Leo is wrong about random mutation

[Scholar]

Quote

None of this is happening through "random mutation" or lucky coincidence.

Just 1 cell in your body is more intelligent and more masterfully engineered than any human machine. Scientists take this completely for granted. No human on this planet is intelligent enough to design even a single cell. No biologist has ever made a cell from basic chemical parts in the lab. Not even close. They don't even have a theory for how it can be done. It is easier to build a rocket ship that flies to Mars than it is to build a single cell from scratch!

I don't think this is true. Divine Intelligence is far more sophisticated than Leo seems to assume here. He believes that because it's so sophisticated, that it could not possibly be through lucky concidence.

 

But, the intelligence and ingenuity of the universe is so sophisticated, that it actually is lucky concidence and random mutation. The very metaphysics of the universe, and math itself, is designed such that through put freedom, pure random chance, all of this will self-construct itself into existence. That is the genius of creation. There is nobody guiding it, all of that is already embued in the very nature of math itself.

 

This is why MLA work and give such sophisticated results, through simple evolutionary chance mechanism. Divine Intelligence is so genius, it's intelligence works through dumb and random chance. Imagine coming up with a system where all of life on this planet and everything beyond will necessarily happen as the result of simple mechanisms and random chance. That's the miracle of existence.

 

[Princess Arabia]

I guess that's why they're dumb people and smart people; but then that's relative. You said you don't THINK it's true, so I guess you're just making an intelligent guess. Doesn't really add up to me, though; but it's worth contemplating.

[Carl-Richard]

I find your disagreement to be nothing but a word game.

[Scholar]

26 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I find your disagreement to be nothing but a word game.

It's not, because Leo would reject random mutation in evolution leading to all this. I believe it is likely that it does.

He had made a point about this in the past talking about his views of evolution in this regard.

 

In general though I disagree that it would be insane to assume that random mutation does lead to this. In my view that just stems from a lack of imagination in regards to how deeply embedded divine intelligence is within the very metaphysical and physical structure of this universe.

[Leo Gura]

@Scholar I'm willing to concede that God designed your brain, specifically, full of random mutations.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Scholar I'm willing to concede that God designed your brain, specifically, full of random mutations.

No u

[Cireeric]

11 minutes ago, Scholar said:

In general though I disagree that it would be insane to assume that random mutation does lead to this. In my view that just stems from a lack of imagination in regards to how deeply embedded divine intelligence is within the very metaphysical and physical structure of this universe.

How is it "random" mutation if there is deep intelligence behind it? If there is deep intelligence behind all the randomness, this is not really our typical definition of randomness. 

[Scholar]

15 minutes ago, Cireeric said:

How is it "random" mutation if there is deep intelligence behind it? If there is deep intelligence behind all the randomness, this is not really our typical definition of randomness. 

The randomness is random, or in other words totally free. The intelligence is found in the structure the noise is fed into, and that will boil down to mathematical relationships.

Intelligences isn't steering it in the way you would assume it does.

 

You could take dumb, computer simulated randomness and you would still get the results, as the intelligence is preserved in the very nature of mathematical relationships themselves. I predict you will see this in machine learning, although machine learning is limited due to the physical nature of the substrate it exists on.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Scholar

[Girzo]

@Scholar Machine Learning is a very bad example of randomness, because it needs a fucking ton of intelligent intervention. 
From the choice of learning materials through coding everything and correcting its behavior at the end.

It’s actually one of the stupidest examples, because nothing about it is trully random.

Try to make a useful program from random strings of numbers purely.

[Carl-Richard]

46 minutes ago, Scholar said:

It's not, because Leo would reject random mutation in evolution leading to all this. I believe it is likely that it does.

He had made a point about this in the past talking about his views of evolution in this regard.

 

In general though I disagree that it would be insane to assume that random mutation does lead to this. In my view that just stems from a lack of imagination in regards to how deeply embedded divine intelligence is within the very metaphysical and physical structure of this universe.

I literally believe you only disagree about using the word random or not. It's not a substantial disagreement. You both believe in the ineffable divine intelligence of the universe, and you both are levying it as an argument for calling it random or not.

