Evolution

Originally posted by black beetle
No. The machine selects a Real lottery ball at random because, thanks to its software/ hardware (artificial intelligence, thus a substitute of the intelligence of its programmer and manufacturer), it evaluates that “it has to pick one ball amongst many” (specific given criteria) and proceeds accordingly. So there is indeed a set of criteria which are special and motivated by us.

Not so. The requirement to select one ball amongst many is not a criteria.
There is exactly zero criteria for selecting the ball - hence random, yet I can still say that the machine selected a ball.

And how are you able to declare that “only some selected sentient beings/ drivers with special cars can survive the desert”? This declaration is obviously a product of the evaluation of your mind regarding a probable outcome.
But yet again, the actual selection is done by the desert - not the sentient being. You are really stretching to try and show a connection that honestly is not there.

Also, the outcome itself is related solely to the reactions of each observer in the realm of reality: the given sentient beings and/ or the given drivers and their specially prepared for the desert cars that they will struggle at the given environment, they do not actually “select” to “make it” or “to fail”. All these observers are struggling to survive the desert either on their own (ie animals) or by means of their intelligence and of their cars (car drivers), and their decision making (that triggers specific reactions) is not a mindless procedure but a string of intelligent selections (by means of evaluation) of the seemingly best reactions amongst the probable many that are available
😵
Again, you are stretching, and even trying to hide the true selection by inventing new selections. The fact is that the phrase "only a select few cars can survive the desert" says nothing whatsoever about sentient beings making decisions, it talks solely about whether or not a car can survive in the desert (match the criteria). It doesn't even say anything about whether or not the cars were designed for the desert or are driven by sentient beings in the desert. All it says is there is a set of cars, there is a criteria (the desert environment) and there is a small subset of cars that match the criteria (select few) essentially it is "survival of the fittest".

If I was to say "only a select few plants can survive the desert" it would be just as good English and mean practically the same thing, and that it is "natural selection" as we know it and results in evolution - rather than good business for scrap metal dealers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not so. The requirement to select one ball amongst many is [b]not a criteria.
There is exactly zero criteria for selecting the ball - hence random, yet I can still say that the machine selected a ball.

And how are you able to declare that “only some selected sentient beings/ drivers with special cars can survive the desert”? This declaration is ...[text shortened]... e know it and results in evolution - rather than good business for scrap metal dealers.

You said that I am stretching, and even trying to hide the true selection by inventing new selections. This is false. All I am doing is to try to see the whole movie and not a single frame, and this attitude forces me to analyze in some depth the miscellaneous given cause-effect fields regarding every aspect. So I clarify that I stretch nothing -I cross check our opinions trying to bring up a mutual understanding and a synthesis🙂

Now, regarding the lottery, I believe that a machine that picks up balls in random is a construction that is manufactured exactly for this purpose (although it may conduct another procedures too, relevant or irrelevant to the task of picking balls in random), therefore it is dependent to specific criteria in order to be at last able to pick a ball amongst many. Therefore "picking" (action), "a" (discrimination of the number of the objects that must be picked) and "ball" (object) are criteria which were pre-evaluated by the intelligence of the programmer and the manufacturer of the machine. This is selection because the procedure of the evaluation is necessary.

Regarding the desert, I see a two branches variation. For one, kindly please explain which way the desert selected the racing driver Jutta Kleinschmidt, his navigator Andreas Schulz and their very special Mitsubishi Pajero to win Paris-Dakar 2001. On the other hand, if we suppose that we have a lot of ten racing Mitsubishi Pajero MY2001 and ten Lambhorghini Gallardo ready to run at Nuerburgring, kindly please explain who has set the criteria that will enable these cars to “survive the desert”.
For two, still methinks the phrase "only a select few cars can survive the desert" is a merely a declaration according to your personal evaluation. And it becomes meaningless the way you pose it at your post to which I now respond if there are no drivers (because I assume you mean that a few cars will be/ are able or unable to cross the desert, so the drivers are anyway required). Also -and I mention this with love because once upon a time I was earning my life as a test driver- the matching criteria are always man-made decisions regarding every given required setup of any kind of vehicle. So if we have a set of cars, some of them (if some drivers are skilled enough and the cars are solid enough) or all of them (if all the drivers are skilled enough and all the cars are solid enough) or none (if the drivers are not skilled enough and/ or the cars are not solid enough etc) will be at last able to cross the desert. So I assume that this is not a selection at all.

