Aiguy's Computer
by BilboOne of our recent, frequent participants here at Telicthoughts — aiguy — had what I consider to be a fascinating, intriguing comment here:
http://telicthoughts.com/are-dem-bunny-prints/#comment-193453, which I quote below:
Indeed – I can learn!
And so can my computer. Using genetic and other machine learning algorithms, it has learned to design complex machines that I didn't even understand until I saw them work. Not only that, but it decides all by itself what it is that it wants to design!
It really is so counter-intuitive to see how simple laws and a deterministic machine operating according to blind, natural processes gives rise to amazingly intelligent results without any intervention from me. I suppose it could be said to demonstrate "foresight" (it produces designs all at once without visible intermediate trial-and-error), but of course everything it does really is completely determined by its innate structure and its interactions with its environment. I have no reason to think it is aware of anything, so if it has beliefs and desires it doesn't know it. I really don't think it knows what it is doing – or why.
Yup, a completely unconscious, blind, unaware, deterministic physical mechanism operating according to nothing but fixed law and chance, incapable of doing anything but what it does, and there it is grinding out artifacts of complex form and function. Intelligence is so cool!
I thought this was be a good discussion topic. First, a few questions for aiguy:
1. I know next to nothing about computers. Could you explain for a layman how your computer goes about deciding what to design and how to design it?
2. This computer, you say, operates according "to nothing but fixed law and chance." The "genetic and other machine learning algorithms" that it uses — did it stumble upon them by fixed law and chance? Or were they programmed into it? And if they were programmed into it, was it by chance, or were they programmed by someone making an intelligent decision?
3. And these "genetic and other machine learning algorithms" — were they produced by chance, or were they intelligently designed?
I agree with you that your computer is intelligent, by the way. And I think your other comment,
This is why I say ID folks should be in the habit of qualifying what they think the evidence actually supports, rather than leaving it up to each reader's intuitive conception of mind.
is a very good one. If ID is true, it could be that the designer is a computer.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Let me add a warning: If I find comments that I consider non-topical, I will send them to the memory hole, regardless of who makes them.
Comment by Bilbo — June 5, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Bilbo,
Say I write a program that selects some action. The choice could be fixed in the code, or it could vary with pseudo-random input, or it could even vary with "true random" input (say from radioactive transducers). I would say the computer is deciding which action to take in all three cases.
Now, I write another program which has the ability to select and run other programs. It selects one program or another based – again – on either fixed or random factors. This means this program is deciding which other deciding program to run. You can extend this as far as you'd like to.
The machine starts out with some basic abilities; humans start out with some built-in abilities too (you can recognize a face almost immediately after being born). I teach the machines some things by giving them software; your parents, teachers, and friends taught you some things too. The machines learn still other things by interacting with their environment and other machines – just like you learned from your environment and other people.
What do you mean, "intelligently designed" Do you mean by a person, or by a computer?
Excellent, Bilbo!
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Very nice.
In your opinion, is what you built an example of AI (artificial intelligence)?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 5, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Hi Sal –
In my business, this is sort of a running joke. Example:
So that concludes the demonstration of HAL 21000. As you've seen HAL has written nine best-selling novels, proven all remaining mathematical conjectures, cured cancer, and designed faster-than-light transportation. Are there any questions? Yes, over in the corner…
That's great! But is it intelligent?
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I began studying computers partly to get involved in AI. I was particularly interested in designer substitutes that could:
1. build VLSI circuits
2. build spaceships
3. write software
4. build machines that could learn
What I realized was that there was no unified concept of what AI was, much less how it could be achieved
Indeed we do have expert systems and genetic algorithms which design things like VLSI circuits. In fact, once upon a time, spread sheets, word processors, compilers were viewed as AI…..but are these things AI?
This does relate to the ID debate, because if we have problems characterizing intelligence, then definition of ID is muddled by our definition or lack thereof of intelligence….
I think the "D" in ID is much more tractable and definable and can stand on its own. The "I" is another story…
In any case, I got by reluctantly through a CS curriculum, but it didn't fit me well. I went back and got an EE degree. EE and Physics better suited me….[it was professor of AI who lamented not pursuing physics, so his laments sort of motivated me out of the field of computer science]…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 5, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Sal,
Correct. What's more, there is no unified concept of what natural intelligence is! This is a critical point that bears repeating in the context of ID: There is no theory of intelligence, and there is no unified concept of what intelligence is.
Your question is a matter of definition rather than discovery (a philosopher would say it was analytic rather than synthetic).
In other words, you are not asking me about any fact of the matter regarding what computers can or cannot do; you are asking me what the definition of AI is. My answer is: It doesn't matter what the definition of AI is. That was why my joke was (supposed to be) funny! Let's try it again:
Get it? What difference does it make whether we answer yes or no to this question? It doesn't change the fact that this computer has done all of these things. If you'd like to call those sorts of things intelligent, go ahead. If not, who cares?
Is Michael Jordan athletic? Well, yeah, of course. Is Tiger Woods athletic? How about a cheetah? What about a flea? I dunno – it just depends on what you mean by athletic I guess. You see?
