Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design?

But there's nothing judging, thus there's no judgment.
Just as there's no intelligence involved when a gas expands to fill its container, there's no intelligence involved when life progresses towards its theoretical maximum.

And a 2-input NAND gate must not be able to output a logic 0 iff both inputs are high, since the individual components can't perform that function.http://www.opamp-electronics.com/...images/digital/04094.pngOh wait, it does.
The circuit evaluates A+B. (1,1) has a value of 0. (1,0) has a value of 1. (0,1) has a value of 1. (0,0) has a value of 1.I do a similar thing when I evaluate a logical argument, except I use a multiple-input gate, and stick an inverter on the output to make it an AND gate.Iff the inference is valid, AND all the premises are true, the conclusion is true. If any other combination, the conclusion is at an indeterminate truth value.The fact that an individual neuron can't perform this function doesn't mean that a group of them can't be hooked up to do it. Well yes, but the problem here is that you have no hardware. There's no judgment that one variant is a better fit to its environment than another; it simply is that one variant is better fit to its environment than another.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-14-2005 05:41 PM

I don't see why a trial-and-error process couldn't come up with a trial-and-error brain. Life, using a process that works really well at finding things that work really well, simply found its own process.
Seems to me that a configurable brain wouldn't be limited to literalty. An input could be segmented; the segments could then be shunted off along different paths, and then combined with other segments from other inputs to form concepts that aren't the result of a singular input. Thus, 'imagination'.

If I'm not judging the conclusion to be either true or at an indeterminate truth value; what am I doing? In daily life, we seem to use a subconscious process that has access to a shitload of data. It might just be a difference engine. The input of one gate can be the output of another.

0 = 'indeterminate'It's what the output signifies; not a reference to the output's level. It's a determination of 'indeterminate'. No, it would be superfluous to use an external AND gate, as I have an internal one that works just fine. It is if I want to do anything with the conclusion. If I don't have that output, I'm right where I started. That's fine, though. Incoming sensory data is simply flagged as true, so that doesn't have to be an output of the circuit. So, now we have a known good to check the output of other circuits against.

'Independent choice' is likely an illusion caused by the fact that your brain can't model itself at anything even approaching full complexity. Even constructing an extremely simplified model is problematic, as we can't see what it's doing.

I'm talking about an XOR gate comparing the sensor output to the logic circuit's output. If output of XOR = 1, the logic circuit hasn't sucessfully predicted the output of the sensor. Can then flag that circuit design as not working, and try another.

I'm talking about trial and error testing judgment.

You don't seem to have a problem with 0 signifying 'false'.
You want to see how it can signify 'indeterminate'? Have the low activate an alternate route. Thus, we have the proper behavior for when one method fails to give us an unusable answer -- try another method. (The low is usable -- just not usable to signify either true or false, as it doesn't.)If all the premises are true but the inference invalid, the best alternative method would be to just use a valid inference.