Finally, I think the phrase "only a select few plants can survive the desert" is meaningful because the plants are living existences. However the “plants” are not “chosen” from the desert. Earlier the plants were seeds that they came from somewhere; if the parent plant of those seeds is alien to the environment of the desert and the seeds travelled a huge distance before landing on the ground of the desert, obviously the seeds and the plants that they will emerge (if they survive that long) they will probably have not the time required in order to react properly to the environmental conditions and therefore they will not survive the desert.
Otherwise, if the seeds came from a desert plant solid enough to survive (thanks to its historical evolution -to its reactions to this specific environment due time, that is) the seeds and the plant that will emerge will probably survive. Again, there is no selection from the desert -in fact the environment is selected and slightly modified due time by the living existence after countless reactions that enable it to survive there. This is not contradictory to my earlier string of thoughts because the desert cannot make evaluations😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Now, regarding the lottery, I believe that a machine that picks up balls in random is a construction that is manufactured exactly for this purpose (although it may conduct another procedures too, relevant or irrelevant to the task of picking balls in random), therefore it is dependent to specific criteria in order to be at last able to pick a ball among ...[text shortened]... er of the machine. This is selection because the procedure of the evaluation is necessary.

As always you invent criteria where there is none and insist on the existence of human agency when it is irrelevant. Here in South Africa, the lottery draw is conducted live on TV and there is basically a container containing balls with numbers on which is shaken and then the machine spits out whichever happens to be at a certain point at a certain time. The choice of ball is totally random (as is intended for fairness), and there are no criteria whatsoever. The fact that the engineer who built the machine preferred coffee to tea is neither here nor there and totally irrelevant. The 'entity' that makes the actual selection is the laws of physics - which due to quantum mechanics results in a random choice. Yet we still quite happily say 'the machine will now select the winning numbers at random'.

Regarding the desert, I see a two branches variation. For one, kindly please explain which way the desert selected the racing driver Jutta Kleinschmidt, his navigator Andreas Schulz and their very special Mitsubishi Pajero to win Paris-Dakar 2001.
A number of factors including plain dumb luck. However any planning or design on the part of humans was not part of said selection process or we would not have said that the desert did the selecting.

On the other hand, if we suppose that we have a lot of ten racing Mitsubishi Pajero MY2001 and ten Lambhorghini Gallardo ready to run at Nuerburgring, kindly please explain who has set the criteria that will enable these cars to “survive the desert”.
Again, the criteria is the desert.

For two, still methinks the phrase "only a select few cars can survive the desert" is a merely a declaration according to your personal evaluation. And it becomes meaningless the way you pose it at your post to which I now respond if there are no drivers (because I assume you mean that a few cars will be/ are able or unable to cross the desert, so the drivers are anyway required).
Whether drivers are required or not remains irrelevant. The meaning of the phrase "only a select few cars can survive the desert" still specifically refers to whether or not the cars (members of the set) match the criteria (the desert environment with regards to cars). Dragging a driver into it is just your attempt at creating a connection to human intellect.

Also -and I mention this with love because once upon a time I was earning my life as a test driver- the matching criteria are always man-made decisions regarding every given required setup of any kind of vehicle. So if we have a set of cars, some of them (if some drivers are skilled enough and the cars are solid enough) or all of them (if all the drivers are skilled enough and all the cars are solid enough) or none (if the drivers are not skilled enough and/ or the cars are not solid enough etc) will be at last able to cross the desert. So I assume that this is not a selection at all.
That is because your definition for the word 'selection' does not match common usage. Hence when I say 'only a select few will survive the desert', you don't have a hope of understanding me unless you recognize that my definition differs from yours.

Finally, I think the phrase "only a select few plants can survive the desert" is meaningful because the plants are living existences.
Oh? What does the fact that the plants are alive have to do with it? Once again, you draw connections that are not there, and in this case for no good reason as plants are not sentient beings. It is trivial to once again show the claim to be false. "Some rocks fall off the top of a cliff and only a select few survive the fall without shattering."