Sal, I'd like to reiterate what you've just said, because in my view it is the single most important aspect of the ID debate. If you don't mind, I'll use bold font:
This does relate to the ID debate, because if we have problems characterizing intelligence, then definition of ID is muddled by our definition or lack thereof of intelligence
It's even worse than that, I'm afraid, because there are various different definitions of "design" floating around, and some of these build in ambiguous references to intelligence! For example:
1) design is "an artifact containing complex form and function (or CSI)"
2) design is "something created by an intelligent agent"
I have an undergrad degree in cognitive psych and graduate degrees in CS, and if I had to do it over again, I would major in philosophy (and be poor). Anyway, after 30+ years of thinking about these issues, I really do see ID being a non-starter as an explanation of anything until it begins to take a more rigorous look at what this concept of "intelligence" is actually supposed to mean.
So I'm really heartened by your response, and that of Bilbo here too!
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Well put. The effects (design) are what matter. We don't have to define human intelligence or any kind of intelligence to know what effects it produces. The analogy of cellular machinery to human engineering is enough to begin to investigate the rabbit hole.
(Edit: For those disturbed by the thought of investigating rabbit holes, feel free to substitute "looking for rabbit tracks", or something similar.
)
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 5, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
Sal, the D without the I loses any meaning, at least in the canonical definition of ID:
Not that I find that definition particularly useful, but it certainly emphasizes the I as the source of the D.
Comment by olegt — June 5, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
The computer has no experience, and "intelligence" is something that relates to the experience of knowing. To project "intelligence" onto the computer only begs the question: Show me the computer that feels itself playing chess, or the toaster that feels itself baking bread?
Design is like the hammar, it is a tool, and can be picked up by an intelligence that uses the mere tool to build a house. It is the carpenter that feels himself building the house, the intelligently designed hammar feels nothing.
Comment by Stephen — June 5, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I don't see why this would be counter-intuitive. Results are the product of human design even if indirectly so. Even the fact that human input is not needed beyond a point is not unique.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Bradford,
Agreed – I think any attempt to use computers to prove that intelligence/design can occur without an intentional agent is doomed to fail. Even if a programmer designs a very complicated program that can run and accomplish many things flying by itself, you always not only have the spectre of the originally programmer in play, but the fact that the programmer can intervene at will with the program. It's like writing a play, sending the play off to the printing press, and recording the printing in action. 'Wow! Look at this! A machine is able to write and mass-produce a play all by itself!' It's a bit trickier than that.
Comment by nullasalus — June 5, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Stephen:
This is why the computer [AI] analogy is so intriguing. If the artifacts are themselves intelligent, or even intelligent designers themselves, I don't think you can drop the "intelligent" qualifier for the theoretical designer of the artifacts. Even if the intelligent artifacts can't agree on what it means to be "intelligent," and even if they spend their time calling each other stupid. Or just 'Tards.
Comment by Joy — June 5, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Right. There is a parallel to this in biology. If mainstream biologists are correct about everything pertaining to an evolutionary process and FLE never gets traction but the origin of life was the product of intelligent design then all life forms would be too. An intentional agent involved in setting up a self-perpetuating process would make such a process a product of intelligent design even without subsequent intervention.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 12:35 am
That is a reasonable objection. As Mike also pointed out, there is not necessarily stable definition of ID.
However, let me point out that even the definition of "life" is confronted with similar issues as the definition of intelligence….
How does this relate to other issues. As I said, I see no urgency to change high school or college science curricula to include ID.
What about peer reviewed research? The hypothesis of ID is argued through various claims. Though the falsification or testability of ID directly or in totality might be difficult, I think certain claims used in support of ID can be empriically investigated.
The circumstantial evidence and various claims that are used to support ID can be validated. My personal interest has been in two areas that can be empirically explored:
Formally speaking, I suppose anyone could challenge whether the outcome of these two research areas has bearing on the question of ID — nonetheless these research areas will still return empirical measurments and observations. Whether one feels the measurements or observations justify an ID inference is another topic, but I think these are still observations and measurements that would be of benefit to all parties concerned….
With respect to genetic entropy, if the genome is decaying as Sanford postulates, this has serious medical implications. I will be working in a couple weeks with some other to outline what sort of research can be done along these lines. I think this specific question is worth exploring whether one believes in ID or not…..
Now back to the topic at hand….why do I support ID even if I can't define intelligence — well, I support the existence of love and life even though I can't define them adequately. I think there is good circumstantial evidence to support ID, but that is my opinion. Whether ID is science or not is less of my personal concern than whether it is ultimately true or not….
Even if for the sake of argument we classify ID as a crank philosophy, the question of whether and intelligence was responsible for life still remains….that is really the core of the search for ID.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 6, 2008 @ 12:35 am
June 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am
All –
You have merely transferred the ambiguity from the word "intelligence" to the word "design" here. Since there is no meaningful, unified concept of "intelligence", you decide that it doesn't matter, and ID will focus on "design" instead. When I ask what "design" is supposed to mean, I'm either told it is the product of "purpose and intent", or that it displays "apparent rationality and foresight", or that it is "something containing complex specified information". And so around and around we go, for lack of any consistent technical vocabulary.
