Are Humans better Designers than Nature / Evolution !

[Commander]

When I went out for a walk on the road I felt that IF I HAD AN EYE ON THE BACK OF MY HEAD it would be so wonderful to view what's happening behind me without having to turn around my front Cameras [Eyes]

When I thought further about this I wondered why God or Nature or Our Evolution has not found it neessary to improve upon this.

Of Course there is a Security Risk & Safely of the Eye if situated at the back. Also the processing and display of front & back eyes in a cogent way.

Human Beings have designed many Products with Front & back Cameras & have handled all the necessary Processings in Machines !

If Evolution does take care of this perhaps the additional worry is our Neck & Turning Mechanism will go into Disuse & become stiff eventually !

Just sharing my thoughts !

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Commander

[Sensei]

46 minutes ago, Commander said:

When I went out for a walk on the road I felt that IF I HAD AN EYE ON THE BACK OF MY HEAD it would be so wonderful to view what's happening behind me without having to turn around my front Cameras [Eyes]

That's why many herbivorous animals have eyes with very wide field of view, near 360 degree (e.g. many birds)..

They evolved to have "eyes around the head" to be able to see predators, and be able to escape them.

On the other hand, predators, carnivorous animals, have binocular vision, to be able localize prey, and precisely measure distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocular_vision

 

Quote

When I thought further about this I wondered why God or Nature or Our Evolution has not found it neessary to improve upon this.

Bird's predecessors were carnivorous and used to have binocular vision, but some species lost it during evolution when they changed diet and became herbivorous animals. Binocular vision is useless for searching plants and fruits, monocular vision is useful to detect predators.

Predators killed and ate binocular herbivorous birds, preventing them to have offspring (and spreading their genes).

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Sensei

[studiot]

 

Quote

Are Humans better Designers than Nature / Evolution !

 

No, we have yet to 'design' a properly self repairing machine, or one that can grow successfully.

 

There is a very good little penguin book called

 

Cats Paws and Catapaults

by Steven Vogel

Which compares how Nature and Man achieve design objectives in many ways.

[Commander]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

That's why many herbivorous animals have eyes with very wide field of view, near 360 degree (e.g. many birds)..

They evolved to have "eyes around the head" to be able to see predators, and be able to escape them.

On the other hand, predators, carnivorous animals, have binocular vision, to be able localize prey, and precisely measure distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocular_vision

 

Bird's predecessors were carnivorous and used to have binocular vision, but some species lost it during evolution when they changed diet and became herbivorous animals. Binocular vision is useless for searching plants and fruits, monocular vision is useful to detect predators.

Predators killed and ate binocular herbivorous birds, preventing them to have offspring (and spreading their genes).

 

TY Sensei nice to know !

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

That's why many herbivorous animals have eyes with very wide field of view, near 360 degree (e.g. many birds)..

They evolved to have "eyes around the head" to be able to see predators, and be able to escape them.

On the other hand, predators, carnivorous animals, have binocular vision, to be able localize prey, and precisely measure distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocular_vision

 

Bird's predecessors were carnivorous and used to have binocular vision, but some species lost it during evolution when they changed diet and became herbivorous animals. Binocular vision is useless for searching plants and fruits, monocular vision is useful to detect predators.

Predators killed and ate binocular herbivorous birds, preventing them to have offspring (and spreading their genes).

 

TY Studiot !

Wishing you all a Very Happy New Year 2018 ! 

[Endy0816]

We can imagine designing an AI that then goes on to create something original.

 

[mistermack]

I think that humans are far better designers than evolution. Evolution works through failure. You produce many more young than you need, and the worst fail, and the better ones succeed. That really wouldn't do if you want to sell smart phones.

In any case, the phone has gone from invention to the modern smart phone in less than 150 years. Evolution would have taken billions of years to do the same thing.

Mind you, the phone has evolved, so you could say that human designers are using evolutionary principles.

[Strange]

44 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I think that humans are far better designers than evolution.

I can think of a couple of counter-arguments:

We are looking at coping ideas from nature where evolution has come up with clever solutions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimetics)

Genetic algorithms are used to come up with engineering solutions that no human would think of. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm)

[Thorham]

Yes, we're absolutely better designers than evolution because evolution doesn't design anything.

[EdEarl]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I think that humans are far better designers than evolution. Evolution works through failure. You produce many more young than you need, and the worst fail, and the better ones succeed. That really wouldn't do if you want to sell smart phones.

In any case, the phone has gone from invention to the modern smart phone in less than 150 years. Evolution would have taken billions of years to do the same thing.

Mind you, the phone has evolved, so you could say that human designers are using evolutionary principles.

The very best robot a team of humans can design and make is no comparison to a human. It's not even as good as comparing  a wax orange to a real apple. 

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

The very best robot a team of humans can design and make is no comparison to a human. It's not even as good as comparing  a wax orange to a real apple. 

Let's see how that holds up after 500,000,000 years of humans designing things before we get carried away making comparisons.. 

[EdEarl]

We will be replaced by AI that design things long before someone designs a comparable robot. Although, we will have designed an analog to the brain, which is itself a significant achievement.

[mistermack]

We are already beating evolution in many areas. The brain for instance. My brain is not below average, but I can't beat a computer chess machine set to a good level. And the computer can easily remember all of the moves perfectly, even ten years later. I couldn't manage that five minutes later. 

I don't think we will design a comparable robot, because there's not a strong market for one. (yet, anyway). But the bits of things that we design are generally better than nature. I can tell if it's hot or cold, but my car can tell the exact temperature, and convert it to other scales. So when we do design something, or some part of a thing, it's generally better. A whole human is asking a lot, but we are the freaks of the living world.