However the “plants” are not “chosen” from the desert. Earlier the plants were seeds that they came from somewhere; if the parent plant of those seeds is alien to the environment of the desert and the seeds travelled a huge distance before landing on the ground of the desert, obviously the seeds and the plants that they will emerge (if they survive that long) they will probably have not the time required in order to react properly to the environmental conditions and therefore they will not survive the desert.
Otherwise, if the seeds came from a desert plant solid enough to survive (thanks to its historical evolution -to its reactions to this specific environment due time, that is) the seeds and the plant that will emerge will probably survive. Again, there is no selection from the desert -in fact the environment is selected and slightly modified due time by the living existence after countless reactions that enable it to survive there. This is not contradictory to my earlier string of thoughts because the desert cannot make evaluations😵
I see you do understand natural selection even though you don't understand English. Even the word 'evaluation' does not require an intelligent entity and the desert most definitely does carry out an evaluation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As always you invent criteria where there is none and insist on the existence of human agency when it is irrelevant. Here in South Africa, the lottery draw is conducted live on TV and there is basically a container containing balls with numbers on which is shaken and then the machine spits out whichever happens to be at a certain point at a certain time. ...[text shortened]... elligent entity and the desert most definitely does carry out an evaluation.

I am aware of the existence of the lottery machines and I know that the choice of the balls is totally random, but you still fail to understand that the machine is dependent to specific criteria in order to be able to pick randomly a ball amongst many.

I strongly disagree with your evaluation regarding the so called “selection made by the desert”. Our constructions (cars) are designed by us in order to enable us to cross the desert, and we are using our intelligence and our cars in order to cross the desert. We are the agent that sets the criteria (our criteria!) according to our evaluation, and not the desert. The connection to the human intelligence is given, necessary and obvious.

The plants are not sentient beings but they are still life formations, therefore they are interacting with the environment on their own in order to survive. There is no “selection from the desert”.

Finally, I offer some definitions of the word evaluation:
Business dictionary: evaluation
Definition 1: Decisions: Judgment and choice are the two most common modes of evaluation. Judgment deals with assessment of individuals, alternatives, activities, products, or plans one at a time and against some benchmark, standard, or yardstick. Choice is concerned with their selection from a given group or set.
Definition 2: Management: Rigorous analysis of completed or ongoing activities that determine or support management accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency. Evaluation of completed activities is called ex-post evaluation, post-hoc evaluation, or summative evaluation. Evaluation of current or on going activities is called in-term evaluation. See also effectiveness evaluation.

The Free Dictionairy:
Evaluate, tr.v. evaluated, evaluating, evaluates
1. To ascertain or fix the value or worth of.
2. To examine and judge carefully; appraise. See Synonyms at estimate.
3. Mathematics To calculate the numerical value of; express numerically.

And I could keep bringing up ad infinitum similar definitions regarding the word "evaluation". So kindly please name the source from which I can be informed that the word “evaluation” is irrelevant to an intelligent entity; also, kindly please cite a peer review showing that “the desert carries on evaluations”
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead

I see you do understand natural selection even though you don't understand English. Even the word 'evaluation' does not require an intelligent entity and the desert most definitely does carry out an evaluation.

Claiming that the desert makes evaluations is fairly zany English usage, tw, unless you are being metaphorical, in which case anything goes.

Originally posted by black beetle
I am aware of the existence of the lottery machines and I know that the choice of the balls is totally random, but you still fail to understand that the machine is dependent to specific criteria in order to be able to pick randomly a ball amongst many.

Quite so, yet those criteria are irrelevant. As you have done throughout the discussion, you are trying to point to another selection process and pretend it is the true selection taking place.

I strongly disagree with your evaluation regarding the so called “selection made by the desert”. Our constructions (cars) are designed by us in order to enable us to cross the desert, and we are using our intelligence and our cars in order to cross the desert. We are the agent that sets the criteria (our criteria!) according to our evaluation, and not the desert. The connection to the human intelligence is given, necessary and obvious.
And despite going through it again and again, you still fail to understand the simple English phrase "only a select few can survive the desert". Who made the cars and why is irrelevant. The only criteria related to the phrase are the desert conditions (the environment). The selection referred to in the phrase takes place after the cars are made. Whether one can make a tenuous connection to humans is irrelevant.