If ID studies the designs and not the causes of those designs, then the "canonical definition" of ID (as it has been called here) seems to be in error: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause….
Apparently we are back to requiring conscious awareness again, when I have been told repeatedly by several others here that consciousness was not at all critical to ID.
In any case, Stephen, how do you suggest we decide what has "experience of knowing" and what doesn't? Perhaps you can work this out with Kornbelt.
First, you have assumed humans are intentional agents and computers are not. Is this personal opinion, or have you solved the problem of intentionality?
Next, I don't see how the fact that the programmer can intervene has anything to do with it, since the programmer need not intervene at all as the system is behaving with intelligence.
Next, you haven't said why you are focussed on the question of "who designed the designer?" here. Either something is intelligent, or it is not. If a computer is not intelligent, then why can it solve novel problems, learn, generate functional designs, and so on, all by themselves with no intervention from anyone? I do not operate my computer systems from behind the scenes – once I flip the switch, they are entirely on their own. I do not know what problems they will be asked to solve, nor what answers they may give. I do not know what they will learn, nor what they will decide is important in any particular situation.
Next, you imagine that because computers have been designed by humans, this means that computers are merely the tools of their human creator, and have no intelligence of their own. And yet you also believe we humans have been designed – does that mean that humans are merely the tools of their Creator? But obviously you can't think that, because you just implied that humans are intentional agents (which I believe you think is the same as an intelligent agent, which I think is what is supposed to design designs, which are things that reflect purpose… sorry, this gets tricky when we have no technical vocabulary to work with).
Anyway, if the Designer can design human beings, and human beings can still be bona fide intelligent agents, then why can't computers also be bona fide intelligent agents, no matter who or what design them?
Even ID-friendly Bilbo believes that computers are intelligent – one wonders how can there be so much disagreement among ID proponents, even on these most fundamental of issues, and after all this time. Perhaps because ID has never committed to any technical definitions? You think?
It is nothing like this at all. If I want to know if something can fly, I build it, and then I see if it can fly or not. If I want to know if something act intelligently, I build it, and then I see if it can act intelligently or not.
Imagine you come across a strange entity in a field. You can communicate with it and it responds appropriately. You see it design novel machines, prove novel theorems, diagnose and repair complex equipment, and even write a new song. I ask you if you think this agent is intelligent, and you presumably would say yes, it appears that it is intelligent. I ask you if you think it was designed by an intelligent agent, and you say yes – it has all the signs of having been designed. Then I tell you it is a computer, and you say… Hey! You didn't tell me it was a computer! No way it's intelligent!
Saying Deep Blue does not think about chess is like saying an airplane can't fly because it doesn't flap its wings (Drew McDermott).
Until we have some clear, unified notion of what the word "intelligence" is supposed to actually mean in this context, don't you think it is premature to suggest what it might be responsible for?
And finally, regarding how counter-intuitive AI is, imagine having been told at the turn of the century that a machine which can only perform a few simple Boolean operations can be made to beat any human being on the planet in chess. Perhaps you think you would have immediately agreed it could be done. In that case you would have been the only person with such a clever intuition; many people kept denying the very possibility through the early 1980's.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 1:43 am
June 6th, 2008 at 2:37 am
aiguy,
I don't have to in this case. If the computer is a bona fide intentional agent, then an agent can give rise to an agent (no surprise there), and the argument for all things 'natural' being part of or exhibiting hallmarks of bona fide agency strengthens. If the computer is not an intentional agent, then that which lacks intention, mind, and (by some definitions) true 'intelligence' can still be employed, instigated, and manipulated by an agent. Agency stays fundamental in this scenario.
It just fleshes out the problem with using computers as an illustration of 'no design'. I remember Kasparov being suspicious that Deep Blue's team was intervening in some way in DB's moves. Again, the agent always remains in a wide variety of ways with regards to computers. Even if there's no intervention ever, all that may mean is no intervention is needed – the computer can be trusted to fulfill the originating agent's desires.
Who designed the designer? I haven't gotten into that deeply. I'm basing this entirely on the validity of using computers to prove you can have design without intelligence. I take the opposite stance – computers show that you can have tremendous design that needs no obvious constant oversight, yet still originate with and act in accordance with an agent's wishes.
Well, no. Whether they're 'merely' tools, or are agents+tools, doesn't really matter all that much to me in this instance. An agent who creates agents which serve instrumental roles yet are themselves important as agents does not trouble me.
I'm in my own little category when it comes to ID, much as I have sympathy with a wide range of views, so it may not be fair to use me as an example – I'm the one who favors it in philosophy, but has strong reservations re: "science". On the other hand, the lack of precision in these definitions didn't stop a whole lot of people from railing AGAINST design and intelligence in nature prior to modern ID stepping up on the scene. No one derided them for being unscientific, loose with definitions, etc. For some reason, if an ID proponent does it, it's a sin, a virus that must be stamped out upon the instant. If an ID opponent does it, well, that's merely unfortunate – if that at all.
