were born? Of course He did if He's omniscient. Did God know about message # 28 100 years before you were born? Of course He did if He's omniscient. Did God know how what thoughts would cross through your mind as you wrote that message a hundred years before you were born? Of course, He did if He's omniscient. Did God know every single detail of your thoughts, no matter how trivial and no matter how many times they changed before you typed each letter in message #28 a hundred years before you were born? Of course He did if He's omniscient. If God truly knows EVERYTHING then He truly knows every last thought, every fleeting emotion, every doubt, every hesitation and every final thought you will ever think one hundred years before you were even born. If God or anything else in this universe is truly omniscient, then you can't have free will because every thought you will ever have and every decision you will ever make was known to that Omniscient Being one hundred years before you were born and you cannot possibly change your thoughts by even one iota without making God wrong. Calvin realized this centuries ago and unwisely incorporated it into his new religion instead of realizing that he'd found a pretty good proof of the non-existence of God.djmullen
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden (71), Point taken - my apologies. Gil, would still appreciate seeing the math.Gaz
June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
Hi everyone, Just came across this Web page by John Koza (cited by Mr. Nakashima): http://www.genetic-programming.com/ There's loads of stuff there. Anyone care to comment?vjtorley
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
Edit: I will also say that my own personal views on the topic of free will are derived mostly from a Dennet / Hofstadter view, and allows for a deterministic mindset that still retains the general idea of "free will"; I.E., rational decision-making.RDK
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply