[vcg3rd]

Regardless, it doesn't have agency and isn't clever. Personally I belive in a Designer, but since middle school I've been bewildered by the way evolution is almost always presented, outside of rigorous scientific literature, as if there is agency, intelligence and intent behind it.

I don't have a problem with that, but materialists don't have that luxury and use language in bad faith when do it.

[gumby]

You might enjoy Dennett’s “The Intentional Stance” for some enlightening exploration of this metaphor, e.g. “The thermostat tries to keep the temperature between 67 and 69” not only makes sense but is a useful way to think of it even when we don’t believe the thermostat has agency.

[jononomo]

The thermostat was ultimately designed by a mind that has objectives. That is why it tries to control the temperature.

[freedomben]

What about the ocean? The ocean also "tries" to keep the temperature steady.

[rexer]

That one doesn’t quite work for me. A thermostat has a purpose: keep a temperature. An ocean doesn’t really have a purpose.

[Nevermark]

As humans we do things for teleological reasons. Meaning we can say we did X in order to accomplish Y.

Ascribing teleological explanations to evolution is technically wrong, since it doesn’t look ahead.

However, it does something very similar. Our brains process competing options, from plausible to nonsensical, before selecting an action, partly in sequence (ideation), but also in parallel (competition processing).

Evolution tries many options in parallel and sequence too. Just by actually doing them and then selecting which of those choices to keep repeating (better survival), and those to forget (extinction of genes, clusters of genes, or whole species).

So over longer time periods, it acts very teleologically. A kind of reverse teleologic by hindsight.

The same is true for the “brilliance” of this teleology. Evolution tries so many things, that it can solve very difficult problems in very novel ways.

Is that “intelligence”? Our casual usage of intelligence isn’t defined precisely enough to say one way or another.

One person would say evolution is blind, and in the short run it is. But another person might point out that evolution is anything but blind. It is an epic version of Edison’s lab, where millions or billions of false solutions are continually tried and ruled out, to find each new fitness enhancement.

It relentlessly experiments and follows the “data”.

On longer timescales, evolution is effectively teleological, highly creative and very intelligent.

And all three aspects compound over time, just like human learning and research, because evolution doesn’t just find new features, but new abstractions and modularity. Such as flexible reusable gene systems for encoding body parts, epigenetic reuse of features in different kinds of cells for different purposes or triggered and “run” by different conditions, nervous systems, etc.

Thus evolution “learned” to speed itself up over time, letting it more rapidly optimize larger more complex solutions. I.e. orders of magnitude faster creation of new novel animals, than it originally took to optimize the first cellular life, colonies of cells, etc.

Watching evolutions first billion years would not have suggested that the plethora of different intelligent animals, from octopus, parrot to human, would have been remotely possible in the time it took. Evolution’s compounding meta learning created brains, our “true” teleology, and its expansion into technological and economic expressions of the pursuit of survival. All meta extensions of evolution, found by evolution.

[jononomo]

There are single proteins that need to "evolve" somehow, but they need to arrive at a very particular shape, and extremely near misses offer no feedback information and are just as good as dead.

But the combinations of amino acid sequences they would have to search through in order to find the correct shape is so large that it is greater by several orders of magnitude than the sum total number of all the organisms that have ever lived on Earth since the beginning of time (which is about 10^40, I think).

So your claim that "evolution just tries so many billions of options, man" just doesn't hold water.

There was a time, back during the 1960s, I'm told, when mathematicians in the academy would openly mock evolutionary biologists for their lack of understanding of statistics. But then political correctness took over or something.

[Nevermark]

> But the combinations of amino acid sequences they would have to search through in order to find the correct shape is so large

Evolution isn't looking for that sequence.

It is looking for any change in sequence with a positive payoff, and in the meantime constantly diversifying sequences with similar outcomes, creating more opportunities for serendipity.

Every large animal is born with mutations. So we are also quite robust to spreading the search, running multiple experiments at a time, taking small risks with genes not quite as good, which will get weeded out quickly when combined with other weaker genes, but in the meantime cast a wider net for meshing with another gene that complements it.

So yes, in any given species with a nontrivial population, millions or billions of genetic variations are being explored at any point in time. We are nothing like carbon copies of each other, differing by just a couple checkmarks.

This is a radical speed up. Just as sexual recombinatory reproduction is. Evolution today operates with vastly more efficient genetic environment, structures and systems than what early life did.

