Evolution is an abstract pattern which makes progress via the correction of errors using selection
I think we might be having terminology problems -- in particular I feel that you stick the "evolution" label on vastly broader things.
First, the notion of progress. Evolution doesn't do progress not being teleological. Evolution does adapation to the current environment. A decrease in complexity is not an uncommon event in evolution, for example. A mass die-off is not an uncommon event, either.
Second, evolution doesn't correct "errors". Those are not errors, those are random exploratory steps. A random walk. And evolution does not correct them, it just kills off those who misstep (which is 99.99%+ of steps).
if induction doesn't work, and CR does, then it's a good idea to accept CR?
Sure. Please provide empirical evidence.
And I still don't understand what's wrong with plain-vanilla observation as a way to acquire knowledge.
killing off a misstep is a way of getting rid of that error. the stuff that doesn't work is probabilistically removed from later generations – so the effect there is error correction. (experimenting itself isn't a mistake, but some of the experiments work badly – error).
Evolution adapts, yes. Adapting something to solve a particular problem = creating knowledge of how to solve that problem. Biological evolution is limited in what problems it solves but still powerful enough to create human intelligence b/c of the ability for a single piece of knowledge to ...
Why expect AGIs to be better at thinking than human beings? Is there some argument that human thinking problems are primarily due to hardware constraints? Has anyone here put much thought into parenting/educating AGIs?