[Scholar]

26 minutes ago, Girzo said:

@Scholar Machine Learning is a very bad example of randomness, because it needs a fucking ton of intelligent intervention. 
From the choice of learning materials through coding everything and correcting its behavior at the end.

It’s actually one of the stupidest examples, because nothing about it is trully random.

Try to make a useful program from random strings of numbers purely.

I never said the entire system is random, but the evolutionary mechanisms that lead to the evolutionary results use randomized noise.

And of course humans have to tinker around with it all the time because they lack the intelligence to construct a system which will, simply through random noise, lead to the self-construction of infinitely complex life from inanimate matter.

The entire system is obviously not random, or free. There are elements that are free, which given the mathematical structures lead to self-emergent evolutionary processes. The same is true in natural evolution. Obviously physical laws have constants and mathematics as a whole is abstract, therefore completely stable.

 

21 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I literally believe you only disagree about using the word random or not. It's not a substantial disagreement. You both believe in the ineffable divine intelligence of the universe, and you both are levying it as an argument for calling it random or not.

No you are missing the point. Leo doesn't believe natural mutations are random. I am saying they actually can be random and evolution would still occur. I predict the universe is so intelligently designed, that it does not require constant intelligent intervention to lead to evolution.

Leo believes mutation is steered by consciousness in the sense that it is not random noise, rather it is steered by some sort of divine will with a goal in mind. I believe it is steered by actual random noise that has no restricted will. These are two fundamentally different positions.

 

In other words, Leo would say something like, the randomness is actually not arbitrary and random, and it is appearing in such a way that life occurs. The intelligence therefore is a fluid thing grounded in the "randomness". I say the randomness is arbitrary and actually random, and the intelligence is not fluid and grounded in the abstract nature of mathematical principles.

Obviously this is simplified, but that's how you could view the difference between our positions.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar

Is randomness an innate property of reality, or is it just our inability to predict some aspect of it?

[Girzo]

I would say that nothing in the Universe is random, it’s all deterministic but based on infinite chains of causation.

[Leo Gura]

Randomness is just human ignorance. Nothing about God is random.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Keef]

@Leo Gura Do you think god improves/upgrades god by learning from god?

Or is god complete?

Edited September 26, 2023 by Keef

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Keef said:

@Leo Gura Do you think god improves/upgrades god by learning from god?

Or is god complete?

Both

[seriousman24]

I think the continuous combination of chaotic destructive and creative randomness automatically makes "random" like intelligent order emerge, the combination allows a bedrock layer of order that gets it's own specific complex order and chaos affect both simpler and complex forms of orders and chaos that have similarly emerged and so on and so forth, I'm applying my logic from my other posts into discussions about fundamentals since it fits from my perspective.

Each chaos that manages to survive is basically it's own type of order, which is still going to behave chaotically to most other orders which are themselves surviving chaos and then because "quantity exists" you can have every single possibility exist, everything can exist and non exist in the same space-time except suffering for this particular type of order(life, me and you) which I guess it's why "god" exists because suffering "should" be impossible yet we can feel it.

[martins name]

Chat GPT and other ai are made with random mutations so it seems to work.

[vibv]

8 hours ago, Girzo said:

I would say that nothing in the Universe is random, it’s all deterministic but based on infinite chains of causation.

It’s not random but also not deterministic.

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar

Is randomness an innate property of reality, or is it just our inability to predict some aspect of it?

It is innate. True randomness is true and complete freedom. It is not merely our inability to predict it, prediction would mean restriction, and restriction would mean lack of freedom.

But it could also just be similar to computer generated noise, which is not truly free in that sense. I predict with computer generated noise you would still have the self-emergence of these types of complex life-structures, and I think this will be proven sooner or later.

The only problem with computation is that it is more restricted, it is a simulated physicality that is not exposed to the same metaphysical dynamics as direct physical reality is. While some metaphysical mathematical principles are preserved throughout, some of the relationships will be different in computer simulations than in physical reality. It's hard to predict what exactly will be possible with machine learning.