Q&A: Thought Experiment: Supercomputers as a Possible Product of Evolution
Thought Experiment: Supercomputers as a Possible Product of Evolution
Question
Hi,
The following is only preliminary speculation. I’d be glad to hear whether, in your opinion (or in the opinion of the readers), there is some flaw in the underlying assumptions.
Is it correct to say that evolution is categorically prevented from producing supercomputers? Just as it has produced elephants, eucalyptus trees, and human beings.
If so—why?
A possible answer from an evolutionary biologist: I’m mistaken. In principle, it is possible that one day supercomputers will evolve in nature.
A second possible answer: evolution can create supercomputers (and in fact already has): it created human beings, and they created supercomputers. That is how evolution works—indirectly.
My response: that is not a reasonable answer, because it seems to me like sophistry. A supercomputer is a very primitive entity compared to living creatures, and it seems to me that evolution ought to have the ability to create it on its own, even without humans.
A third objection: evolution also does not produce stars, rocks, and volcanoes, so why should it produce computers?
My response: supercomputers are an imitation (albeit a very pale one) of living creatures, unlike the inanimate objects above. It would seem natural that evolutionary processes should at least have the potential to create such a thing.
The underlying assumption in the background: naturalism is not enough to explain evolution. Evolution is both too “smart” and too “stupid” at the same time to create supercomputers on its own.
The difference from the watchmaker argument: Paley makes use only of an analogy or metaphor (the watch). He does not see an intrinsic conceptual connection between the image of the watch and his philosophical-theological argument. My argument does see such a connection: the existence of such a sophisticated “watch” (a supercomputer), which despite its great sophistication is not close in degree of sophistication to a living creature, points to meta-evolutionary powers (metaphysical?). These powers establish the regularity that operates the makers of watches (human beings).
Answer
I don’t understand the claim. Supercomputers as we know them today are non-living entities and have no genetics. Therefore they cannot undergo an evolutionary process. If you are asking about the creation of human beings with the abilities of supercomputers, I see no reason to rule out the possibility that such creatures could come about evolutionarily.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t understand this discussion. I already answered it.
In my opinion, there is a sting in my argument that exposes the failure of the naturalistic interpretation of evolution.
The naturalist is basically claiming (like you) that evolution simply cannot carry out tasks far simpler than tasks human beings perform (building supercomputers). This “limitation” on evolution, from his side, does not seem consistent to me with his claim that it alone created something as amazing as the human brain. According to his view, he ought to say that it could—at least in principle—perform manipulations on inanimate matter and create a supercomputer from it. That should be a very simple task for it.