Intelligent Design

Intelligent Evolution or Unintelligent Evolution — You Decide

Spread the love

New mathematical method provides better way to analyze noise
http://www.physorg.com/news69001445.html

Humans have 200 million light receptors in their eyes, 10 to 20 million receptors devoted to smell, but only 8,000 dedicated to sound. Yet despite this miniscule number, the auditory system is the fastest of the five senses. Researchers credit this discrepancy to a series of lightning-fast calculations in the brain that translate minimal input into maximal understanding. And whatever those calculations are, they’re far more precise than any sound-analysis program that exists today.

In a recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Marcelo Magnasco, professor and head of the Mathematical Physics Laboratory at Rockefeller University, has published a paper that may prove to be a sound-analysis breakthrough, featuring a mathematical method or “algorithm” that’s far more nuanced at transforming sound into a visual representation than current methods. “This outperforms everything in the market as a general method of sound analysis,” Magnasco says. In fact, he notes, it may be the same type of method the brain actually uses. . . .

5 Replies to “Intelligent Evolution or Unintelligent Evolution — You Decide

  1. 1
    Charliecrs says:

    Looks like a lot of cool technologies could be made from this discovery.
    “With radar now, for instance, you’d be able to tell there was a helicopter. With this algorithm, you’d be able to pick out each one of its blades.” – how cool is that ?

    Wonder if i can use this to spy on some neighbors for some practical purpose only of course lol 🙂

    Charlie

  2. 2
    idnet.com.au says:

    In all the anti propaganda we hear “ID versus Evolution”. As far as I understand it, YECs believe in very fast evolution within limits. IDers believe in evolution, slow or fast within limits of the design criteria. Why do we not change our name to “ID Evolution”, as we are really opposed to Darwinian Evolution, not to change over time per se?

  3. 3
    Patrick says:

    Bill has already suggested “Intelligent Evolution” previously:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....chives/134

  4. 4
    Rude says:

    Usually I tell folks that, yes, I believe in evolution. Evolution is evidence–evidence of design.

  5. 5
    idnet.com.au says:

    “With this algorithm, researchers could one day give computers the same acuity as human ears”

    We must wait until the background computer programs have errors that are selected out over vast amounts of time and eventually we will have this algorithm form through natural selection.

    Alternatively we could ask an intelligent agent to apply some thought to the problem and program the computer to perform the complex task. Which method will work best?

    We all know that specified complexity will inevitably arise if given enough time, evolution has already proven it.

Leave a Reply