You seem to be basing a lot of this on my viewing a computer itself as intelligent/an agent or not. But as I've said – that actually doesn't matter to me in this case. If I'm faced with a computer, no matter how complicated or simple it is, I'm always dealing with 1 or more actual agents.
I remember John Searle giving a reply which I can't find now, but it was something along the lines of 'The amazing thing wasn't that Kasparov lost a game to Deep Blue. It was that an entire team of IBM engineers, working as an organized team with hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding to create a chess playing machine, and the human won against it.'
You may want to have a look at what Charles Babbage saw in the potential of programming re: a Designer. Impressive foresight there.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 2:37 am
June 6th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Bilbo,
You really have hit on the very idea that I have been attempting to convey here.
I don't think you are suggesting that a Dell PC with a flat-screen monitor was responsible for creating the universe. What you obviously means is that a computer operates according to deterministic law (or law+chance), and so for all we could ever know, the intelligence responsible for life might have been a blind, lawlike process.
Again: If ID is true, then there are two possibilities:
1) A blind, lawlike, intelligent process somehow existed and created the universe and life
2) A sighted, mindful, intelligent process somehow existed and created blind, lawlike processes which created the universe and life
The first hypothesis is a bit simpler, but I'd say either of these could be true. I'm certain, however, there is no way anyone could ever say which one was true.
(If you wonder what "blind" and "sighted" and "mindful" are supposed to mean here, look it up in the ID Glossary of Technical Terms. I think they are similar to "guided" and "unguided"…)
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 2:37 am
June 6th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Nullasalus,
I don't have much time, but let me respond to the central point:
Very well, I take it you concede that computers can indeed be bona fide intelligent agents.
In this case, then:
1) Computers operate according to deterministic law (or law + chance)
2) Computers are bona fide intelligent agents
3) Therefore ID can draw no distinction between law+chance and intelligent agency (aka "guided" vs. "unguided" processes)
And please read my previous post to Bilbo; it is an integral part of my arguments here.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 2:48 am
June 6th, 2008 at 3:27 am
aiguy,
'I don't know. Maybe they can. For the purposes of establishing the strong possibility of agency in nature and reality, it's not important to me.' That should suffice for now.
We seem to go through this one over and over.
My replies:
1) It doesn't matter if computers are bona-fide agents or not. Not for my purposes. And oddly enough, not for yours. The fact that the question remains and has no (to my knowledge) definite resolution gets you where you need to go.
2) Your #1 is called into question either way, unless you're certain that humans or a human-like agent must operate according to deterministic law or law + chance (or, even if they do, that a human/human-like agent is indiscernible from a computer/computer-like agent). Because a computer can have a programmer, and the programmer can intervene (either directly, or via an operation that the programmer can guarantee will go off). I could picture ID considerations ranging to a program that was entirely front-loaded at the start of all creation, or an ID project attempting to find incidents in history that seem as if the programmer intervened to accomplish something the program wasn't going to accomplish on its own. I still wouldn't have faith in this being a falsifiable outlook.
3) From the philosophical end of things, the fact that humans as we know them have experienced so much personal success with design leads us to a whole lot of interesting realizations regarding the potential of 'agents like us'. We may never be able to completely resolve the question of human-like agency (or lack thereof) being responsible for nature, but.. well, I covered this with simulations.
As I said, I only popped in to mention that trying to take down the concept of an intentional agent working in nature by use of a computer example can't really succeed. By having a bona-fide intentional agent responsible for their creation, orchestration, etc, they are poison to a no-ID argument. They can't even really do good for a 'no way to decide' argument, at least in the philosophical end. You can fight over the agent's intentions, but doing away with the agent with computer examples is extremely problematic.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 3:27 am
June 6th, 2008 at 4:09 am
nullasalus,
But it does not suffice. I have presented a number of arguments that support this assertion, and your response has been that it doesn't matter if I'm right or not. But since I believe my argument depends on it, I must assume that your admission "maybe [computers] can [be bona fide intelligent agents]" is a concession in the affirmative.
Nonsense – we fully understand how computers operate, and they operate according to law + chance. The fact that they had an antecedent designer is irrelevant, and of course the fact that the antecedent designer is not known to operate according to law+chance is irrelevant as well.
Once again, I do not intervene in my program's operation. Furthermore, I can never guarantee what will happen in my programs. I can't predict their behavior – even in principle. They can also solve problems that I can't figure out how to solve. For example, they can prove theorems that I couldn't see how to prove, and they can design electrical components that are more efficient than I could figure out how to design, and they can induce regularities in data that I couldn't recognize. (I'm not actually personally involved with all of these sorts of projects – only some – but these are all factual statements about what programs can do).
Once they are activated, my computers' behaviors are completely independent of my will. Their behaviors change over time, and with their experience too. All of this can be said, in just the same way, about human beings: We are born with built-in abilities, then taught language and other skills by somebody else, and we learn from our interactions with the environment. There simply is no relevant difference you can point to (as my story about the entity in the field made clear, I think).
