Science Salon Podcast: Are people just machines?
"Does [random mutation +] natural selection tell us truths about the natural world? or not?" through the analytics of "Game theory simulations"
(Thank God someone is finally doing this research - as this is a mandatory epistemology BEFORE one can declare what evolution even is...)
Predicates
- organisms that see through reality are not more fit than organisms which are buying it wholesale (hold fitness payoffs).
- fitness payoffs (what I call fitness assets - fitness is a status, not proven as an achievement)
- Do 'fitness payoffs' contain information about the structure of the world?
Foundational Postulate
Evolutionary Game Theory indicates that Fitness Payoffs - DO NOT preserve structures of the world (P<.000009). - This is what David Bailey has been contending.
Hypothesis
"In order to preserve a structure there are certain equations which Fitness Payoffs (Assets) must satisfy"
This is what I have been calling
Detection of Intent = "certain equations"
You will not find Design - but you will find Intent. So, by taking the track, or being forced into the track of 'Intelligent Design' and 'Creation' - this is akin to starting a company named "We Rob Your Bank Account, LLC" or "Rape Your Daughter, Inc." It is failed as an attempt, from the naming onward.
It shows to the whole world that we do not posses the acumen to win the argument, from the very start. We must dispense with these archaic terms.
To wit:
Shermer deems this 'being in the weeds' (it was critical path, so it was by definition 'not in the weeds'). Shermer is forcing, what is called a
Brigdman Reduction - a method of sleight-of-hand wherein forcing something to be simple enough to the point wherein the simplicity itself, produces artificial vulnerabilities. It is a mental trick. Accordingly, he declares that 'we must bring this back to simplicity' - in other words, he wants to frame it by means of the Rubric and Buzzword set, with which he is familiar - so that it can be attacked by a canned set of talking points. This is how the fake skeptic substitutes rote argument, for actual acumen. They are not 'solving' the Rubik's Cube
per se, rather are looking for familiar patterns which they can then attack with a memorized script. This is how the Shermers of the world work.
Dr. Hoffman is detecting Intent through algorithm, but he is posing it in such a way that the patrol skeptics cannot alert over the requisite buzzwords to attack. A very good strategy.