Creationist Argument

Continuing the discussion from SAFE network upgrades:

Given that SafeNet is open-source and that it can be forked and hence it cannot be forced out of a useful niche, then the directed evolution of SafeNet will be ongoing.
I think I’m in general agreement with your conclusion and it could find other niches

I think I’m in general agreement with your conclusion and suggest that it could also find other niches too along the way as it evolves?
I’ve got to admit, when someone starts a sentence with “as a Biologist”, though a small alarm bell goes off in my head immediately……Noooo….not another argument from authority about to be set up again! Let’s hope not anyway.
I’m not sure if we are talking semantics or disagreeing or not to be honest, so I’ll address each point as I come to it if that’s OK.
Please ignore any tone or anything you may hear, its just the way I am really

I think it may be appropriate to bring in the biological definition of ‘NICHE’

OK, is the conversation then restricted to “Biological Evolution” in regard to SAFE only?

Intelligent beings (meme users!) create tools (hardware and software, as well as ideas and mental filters) and these tools have the ‘purpose’ of assisting our ability to thrive in our niche.

Ok……this all sounds good….but….hang on….wait a minute… :smiley:
When you unpick all that, though, isn’t there some conflation going on?
Yes, humans make or create tools, tools with a “purpose”, such as a hammer, the “purpose” being….to batter people over the head with…say. :smiley:
Humans don’t make or create ideas in the same way, the body does biologically, the idea itself to say “Make a hammer” occurs through biological processes, they just “come to you” by biological processes and are affected by memes and evolved mimetically as far as I can see, which again is a biological/social thing isn’t it? The way I see it either the idea stays in your head, or you tell it someone or make something with it…at which point whatever it is you make evolves by non-biological evolution….doesn’t it?
The Human as a whole doesn’t have a purpose biologically speaking as if it does implies a Human was created/made doesn’t it - I’m asking you as a Biologist, as you gave it as grounds for authority? A Creationist argument?
What I’m saying is “ideas and mental filters” are evolved biologically and are not tools in the same way as a hammer is, one has a “purpose” and one doesn’t, other than that which it gives itself which I would call “meaning” for clarity because I think words are being misused too. The word purpose can have 2 meanings so it causes this confusion I think.
So can we agree that there are 2 separate methods of evolution at work here anyway, or not?

In a way, our tools have their own niche. We alter our tools over time - (engineering/directed evolution) to increase our ability to thrive in our niche.

The tools the Humans make by engineering/directed Evolution……Yes…like a hammer which could be “purposed” for something.or "used " for something - as I said before it speaks to utility.

However if we change the tool too quickly, then it may fall out of use in it’s niche

Eh? Sorry you’ve lost me ….lol…no hang on a minute you are arguing the Creationist “Directed Evolution” “idea” aren’t you? If you are, this evolved memetically.

SafeNet has a purpose as it is a tool

Yes. For the purposes of Privacy, Security and Freedom……: :smiley:

perhaps it will be a tool that can self-adapt by responding to particular goals/imperatives

How do you go about “responding” to a goal or imperative, surely as a biologist you would know that things respond to stimulus? lol.enough :smiley:

Loving this reply as new topic idea…its Brill!.you can have some fun with this. :smiley:
Thanks everyone :wink:

We discover we are AI constructs.

Yes, interesting…more so than Creationism anyway :smiley:

I often think how if a technology could convert 2d information into “solidified” 3D information it could explain, sayour Universe, problem is, that it’s unknowable at present and you end up with an infinite regress…who made the maker?
Obviously a power with such abilities would be intelligent…we know intelligence evolves from lower forms …sort of thing…so where did it start?

My point about the Creationist argument I replied to could be summed up in one sentence…it was a dishonest argument leading to a dodgy conclusion. It’s like saying , "I believe SAFEnet will be “X”, by way of a Creationist argument and playing with the word “purpose”.
The Creationist argument is inserted unnecessarily, authority is claimed in the matter by way of affirming status as a “biologist” - Biology/Evolution/Science is not consistent with Creationism - therefore to base your non-scientific argument on scientific claims is dishonest in argument terms I think.

Or “who made who?”

and some random characters

This is me stating that I am a person with a strong interest in biology and in this case who happens to have a degree in it and worked in the field and written on biology and evolution in both genetics and memetics. My ‘authority’ is up to you to decide … that seems a given to me.

I don’t restrict conversation, but I was just popping in to make a point that I thought might be useful to help people see things from another angle.

I’m saying what the tool engineer thinks is desirable may be out of line with what the tool users find desirable. MySpace comes to mind.

The goal or imperative is that of the engineer(s) who might build such into the software.

I think I’ll dig up my work in memetics from a dozen years ago and post it for you - just for fun … as a biologist :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Alright, done that, here’s the link:

Ethetics, an underlying framework for both genetics and memetics

I won’t be back on the forum for a few weeks so don’t worry too much if I don’t reply for a while. Then again I may not answer in any case … pretty busy these days.