EDIT: Moreover, so what if I did intervene in my programs' behaviors? What's the point about this? Can't your Designer perhaps intervene in your behaviors?
And I like your whole idea about that as I've said. I should also tell my own philosophical counter-argument to the argument I've presented here: It's all about consciousness, whether or not it's epiphenomenal. The very fact of my own phenomenology, combined with my undeniable intuition that computers lack awareness and the vacuity of emergentist solutions, convinces me that something transcendental is going on. That's it – that's my counter argument. I think it is almost comically weak, but I think it's true – go figure.
I really couldn't disagree with you more on this one.
1) You are mistaken to say that computers do not operate according to well-understand principles of physical causation
2) You've failed to distinguish a) the supposed independence of us humans from our Designer's will from b) the supposed dependence of the computer on my will.
3) You won't try to argue that computers aren't bona-fide intelligent agents
So yes, I think it's clear that this argument holds up perfectly well:
1) Computers operate according to deterministic law (or law + chance)
2) Computers are bona-fide intelligent agents
3) Therefore ID can draw no distinction between law+chance and intelligent agency (aka "guided" vs. "unguided" processes)
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 4:09 am
June 6th, 2008 at 4:58 am
aiguy,
For the purposes of your argument, feel free to count me down as 'affirmative' if you like.
Some problems.
1) You 'do not' – even if I took this at face value, that doesn't mean that you can't. And if you can, it's fair game for me to imagine scenarios in which you would. And with that possibility being live, it's something that has to be addressed. Remember, I'm not mentioning anything here that's out of the ordinary with computers and programming.
2) You say you don't know what will happen with your programs. I could mince details on this, but it's enough to say – I don't care how complicated your program is. If you want it to, at the very moment it registers 4/1/2010, 13:52pm EST, spam the screen with 'HELLO WORLD' – you can. And that's just the beginning of what's possible. I object to your claim that you "can't predict their behavior – even in principle" – even you with your limitations can have some knowledge of what will take place, though it's imperfect. And the fact that you can have that much knowledge puts a dent in 'even in principle'.
So it's not enough to assert 'I know how a computer/program works (by deterministic laws, or laws + chance)'. You still have the possibility of the human or human-like, at the very least, to consider as meddlers in the program's operation.
I accept that there's definitely something 'special' going on with consciousness, so you get no argument from me there.
I never argued that they do not. I've argued that even if they do, you still have to cope with human and human-like agents (at the least) when considering them, because 'I create programs, and once they start running I don't intervene' just doesn't do the work you need it to do.
Are you trying to work free will into this question via a comparison between human minds+brains, and computers? The problem there is A) it's possible there are quantum effects present in human brains, though how is an open question (currently waiting on a paper about this supposedly happening in one testable way), and B) I'm not sure of what you mean by 'independence of humans from our Designer's will'.
I still don't believe I have to. You're trying to establish, to me, 'Imagine a program running which never had the programmer intervene', and my response is 'But I have no need to follow that thought, because programmers can and do do exactly that'. A question like this came up with Kasparov. Hell, it came up with Doug Hofstadter in a way – I remember reading about how someone sat him down in front of a computer (I believe at MIT) insisting they had created a new Turing Test style AI. He tested it for awhile, and then they let him in on a joke – it was someone in another room typing through a script. But what if it was a combination? A pre-scripted Eliza-style program, but one which a programmer could override at will?
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 4:58 am
June 6th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Nullasalus,
I really don't understand your point here. Are you saying that I'm pulling a Wizard of Oz here, and secretly solving these problems for my computer from behind the curtain? It is certainly easy enough to control for, after all (you may run my computer in your room if you'd like). And as for "indirectly" guaranteeing its behavior; I can hardly guarantee behavior that I can't predict.
No, you're mistaken. There are two reasons that nobody could, even in principle, predict what a program will do, and neither reason has to do with how complicated the program is. First, it can incorporate random input, and second, it can learn from unpredictable environments, changing in unpredictable ways.
No, you really are mistaken completely. I am regularly suprised (and usually disappointed) by what my programs do.
Hmm, perhaps you think I'm pulling the old mechanical Turk trick here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
So your "possibility of intervention" argument goes nowhere:
1) I can't predict what situations the programs will encounter, nor how random input might alter the program's behavior, and so I can't predict the program
2) The program can answer questions I can't answer
3) If you believe that AI programmers actually cheat when we run our systems (maybe we use secret radio-control devices?) then I'd mistaken you for someone far more rational
That's quite enough to defeat your argument, but on top of that, how do you avoid the possibility that your behaviors are simply instigated and manipulated by your designing agent?
Yes you did. You said: "Your #1 is called into question either way" (where #1 is "Computers operate according to deterministic law (or law + chance)") in post 193582).
First, I don't need it to do any work, because this particular premise is simply that computers operate according to law+chance, and has nothing to do with anything else.
