I'm willing to buy Strong AI. I'm also willing to that reality is computationally equivalent to a Turing machine. (See A New Kind of Science by Wolfram.) I still think there's a missing logical leap in declaring that therefore, evolution is equivalent to Intelligent Design.
I think the problem is that you still have to assume that intelligence is necessary for evolution. Put another way, if there is an Intelligent Designer, computational equivalence and Strong AI lead to the conclusion that the designer is reality itself. But I don't think it runs the other way.
Along the lines of GEB, electrical impulses in the brain are a necessary component of human intelligence. However, the impulses are themselves not a result of human intelligence.
Even if we conclude that reality is itself intelligent, evolution may be the functional equivalent of the electrical impulses. In fact, I think that model is more consistent with intelligent reality than the conclusion that evolution is the output of that intelligence.
no subject
I think the problem is that you still have to assume that intelligence is necessary for evolution. Put another way, if there is an Intelligent Designer, computational equivalence and Strong AI lead to the conclusion that the designer is reality itself. But I don't think it runs the other way.
Along the lines of GEB, electrical impulses in the brain are a necessary component of human intelligence. However, the impulses are themselves not a result of human intelligence.
Even if we conclude that reality is itself intelligent, evolution may be the functional equivalent of the electrical impulses. In fact, I think that model is more consistent with intelligent reality than the conclusion that evolution is the output of that intelligence.