Tractable statistics do no justice to how biology works and all the paths it searches. I am not knocking formal statistics at all, just noting that past one or two step events, the layered statistics of chemistry, genes, gene clusters, epigenetics, populatoin dynamics of complex creatures in their complex environments, etc. are not going to be tractably modelled.

Measurable sometimes for sure, but not symbolically characterizable or calculatable.

[jononomo]

> It is looking for any change in sequence with a positive payoff

The entire reason I used the example of the combination lock was so that hopefully you would understand situations in which "any change in sequence with a positive payoff" is a nonsense concept. You either get the correct combination or don't get any positive payoff whatsoever.

When you are trying "millions or billions" of genetic variations are being explored at any point in time, as you point out, you are off by so many orders of magnitude in terms of the search space that you need to explore that the problem is intractable.

You may as well tell me that you can guess a random password that I come up with because you have a way to test millions or billions of combinations at a time. That's great, but I can come up with a random password that it would take you from now until the end of the universe to guess even if you guess quadrillions of possibilities at a time because I can create a password that would require you to test 10^84 possibilities.

[IIsi50MHz]

Do you consider that not all possible evolutionary combinations are equally likely?

[Qwertious]

IIRC, evolution is an optimizer but not intelligent. Some of our expectations of intelligence are actually more lax than people think and include optimizers.

[fennecfoxy]

Until we find out that evolutionary steps/genetics are the firings of the neurons of some planet scale brain that thinks using evolution. We do have quite a bit of junk DNA ;)

Almost makes me wanna write a scifi short on it.

[billforsternz]

That's amazing. Did you just type that out or did you spend a couple of years preparing it just in case?

[Nevermark]

That's funny. :) I just typed it out in one splat with a few quick edits. But I spend a lot of time trying to get clear and distilled perspectives of everything interesting.

[throwway120385]

It's hard to explain an animistic force of nature to another human without using words that imply agency. It feels like our language and our ways of thinking are hard-wired to see everything through that lens because we have agency. It's like a fish trying to imagine what it's like to be outside of water.

[Yeul]

Didn't Darwin write a book that did just that?

[Qwertious]

Yes, but reciting the entire book mid-conversation isn't a realistic option.

[48864w6ui]

Bruce Lee's injunction "be like water" probably means don't overcomplicate with agency and opposed consciousnesses, just evolve the lagrangian (towards victory).

(Speak not of the relevant XKCD)

[jononomo]

So you believe in a "force" that creates life?

[oasisaimlessly]

Pastor says that the four fundamental forces are necessary and sufficient to create life.

[renewiltord]

Dude, that's just the language. "Water wants to flow downhill". It's a model, man. Everyone learns this pretty quickly. I don't get how this position is so popular on HN/Reddit. The language is giving you tools to model the world.

"The water doesn't want anything. It's just the laws of gravity."

Intelligence comes from being able to efficiently compress highly predictive models. Any computational mechanism that is unable to do this is a low-grade intelligence. If you need the whole thing spelled out carefully for you, you're NGMI.

[graemep]

You can say "water flows downhill" instead.

Why not say things in the more accurate way.

[bee_rider]

Humans anthropomorphise everything, I’m pretty sure it is how we run general intelligence software on small pack hunting tribal creature hardware: we model evolution as a clever sentient trickster and speculate about how does things.

[TehShrike]

I've observed this as well. People who believe in evolution can't seem to stop themselves from using "intelligent design" language to anthropomorphize evolution.

[prerok]

I agree with the sentiment. I also heard of some books that say stupid things like humans have not yet reached the maximum of human evolution.

Of course we have not reached the end of our evolution. That will exist only when we are all extinct.

As for the direction... that is something else. Maybe we will evolve into higher intelligence, but as the Dick's story "The Golden man" or "Idiocracy" show, is the intelligence really the driving force of today?

[mulmen]

> is the intelligence really the driving force of today?

Yes, certainly. More than anything intelligence differentiates us as a species.

[prerok]

I don't agree. Women, in general, don't find men attractive because of intelligence. It's other factors more like, whether their life is in order, they are fit, or the classic, if they are symmetrical.

So, we are visually, materiallistically oriented. Not all, of course, but evolution works on population size, not exceptions. Exceptions only come into an overbearing effect on cataclysmic events.