The plants are not sentient beings but they are still life formations, therefore they are interacting with the environment on their own in order to survive. There is no “selection from the desert”.
So you admit that your original claims regarding sentience fail in this instance? And your conclusion does not follow.

Finally, I offer some definitions of the word evaluation:
Business dictionary: evaluation
Definition 1: Decisions: Judgment and choice are the two most common modes of evaluation. Judgment deals with assessment of individuals, alternatives, activities, products, or plans one at a time and against some benchmark, standard, or yardstick. Choice is concerned with their selection from a given group or set.
Definition 2: Management: Rigorous analysis of completed or ongoing activities that determine or support management accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency. Evaluation of completed activities is called ex-post evaluation, post-hoc evaluation, or summative evaluation. Evaluation of current or on going activities is called in-term evaluation. See also effectiveness evaluation.
Interesting how you rushed off to a business dictionary. Will you accept the biology text book for my definition of 'selection'?

The Free Dictionairy:
Evaluate, tr.v. evaluated, evaluating, evaluates
1. To ascertain or fix the value or worth of.
2. To examine and judge carefully; appraise. See Synonyms at estimate.
3. Mathematics To calculate the numerical value of; express numerically.
Once again we see that non-sentient objects such as computers are capable of evaluations.

And I could keep bringing up ad infinitum similar definitions regarding the word "evaluation". So kindly please name the source from which I can be informed that the word “evaluation” is irrelevant to an intelligent entity; also, kindly please cite a peer review showing that “the desert carries on evaluations”
😵
Peer review? How is that relevant? This is not a question of scientific experiment, it is a question of English language and fact.

Tell me who is doing the evaluation in this phrase "the rally driver was tested by the difficult desert conditions and found wanting"?

Originally posted by twhitehead


Tell me who is doing the evaluation in this phrase "the rally driver was tested by the difficult desert conditions and found wanting"?

'Testing' and 'found wanting' here are dead metaphors. There is no actual testing or evaluation.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'Testing' and 'found wanting' here are dead metaphors. There is no actual testing or evaluation.

Only because you, like black beetle are refusing to see it. How many more examples must I give?
A test of strength.
The cars springs were sorely tested by the potholes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only because you, like black beetle are refusing to see it. How many more examples must I give?
A test of strength.
The cars springs were sorely tested by the potholes.

Dead metaphors. Look it up.

So 'natural selection' is a metaphor. Whether it's misleading or not depends on how rigorously it is defined.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Quite so, yet those criteria are irrelevant. As you have done throughout the discussion, you are trying to point to another selection process and pretend it is the true selection taking place.

[b]I strongly disagree with your evaluation regarding the so called “selection made by the desert”. Our constructions (cars) are designed by us in order to enabl ...[text shortened]... rase "the rally driver was tested by the difficult desert conditions and found wanting"?

Edit: “Quite so, yet those criteria are irrelevant. As you have done throughout the discussion, you are trying to point to another selection process and pretend it is the true selection taking place.”

They are not irrelevant. The machine makes an intelligent decision (picks balls randomly) because it is programmed to act this way By Us🙂

Edit: “So you admit that your original claims regarding sentience fail in this instance? And your conclusion does not follow.”

No. A plant, and every other kind of life formation, it interacts constantly with the environment in order to survive and thus it conducts its reactions on its own because, as any formation of life, it is self-directed. Plants react to leaf damage and new evidence of botanical sentience validates that the plants are inspirited and thus more like animals than we realized. Of course the sentiency of the plants is quite different (at another level, that is) than the sentiency of ours (the sentiency of a plant is at the level 1 whilst ours at the level 5) and this is the reason why I said earlier in order to avoid further confusion that the plants are not sentient beings (implying that they are not sentient the way we are).

Edit: “Interesting how you rushed off to a business dictionary. Will you accept the biology text book for my definition of 'selection'?”

I just clicked the first two dictionaries I found at the web! Do you believe that the definition I offered is false?
On the other hand, I 'm quite sure we agree that Darwins’ “natural selection” is “the process of the differential reproduction of genotypes and that it takes place when there is a heritable variation for some trait along with differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.” So what? “Natural selection” is not the same as “selection” the way you pose it -it is the same as Karma (cause-effect)/ Quantum Darwinism as I explained you earlier at this thread
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Dead metaphors. Look it up.