Moreover, the fact that my programs run by themselves does every bit of the work that 'The Designer designs human beings, and once they are born He doesn't intervene" does.
No. What I meant was that you claim the computer is merely an extension of the programmer, but you can't explain why you don't consider that humans are merely extensions of their Designer.
Again – free will is not the question; I was referring to your issue with this "possibility of intervention". I really think that argument is dead though.
Wow, I really am missing your point here. The only thing I can think of is that you actually believe AI programmers hide inside their computers and manually operate their computers – ignoring the fact that my programs can do things I am incapable of doing myself. (Or perhaps I am only pretending that I can't solve the problems, in order to fool you into thinking my computer is figuring it out?)
Come on, Nullasalus – what in the world are you talking about? You absolutely must be joking.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:06 am
June 6th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Oh… OK, I think I figured out what you mean. You mean that even if something looks like it's proceeding according to law+chance, it could always be the case that an agent which transcends law+chance is actually responsible? I recall a theological point like this – God moves the atoms, but He moves them as if they were moved by law? Is that it?
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:09 am
June 6th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Ah, a thread in my field of expertise (what little expertise I have anything, anyway).
aiguy, I simply do not accept any of your premises.
There is really no such thing as random input or unpredictable environments for a computer. The constraints that are put into the system to begin with are the ones that prevent this from being so.
Truly random input originates from outside the computer; nothing a computer generates is truly random.
You may get unexpected results from a computer, but certainly not unpredictable ones. A person merely needs to sit down and perform all of the calculations that a computer did to arrive at the exact same result the computer gave. Granted, the number of calculations involved may prohibit doing so in a timely manner, but it definitely is not a case of unpredictability. If unpredictability was defined so, we could call any algebraic equation unpredictable simply because it has variables.
There's also another problem on the opposite end you've mentioned only in passing – the output.
How does a computer know it is in the process of solving a problem? How does it know when it has been successful in solving a problem and stop processing? It doesn't. It requires constant intervention by human beings who interpret its output, define its successes, and define its failures.
Roger Penrose > Marvin Minsky.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 6, 2008 @ 8:45 am
June 6th, 2008 at 9:46 am
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Certainly, inputs to a computer can be chaotic or random, e.g. weather data, or quantum randomness.
A measure of complexity is the inherent unpredictability of its behavior. Many systems are so complex that the only way to predict them is, as you point out, to run them with every possible input scenario"”and this is not always possible due to immensity of the possible inputs. We say that such a computer system is *deterministic*, but unpredictable.
It depends on what you mean by 'know'. It might churn numbers then print out an answer and halt. It could even say "working … working … done."
If we are talking about a complex simulation, there may never be a state of having solved a problem. There is no problem per se.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 9:46 am
June 6th, 2008 at 9:46 am
aiguy to nullasalus:
I do not see how an antecedent designer is 'irrelevant' to a computer-as-artifact argument. We understand how computers operate because WE designed and built them. Because they are our own intelligently designed artifacts, there just isn't a way to force anyone to pretend that they might be artifacts of an RM-NS style evolutionary process.
I understand (I think) why you wish to use this example, it's the one most well-known to you. But it doesn't suffice for what you want it to represent. A stronger argument in this vein, I think, could be generated using a duck-billed platypus.
IOW, it simply doesn't work to use a legitimate artifact of human intelligent design as an example of how a blind watchmaker mimics intelligent design. You aren't a blind watchmaker. The computer didn't evolve in the way you or a platypus presumably did. So what *IS* irrelevant here is your assertion that the computer operates entirely by "law and chance" once you've installed the software and turned it loose. Turning it loose does not negate the fact of physical and programming design. It's still an intelligently designed artifact – and we still know it's an intelligently designed artifact.
What relevance to the question of whether the computer is an intelligently designed artifact could it possibly have that the computer is not conscious (or consciously aware)? This again falls apart by the very existence of your example, which *IS* an intelligently designed artifact.
If both the intelligent designer and the intelligently designed artifact display the quality of "intelligence" and the ability to design, what difference does it make for one to be conscious and the other not? It's like you wish to do one of two things with your argument and counter-argument and aren't able to accomplish either…
1. Intelligence need not be conscious, and
2. Intelligent designs need not be conscious
…if we accept your postulation that both humans and computers are intelligent and focus on which is conscious, I don't see how it relates to the overall debate about whether life forms are intelligently designed artifacts. Because in your example, we already know that humans are conscious and computers are not.
Are you trying to somehow prove that because humans are conscious, if we're intelligently designed artifacts our designer cannot be conscious? Or if we're conscious we cannot be intelligently designed artifacts? The argumentative links here are tenuous and confusing. Can you clarify?
Comment by Joy — June 6, 2008 @ 9:46 am
June 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Regarding the following question from aiguy, this was why the Turing test was invented. But the question really belongs to philosophy. For example, Husserl will have us strip away our pregiven assumptions, ending in ontic meaning. The ontic meaning is grounded in consciousness (a transcendental subjectivity which has purified itself away from a cold objectivity), and that is as far as we can go which implies that consciousness is fundamental.