[TeMPOraL]

It's not that kind of intelligence that matters. Don't think in terms of being good at chess, poetry, or multiplying numbers in your head. Think wheel, writing, domestication, agriculture, petrochemical engineering, nuclear weapons, computers, genetic engineering.

Our intelligence is what allows us to acquire and improve new adaptations without having to change our own genetics. We're able to change living environments and adapt to them multiple times in a single life span, and we went from basic language to walking on the Moon much faster than evolution is able to make meaningful changes through natural selection. It takes however many million years for a species to grow fur to adapt to cold climate; it took a spear for us to adapt by stealing other animals' fur, and couple hundred years to figure out how to make synthetic ones at scale. In that time, we adapted to almost every environment on the planet.

Intelligence very much is the driving force behind humanity.

EDIT: and we're also beating natural selection from the other end - modern medicine allows many people to live and reproduce, who without it would've died from genetic diseases. We're very good at denying the "fitness" criteria nature uses.

[bdamm]

While I agree with your general slant, it's not correct to say that evolution can't act quickly. Evolution can act, and does act, slightly faster than a single generation. Populations change rapidly, and the success, failure, life and death of individuals and their guiding behaviors, change with it. The introduction of online dating, for example, has already caused evolutionary changes in our species. Only time can tell if these changes are going to last. Just because we haven't yet generally grown thumbs adapted for interacting with iPhones doesn't mean that the more subtle changes haven't happened.

[_carbyau_]

While I agree in the sense that what you say improves human race survival vs whatever-else comes.

But evolutionary pressure also occurs within the species and for the human race $$$ has largely influenced demonstration of procreational traits.

Intelligence doesn't matter if you are smart but don't have any opportunities. The other social cues, fashion, appearance, physical fitness, health, being "funny". Are all a lot easier if you have $$$.

So many conversations around modern population fertility rates have a $ component in them.

Maybe being intelligent matters more than simple strength and coordination used to. But what kind of intelligence?

Maybe being a sociopath such that you can bully your way to CEO - or to a high enough level you meet some "darwinian fitness" threshold.

But in and of itself, being able to engineer the feat of walking on the moon didn't make all the nasa employees inherently more desirable to partners to procreate. Those employees maybe had attributes that matched with desirable procreation partners and maybe that feat brought $$$ too - but the engineering smarts alone isn't it.

[Retric]

Diminishing returns. People vastly prefer a partner who can communicate using language over those who don’t, that’s a huge preference for intelligence just not an unlimited one.

Similarly most people want some level of success be that artistic, financial, athletic, etc and success is highly correlated with above average intelligence. 101+ IQ’s might not seem that impressive but over a long time scale that’s an endless treadmill.

[saagarjha]

Consider talking to more women.

[sublinear]

Women prefer men that suit their goals. Their opinions and experiences shape their goals. They are not a hive mind.

Women on the more narcissistic end of the personality spectrum may prefer ugly men, poor men, dumb men, low self esteem men, etc. so they can control him. Narcissistic men do the same when picking women.

This isn't even exceptional behavior. It might even be the norm depending on where you live. People who aren't as narcissistic may prefer to be single for much of their life.

Evolution doesn't care how today's politics perceives these personality traits. If they lead to reproduction they will continue. On this topic, it's not even evolution but culture and simple family traditions!

[philosopher1234]

Evolution in humans, from an atheist perspective, is consistent with the idea of a designer: humans are the designer.

Sexual selection in humans is a psychological phenomenon, and it’s subject to all of our most hifalutin ideas.

You have an opinion about what “god” wants and express it through sexual selection, thus influencing our collective evolution in that direction.

[TeMPOraL]

Also ironically, by the time we became able to conceive of and communicate about such ideas, natural evolution has long stopped being the driving force behind how humans and human groups look and grow and evolve.

[RoyalHenOil]

Evolution is still very much a driving force in humanity. Every time a couple struggles to get pregnant, every time birth control fails and results in an unplanned pregnancy, every time someone decides to be child-free, every time someone dies young, etc., etc., humanity evolves toward one genotype over another.

If anything, I would argue that human evolution has accelerated in the last few decades (at least in wealthy nations where people have a lot of control over their reproduction and enormous choice in who they marry, if they marry at all).

[stuaxo]

But why do they want what they want, and how much agency is there really anyway ?