The problem of designing an AI to understand what it sees

@kellyjay said
Yes, and it tells you what?

It tells us its not, contrary to what you just claimed, 'circular reasoning', because instead its based on the known evidence (the fossil evidence being just one example of that out of many). A conclusion based on observation is NOT 'circular reasoning' but rational.

@humy said
Such as what, exactly?
Give me just one example of this "something else" that is observed to or at least assumed to sometimes happen to "voids its contribution" of a "positive mutation" ...

ANY process, if it isn't guided and directed towards an end as you do when you write code, will not remain on track towards any specific purpose, like building a heart. Changes occurring can add to or take away from a lifeform's ability to stay alive let alone improve. Nothing about a process that is not being directed and guided towards an end is ever going to produce something functionally sophisticated as building a new limb in an established lifeform over time, or a chess program, you know it cannot be done in programming. Give examples where without being guided as a functional program is produced with error checking and multi able systems that are functioning in concert.

If you wish to suggest natural selection, does this, that it can be called a guiding process I ask you does it resemble a filter wiping out that which cannot handle the environment life finds itself more than a guide? A guiding process would call for the proper mutation to be produced to continue a specific work, and if nothing is doing that, nothing is guiding what is supposedly being formed.

You have to realize too that building new organs, limbs, features into an established lifeform has to be more dangerous than just creating a lifeform intact with everything working together by design! You can screw up resources in attempting to add something new, or have something already working on missing a need, or something that requires attention the lifeform would typically just do, but if things are in a state of flux, things break, or die when it comes to life or a functionally sophisticated program, adding something new always has to keep intact what was there before if it is required.

@humy said
It tells us its not, contrary to what you just claimed, 'circular reasoning', because instead its based on the known evidence (the fossil evidence being just one example of that out of many). A conclusion based on observation is NOT 'circular reasoning' but rational.

What do fossils tell you, and why do you think they do? If you are going to suggest something someone says about them is true, how do you know, what if they are wrong, do you concern yourself with that or assume they cannot be?

@KellyJay
What exactly are you saying about fossils we have gotten wrong?

@kellyjay said
What do fossils tell you,

They are dated (via counting annual layers in rocks etc and also radiometric dating which could only be wrong if the known laws relevant to nuclear are simply false in which case none of our nuclear technology would work) and, from these dates and the fossils we observe, the evidence proves that there was a progression of different sets of species over MILLIONS of years that generally started only with the most primitive microbes then things like simple jellyfish etc came to exist then only much later crustaceans but still no vertebrates and then only much later the first fish and then much later the first amphibians and then later the first lizards and then only much later the first mammals and birds.
A similar progression of simpler life followed by more complex life also happened with plants (first only algae then also moss then ferns then trees and then more complex flowering plants).
Thus the fossil record extremely clearly proves two things:

1, The fossil record proves, and contrary to the claims of certain religions, that all the species did NOT come into existence at about the same time but rather came into existence at very different times with many millions of years between those points of times.

2, The fossil record proves there was a general progression starting with more primitive species to generally ever more complex species but also only over many millions of years. This is EXACTLY what you would expect if they evolved but NOT what would be explained by your religious claims.

There is at least so far no known alternative rational explination of 1 and 2 above other than those species evolved and this is despite many attempts to create such an alternative rational explination. Without being pedantic, we can say that means evolution theory is proven true.

If you are going to suggest something someone says about them is true, how do you know

We know because of the evidence.

what if they are wrong

The possibility of a mere claim being wrong is exactly why we scientists, unlike some (not all) theists trying to push their religion, look at the EVIDENCE to make sure the claim isn't wrong. We have already looked at the evidence for the claims for evolution. They are not wrong. Evolution theory is proven correct. And the reason why we believe evolution happened was never because somebody claimed it happened but rather because the evidence proves it happened. If somebody had made a claim that evolution happened but the evidence showed it didn't then we would all believe it didn't; no problem.

@kellyjay said
Yes, and it tells you what?

Every fossil is a history book from before recorded history, with clues about what life was like before we learned how to write things down. It tells us what organisms may have existed when. It tells us change over time. It provides a timeline for evolution.

@wildgrass said
Every fossil is a history book from before recorded history, with clues about what life was like before we learned how to write things down. It tells us what organisms may have existed when. It tells us change over time. It provides a timeline for evolution.

You still have not said anything about how you know, only what you you claim to know.

@kellyjay said
You still have not said anything about how you know, only what you you claim to know.

You want to know how I know fossils exist?

@kellyjay said
You still have not said anything about how you know, only what you you claim to know.

"how you know" what, exactly? That evolution happens?

If yes; We have already REPEATEDLY told you how which is via the EVIDENCE, which includes the fossil record. THAT is exactly HOW we know. So why do you keep saying/implying we have NOT told you this?

If no; Exactly WHAT is it you are demanding us to explain "how" we "know" it?

@wildgrass said
You want to know how I know fossils exist?

I hope that's not what he is asking! It be like asking us how we know sand dunes exist; In both cases, do we really have to personally prove they exist to convince him they exist?

@wildgrass said
You want to know how I know fossils exist?

No, but the claims that are made about them. You believe that all the things said about them are true?

@KellyJay
So your real objection is the dating of the age of the fossils which in your view cannot be more than 6000 years old.

So you dis ALL Earth sciences in that case.
You just cannot accept evidence built up over 200 years of scientific growth in many fields where ancient fossils are dated with a toolkit of over 10 separate techniques that extends way past C14 dating technique which poops out after about 50,000 years.
But you just cannot accept the reality of any of those dates based on your religious beliefs which insists Earth is 6000 odd years old in spite of evidence right before your very eyes like rock formations bent at a 180 degree angle which takes a lot of heat and pressure which does not exist today so your only argument is god made it that way to fool humans.
Funny how that happened before humans were present on Earth. Good luck hiding your head in the sand. The real world goes on just fine regardless of your religious beliefs.

@kellyjay said
No, but the claims that are made about them. You believe that all the things said about them are true?

I am not aware of anything that is "said about them" that isn't proven via observation to be true and, Given that's the case, it would seem to be STUPID of us NOT to "believe that all the things said about them are true". Thus we DO believe it all, not because it is "said" but because of the proof. Does that answer your question?

Give us just one example of something you say is said about the observed fossils which we believe to be true but which you say is probably false and also give logical justification for your claim that its false despite the apparent proof...