Designer always greater than the creation?

Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?

The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.

*BUMP*

I disagree.  Artificial Life programs create greater than themselves.

Quote from: narcberry on April 03, 2008, 01:40:22 PM

Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?

The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.

*BUMP*

I disagree.  Artificial Life programs create greater than themselves.

How so? It seems to me that no organism is capable of creating beyond their means....

How so? It seems to me that no organism is capable of creating beyond their means....

Dude for a second I was inclined to use that statement against you. Even if the means of organisms are limited by the laws of physics, in the face of a a coral reef being created by microorganisms one needs to expand his definition of limits.

Quote from: narcberry on April 03, 2008, 01:40:22 PM

Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?

The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.

*BUMP*

I disagree.  Artificial Life programs create greater than themselves.

AI is definitely presented that way, but we have yet to achieve any AI greater than ourselves, let alone able to generate greater AI than itself.

Learning algorithms are probably the closest we have, but they still are created by an entity greater than itself. While it may be getting "smarter", no learning algorithm has ever learned something we humans, as its creator, did not know.



More examples please.

     for a consciousness (i.e. ant, dog, man) to create anything it must, ad ajecto be more complex or equally complex. The fact that you can create it means your understanding of that thing is more complex than the thing itself. You not only invision the entire structure, you also understand other things it means, the different contexts it exists in, etc.
     The only way out of this that I can imagine is creating a self replicating and improving consciousness, AI. I'm not sure if that is even possible, but I suppose it would be the only other example, besides the obvious Natural Selection.

Left hand side is an expression in real numbers
Right hand side is an expression complex numbers.

You said there is a loose interpretation. Is this loose enough?

√(-1) = i

Left hand side is an expression in real numbers
Right hand side is an expression complex numbers.

You said there is a loose interpretation. Is this loose enough?

I'm okay with even looser interpretations. However, the complex number doesn't go on to create anything greater.

Still interesting.

We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.

Does that mean it is more complex than  us?

We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.

Does that mean it is more complex than  us?

I guess you could argue from a Platonic viewpoint that we didn't create any concepts, they all already exist....I'm not sure though. But It seems to be a stable argument.

I didn't actually think of that one, I thought that was where that one post was going at first.

This is a genuine narc thread.

We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.

Does that mean it is more complex than  us?

Arguable, but it's still off the mark. The square root of negative one creates nothing.

Quote from: Saint Raist on April 07, 2008, 12:49:19 PM

We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.

Does that mean it is more complex than  us?

Arguable, but it's still off the mark. The square root of negative one creates nothing.

Your argument is off the mark...The concept of a squared negative...irrational numbers, etc., can be far more complex than we can understand or grasp. I argued that those numbers and concepts already exist and are revealed by scientific experimentation or controlled observation...possibly anyway. Thats a legitimate argument...

Quote from: narcberry on April 09, 2008, 04:56:43 PM

Quote from: Saint Raist on April 07, 2008, 12:49:19 PM

We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.

Does that mean it is more complex than  us?

Arguable, but it's still off the mark. The square root of negative one creates nothing.

Your argument is off the mark...The concept of a squared negative...irrational numbers, etc., can be far more complex than we can understand or grasp. I argued that those numbers and concepts already exist and are revealed by scientific experimentation or controlled observation...possibly anyway. Thats a legitimate argument...

... might I suggest you read my post and my op.
It's not just about being more complex, but more complex AND able to create something more complex than itself.

Correction:

By greater I generally thought more complex. I stated the question with the idea, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B."

I'm aware that that is not what I asked, but that is what I am wondering.

Sorry for newcomers to the thread. gonna edit OP.

Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.

Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.

That has been theorized for a long time, we have never seen even the simplest proof of this concept.

This account was created by twelve beers.

Not sure which way that falls, however.

Quote from: Benocrates on April 09, 2008, 10:35:14 PM

Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.

That has been theorized for a long time, we have never seen even the simplest proof of this concept.

As I have said, artificial life creates greater artificial life than itself.  Your dismissal of this is silly.

Quote from: narcberry on April 10, 2008, 06:51:25 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on April 09, 2008, 10:35:14 PM

Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.

That has been theorized for a long time, we have never seen even the simplest proof of this concept.

As I have said, artificial life creates greater artificial life than itself.  Your dismissal of this is silly.

I'm dismissing it because it hasn't happened. This thread is about actual examples.

Quote from: Username on April 12, 2008, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: narcberry on April 10, 2008, 06:51:25 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on April 09, 2008, 10:35:14 PM

Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.

That has been theorized for a long time, we have never seen even the simplest proof of this concept.

As I have said, artificial life creates greater artificial life than itself.  Your dismissal of this is silly.

I'm dismissing it because it hasn't happened. This thread is about actual examples.

Except it has. 

That is the whole point of genetic Artificial life programs.  They randomly create code that eventually, through a process similar to evolution, create code that is greater than the original artificial life process.

You get very complex behaviors that arise out of meaningless random "code".

Please reference this. If this has happened, I apologize and it fits wonderfully here.

I've heard about this. Old concept though. An article was talking about using this, and it would make viruses obsolete because the code would self maintain.

Actual reference please.
I've heard of this far too many times. I have heard of this in actuality never.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html

learning algorithms...

Humans make an algorithm that betters itself. Does this algorithm go on to make other, better algorithms? Or is it even better than the human who made them?

Has anyone read Steve Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"?  I've read the first chapter and it seems apropos of this topic.  He goes on and on for thousands of pages about simple structures that iterate into very complex patterns using simple algorithms. 

What I find hardest about your subject, Narq, is the "greater complexity than" requirement.  The difference between the creator and the created seems to be a sideways step that is not always indicative of "better than".  I argue that a computer's mathematical ability is much greater than a human's, but humans have many other traits that are greater than a computer's, and computers create different and in some ways better computers (though we have to build them physically).  So, which is "greater" is far too blurry. 

Also, do we not create greater humans through education?  Humans that create humans that create humans; such a relationship can be related to your "greater than" requirement because humans are not all the same. 

It's all evolution through natural selection, as Beno and Athalus said.  Evidence for evolution abounds. 

     Well said, it seems that this topic has come to its inevitable conclusion. I believe the move from simple to complex is the driving force behind our universe. Natural Selection driven evolution is a prime example. Your mention of human heredity is exactly right on. I just recently watched a presentation by Dawkins where he attempts to sum up the entire process of evolution with the word "heredity."

    It appears to me that the defining process of the universe must be the move to complexity, building and eventual destruction.

I believe the move from simple to complex is the driving force behind our universe.
...
It appears to me that the defining process of the universe must be the move to complexity, building and eventual destruction.

Really?  I would say the defining process would be the opposite.

I guess you're speaking of Entropy -- which is defined by the number of possible thermodynamic configurations of a system -- and the tendency for entropy to increase, known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 

As far as I know, one can not apply thermodynamic processes to evolutionary processes.