In any case, it's not fair to evolution to compare in a lot of cases. What evolution has to do, is produce something that can survive and reproduce. We want something far more specific when we design something. So we don't have to design it so that it can defend itself, feed itself, fight off viruses and bacteria, successfully mate and rear it's young etc etc. We just want something that tells the time, or coverts radio waves to sound. 

[Itoero]

On ‎18‎-‎1‎-‎2018 at 12:56 PM, mistermack said:

We are already beating evolution in many areas

This is an odd statement. You can't 'beat' evolution( change over time ). Beating 'evolution' is like beating 'time'.

[dimreepr]

On 17/01/2018 at 10:48 PM, mistermack said:

I think that humans are far better designers than evolution. Evolution works through failure. You produce many more young than you need, and the worst fail, and the better ones succeed. That really wouldn't do if you want to sell smart phones.

In any case, the phone has gone from invention to the modern smart phone in less than 150 years. Evolution would have taken billions of years to do the same thing.

Mind you, the phone has evolved, so you could say that human designers are using evolutionary principles.

The phone hasn't evolved it got better, not the same thing and is why the OP question is moot. Design equals intent evolution has no intent, not to mention the fact that a phone is not organic or the fact that human designers have copied evolutions solutions many times.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The phone hasn't evolved it got better

I think it is OK to say that phones have evolved. Just as long as you don't confuse that meaning of the word with the biology meaning. (Which mistermack may have done.)

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think it is OK to say that phones have evolved. Just as long as you don't confuse that meaning of the word with the biology meaning. (Which mistermack may have done.)

1

Phones get better with each new iteration due to the intent of the designer, not chance; so in the context of the OP, and my post, I think my point stands.

On 17/01/2018 at 10:48 PM, mistermack said:

Mind you, the phone has evolved, so you could say that human designers are using evolutionary principles.

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by dimreepr

[EdEarl]

My thoughts about this subject have changed.

Evolution begins with totally random experiments, that evolve life. Life changes evolution because life strives to exist and can make decisions based on conditions. Some decisions will induce changes faster than evolution would find them randomly.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

My thoughts about this subject have changed.

Evolution begins with totally random experiments, that evolve life. Life changes evolution because life strives to exist and can make decisions based on conditions. Some decisions will induce changes faster than evolution would find them randomly.

That really has mixed the definitions, if you think evolution makes decisions...

[EdEarl]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

That really has mixed the definitions, if you think evolution makes decisions...

I didn't say evolution makes decisions, but considered both that it did and that decisions making was done by an agent evolution created. Both possibilities seem reasonable from one viewpoint or another. I'll let others decide for themselves.

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I didn't say evolution makes decisions, but considered both that it did and that decisions making was done by an agent evolution created. Both possibilities seem reasonable from one viewpoint or another. I'll let others decide for themselves.

1

Technically, you have a point, but in the context of this thread, do you? 

[EdEarl]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Technically, you have a point, but in the context of this thread, do you? 

I said the following:

On 1/17/2018 at 8:09 PM, EdEarl said:

The very best robot a team of humans can design and make is no comparison to a human. It's not even as good as comparing  a wax orange to a real apple. 

I implied nature was the better designer. Now I am undecided.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I implied nature was the better designer. Now I am undecided.

 

Nature doesn't design, it solves...

[EdEarl]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nature doesn't design, it solves...

OK, sorry for being politically incorrect.

[mistermack]

21 hours ago, Itoero said:

This is an odd statement. You can't 'beat' evolution( change over time ). Beating 'evolution' is like beating 'time'.

Well, the OP headline question is, are we better designers. So I'm entering into the spirit of the question. Even though I know perfectly well that evolution only give the impression of design.

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The phone hasn't evolved it got better, not the same thing and is why the OP question is moot. Design equals intent evolution has no intent, not to mention the fact that a phone is not organic or the fact that human designers have copied evolutions solutions many times.

Well, I think it's evolved. Not in the strict biological sense obviously, but the word has a more general application. In any case, the similarities are strong. A phone needs to survive in the market place. Some fail, others succeed spectacularly. Some survive by occupying a niche. The surviving models get reproduced, with sometimes minor, sometimes major changes. The designs that fail usually go extinct. 

Most people would say that the phone is evolving. Even if it's not biological, and there is design involved. The design is evolving.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Well, the OP headline question is, are we better designers. So I'm entering into the spirit of the question. Even though I know perfectly well that evolution only give the impression of design.

Well, I think it's evolved. Not in the strict biological sense obviously, but the word has a more general application. In any case, the similarities are strong. A phone needs to survive in the market place. Some fail, others succeed spectacularly. Some survive by occupying a niche. The surviving models get reproduced, with sometimes minor, sometimes major changes. The designs that fail usually go extinct. 

Most people would say that the phone is evolving. Even if it's not biological, and there is design involved. The design is evolving.

 

22 hours ago, EdEarl said:

OK, sorry for being politically incorrect.

My point was more about the seeming, miscomprehension (many examples on this site) about what evolution (biologically) is, which is perpetuated by the OP; a little too pedantic perhaps but this is in speculations, not the lounge.

On 31/12/2017 at 12:04 PM, Commander said:

When I thought further about this I wondered why God or Nature or Our Evolution has not found it neessary to improve upon this.

1

Nature/evolution has found a solution, it put both eyes on the side of the head.

Edited January 20, 2018 by dimreepr