Comment by Stephen — June 6, 2008 @ 9:47 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
If I may add some formalisms here to show why I think your objection, although reasonable, is misplaced.
I can say "the sky is blue" but "blue" is not a definition for what the sky is, nor even an necessary requirement for something being a sky….
The definition of design, as used in ID parlance is not associated with intelligence at all, it is simply saying something that is not describable by simple stochastic processes or regularity are designed:
I think this obscure paragraph in Dembski's work has be forgotten. Yes we can claim things that evidence design evidence intelligence, but that is a claim for design, not a definition of design….
"The sky is blue" is not a definition of sky.
Neither is "Design is what evidences intelligent agency" a definition of design. It is merely a claim about something we defined. Definitions are not the same thing as the claims we make about definitions. As Bill Clinton said, it depends on what you mean by the word "is"…..
So things with this mathematical property are called designed. It is a separate question whether intelligence is needed to generate such artifacts….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 6, 2008 @ 11:03 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:25 am
That's because "The sky is blue" is parsed as "This sky is blue." (By the by, this is evidence in support of the statement that "Some skies are blue.")
Until now, I've never seen anyone cite that as an argument for clarity.
Excerpts from The Explanatory Filter, William Dembski:
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 11:25 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Sal,
You're conflating definition with detection. EF isn't used to define what ID is. As the passage from The Design Inference shows, Dembski proposes EF as a means to detect design and from that infer that the object an intelligent cause.
Comment by olegt — June 6, 2008 @ 11:40 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I don't believe I conflated them, but I will grant it appeared to you that I did. And even supposing that I had conflated them, the issue is whether the definition of design in Dembski's work is formally decoupled from the existence of an intelligence, and I believe it is.
If the definition of design is decoupled from the definition of intelligence, at least the "D" part of ID is not subject to the concerns being raised about the definition of intelligence….
Furthermore, this definition of design, seems to embody the spirit of the word "design" when used in existing peer-reviewed literature and textbooks. It seems perfectly legitimate to speak of the design of the cell, and this seems to accord with Bill's more formal definition.
I'm not trying to defend ID as science in these discussion. If it all makes some of you feel better, you may call ID what you want for the sake of argument…
However, I like to set the record straight that at least Dembski's notion of Design is not committed to a doctrine of intelligent agency….it is a simple mathematical definition. That is all….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 6, 2008 @ 11:57 am
June 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Third alternative might be that life is a sighted, mindful, (purposeful, responsive) intelligent process that elaborates itself, and is currently still in the process of limited self-modification. Some life forms have existed so long that they may appear to materialists to be blind and law like. However the fact that many living systems can obviously still modify themselves in purposeful, intelligent response to internal and environmental challenges can be viewed by non materialists as evidence against materialism. (There would be no way to detect whether or not some deity were involved in the process, since purposeful intent cannot be examined under a microscope. Its existence or non existence can only be inferred.)
Comment by Bert — June 6, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Dembski: The filter is a criterion for distinguishing intelligent from unintelligent causes.
I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.
If so, then it merely says it is a pattern we have no ready explanation for.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Bert:
You know I agree, Bert! And this is what's ultimately at issue in this stupid 'culture war' of metaphysics being played out in the scientific, social and political arenas. Why is science attempting to limit by force what people may infer from evidence, so that only their 'approved' metaphysical implications can result?
Still seems mighty messed up to me, and it doesn't look to be getting any better as time goes on.
Comment by Joy — June 6, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Joy,
That is simply not my argument at all. My argument is this:
1) For any detection criteria for "intelligence" that ID may want to adopt, computers are intelligent.
2) Computers operate according to "blind, unguided, natural processes"
3) Therefore ID can't distinguish between "intelligent cause" on one hand, and "blind unguided, natural process" on the other hand.
RM&NS and evolution has nothing to do with it.
It makes no difference to my argument at all. I was just sharing with Nullasalus why I don't happen to be a physicalist.
I'm not trying to say either of these things – as you see, my argument has nothing to do with consciousness either.
Hopefully my argument as stated above is sufficiently clear.
I'll repeat this in hopes it could clarify for some people why I think ID must admit that computers are intelligent in the same way people are:
Stephen,
I could not agree more. But this has nothing to do with my argument either. If ID wishes to say that "consciousness" is required in order for something to be considered intelligent, then ID turns into philosophical speculation about consciousness, period. Here at TT I've been told repeatedly that this is not the case – ID makes no particular claim about the consciousness of the Designer. I have been told the same thing by Dembski (personal communication). Instead, ID is about design, or about purpose and intent, or about intelligence.
Of course there is always this confusion because there are no technical definitions published for the concepts used in ID, which means we will always have these semantic problems when talking about ID Theory. While several here have indicated it really doesn't matter much how ID defines it, I think this discussion shows it matters a great deal.
Sal
I'm not trying to argue only that ID is not science; I think most people here (including MG, FMM, KB, and Nullasalus) agree that ID is not science. My point is a bit broader: For however ID would like to describe intelligence in terms of its effects, computers produce qualitatively the same kind of effects, and so ought to be considered "intelligent" in the same way humans are. The fact that computers are designed makes no difference, since (according to ID) humans are also designed, yet we consider humans intelligent.