So 'natural selection' is a metaphor. Whether it's misleading or not depends on how rigorously it is defined.

I have looked it up. There is absolutely no doubt that the words in question are not metaphors whether live or dead.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have looked it up. There is absolutely no doubt that the words in question are [b]not metaphors whether live or dead.[/b]

You're simply wrong. Even 'number' is a dead metaphor.

I'll leave it to you to figure that one out (oops, there's another one).

Originally posted by black beetle
They are not irrelevant. The machine makes an intelligent decision (picks balls randomly) because it is programmed to act this way By Us🙂

And the decision to pick a ball remains irrelevant regardless of who or why it is made.

No. A plant, and every other kind of life formation, it interacts constantly with the environment in order to survive and thus it conducts its reactions on its own because, as any formation of life, it is self-directed. Plants react to leaf damage and new evidence of botanical sentience validates that the plants are inspirited and thus more like animals than we realized. Of course the sentiency of the plants is quite different (at another level, that is) than the sentiency of ours (the sentiency of a plant is at the level 1 whilst ours at the level 5) and this is the reason why I said earlier in order to avoid further confusion that the plants are not sentient beings (implying that they are not sentient the way we are).
So if I give an example in which a complex chemical reaction is taking place will you claim that it too is sentient, just not in the same way as us an plants? What ridiculous lengths will you go to?

I just clicked the first two dictionaries I found at the web! Do you believe that the definition I offered is false?
No, I believe it is a definition for the word as used in business, which is quite different from standard English usage.
The definition for "natural selection" in a biology text book is not false. What I am trying to show is that it is in line with common usage.

On the other hand, I 'm quite sure we agree that Darwins’ “natural selection” is “the process of the differential reproduction of genotypes and that it takes place when there is a heritable variation for some trait along with differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.” So what? “Natural selection” is not the same as “selection” the way you pose it -it is the same as Karma (cause-effect)/ Quantum Darwinism as I explained you earlier at this thread
😵
Selection the way I pose it is cause-effect, or more accurately set/criteria/subset. It is not as you wish it to be the choice of criteria.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You're simply wrong. Even 'number' is a dead metaphor.

I'll leave it to you to figure that one out (oops, there's another one).

I won't go into the etymology of the words, but in my usage, the meaning was the same as common English usage of the words and therefore as used they are not metaphors. A test of strength is a test it is not a metaphor for a test.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the decision to pick a ball remains irrelevant regardless of who or why it is made.

[b]No. A plant, and every other kind of life formation, it interacts constantly with the environment in order to survive and thus it conducts its reactions on its own because, as any formation of life, it is self-directed. Plants react to leaf damage and new evidenc ...[text shortened]... r more accurately set/criteria/subset. It is not as you wish it to be the choice of criteria.

The decision to "pick a ball randomly" cannot become real without previous evaluation. The machine makes an intelligent decision (it picks balls randomly) because it is programmed to pick balls randomly by us according to specific criteria (criterion is a basis for comparison/ a reference point against which other things can be evaluated). Therefore we are in front of a selection, in front of an intellectual decision that is manifested at the realm of the physical world.

Any kind of “a complex chemical reaction” is merely “a complex chemical reaction" and not a "complex chemical selection", and this is the reason why we are talking about complex chemical reactions and not complex chemical selections. And it is not a selection because there is not any kind of evaluation that takes place.

The definition of the noun "evaluation" that I offered earlier is not used solely in business. It is also used in Chess, in science and philosophy and in our everyday life at every level of cognitive/ awareness.
Also, since “selection” as you pose it is “natural selection” and therefore Karma (cause-effect)/ Quantum Darwinism as I am repeating to you over and over again, it is not the same “selection” that is defined as “1a. the act or an instance of selecting or the fact of having been selected. 1b. One that is selected. 2. A carefully chosen or representative collection of people or things 3. A literary or musical text chosen for reading or performance.”, but it is merely “4. Biology: a natural or artificial process that favors or induces survival and perpetuation of one kind of organism over others that die or fail to produce offspring”. Mind you, the definitions 1, 2 and 3 are different than the definition 4. All I say is that you commit an error when you try to attribute to the definitions 1, 2 and 3 of the noun “selection” the very meaning and the essence of the notion “natural selection” (definition 4)
😵