If computers, which operate according to pure law+chance, are considered intelligent in the same way people are, then ID can't distinguish "intelligent cause" on one hand from "law+chance" on the other hand.
I really get tired of this semantic runaround. I would suggest that if (each version of) ID would adopt some technical definitions and stick to them, we would stand a better chance of discussing the issues with any clarity at all. If ID does not involve an intelligent cause for biological complexity, then I really don't know what we're all talking about here.
I don't believe anyone has countered my arguments here at all, and so I think we're left with the conclusion that there are no grounds to distinguish "intelligent cause" (or "telic cause") on one hand and "blind, unguided, natural process" on the other hand, unless one falls back on the standard metaphysical arguments for dualism. ID brings nothing new to those.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Sal,
First, I've shown here that design cannot be distinguished from regularity and chance, and the reason is that computers (which operate by regularity and chance) can create novel designs.
But much, much more importantly, I want to point out the incredible equivocation that is ID! On one hand, people all over the world believe that ID somehow supports the idea of an Intelligent Designer of life and the universe. But in this "obscure paragraph", Dembski admits that it has nothing to do with intelligent agency at all!
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
They are mechanistic extensions of human intellligence totally dependent on humans for their creation.
So do we. It's the origin of computers that defies a blind unguided process explanation.
Sure we can. This message was guided. The evidence is in the sequencing of the letters.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Bradford,
1) I don't see why "mechanistic" has anything to do with the issue. What part of the Design Matrix criteria for design has to do with whether or not the designer is "mechanistic"
2) Computers are not necessarily totally dependent upon the programmer, because computers can learn from their environment.
3) We human beings are also dependent upon our Designer for our existence (I presume you agree with this). Yet you don't take this to mean that we humans are not truly intelligent.
Hmm. This makes your mention of "mechanistic" in your first point even more difficult to understand. Now you are saying that humans are also mechanistic? OK, if that's what you believe, that's fine with me.
Human beings are designed by a Designer, and computers are too. So what is your point?
Now you fall back on calling this "guided", without saying what "guided" is supposed to mean, but simply asserting that it is different from what mechanistic, algorithmic processes can do. My argument shows this is not the case.
If ID published a technical vocabulary with consistent definitions, we would not have these constant semantic runarounds.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Hi Aiguy.
Very interesting thread.
And thank you Bilbo for posting it.
To the rest, excuse my absence, work finally had swamped me beyond the point of no return until this weekend. Wife and co-workers forced me to take this weekend off.
For what it is worth, it looks like Aiguy has forced an implied fundamental admission from even Nullasalus that there is nothing inherently different between an artificial intelligence and human intelligence.
Both might have required being front-loaded or continuiously manipulated by outside "meddlers"or "agents". It matters little if one calls these designers angels or ETs, the idea is the same. That is something higher is needed to qualify as intelligent.
Thus back to the old AI joke, "…but is it intellegent?"
I do suggest something more is needed for artificial intelligence to be truly non-deterministic. Psuedo random generators are deterministic. Massively interconnected and complex input is deterministic. While it can cause unexpected results, with enough time, energy and knowledge, the results could be explained.
What can't be explained with today's scientific knowledge is why a particular "random" quantum choice is made.
At best, the explaination is that a "random" quantum choice is forced to be consistant with all the other "random" quantum choices in the universe, past, present and future.
I suggest it is as simple and as complicated as that.
I am suggesting the "something more" is an interconnectedness with the entire universe.
I would be my opinion that if a computer isn't dependent on the only possible true source of randomness, it is nothing more than a complex turing machine, a fancy calculator.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
aiguy wrote:
Asserted more like. Hardly shown.
". . . computers (which operate by regularity and chance) . . ." And initial design. And input. And specific parameters . . .
Comment by Eric Anderson — June 6, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Not real hard to understand. Organisms and computers function in accordance with natural laws but more than references to laws of physics is needed to explain their causal origins.
Why not take a page out of Bill Clinton's book and say it depends on how "is" is defined? We can parse definitions all day long. Beats getting impeached.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hi Bradford,
Speaking of politics, we could always "Stay the course" regardless that the evidence and logic suggest otherwise.
What is inherently different between human intelligence being guided by an intelligent designer and an artifical intelligence being guided by the same said designer?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Hi TP,
More to the point, I think I've shown there is no observable difference between "intelligent cause" on one hand and "regularity and chance" on the other.
As has already been mentioned here, there are true random generators, for example http://www.random.org/
I think we both know that "random" is a hard concept to understand, but these generators are as random as random can be.
I disagree, but since there are true random sources available, this point is moot here.
Eric,
Actually I've articulated my arguments above. It really is you who have made an unsupported assertion.
Bradford,
So you say. How do you know? It can't be from the evidence, because both computer-like and human-like things can create designs.
This is absurd. As you can see here, ID proponents disagree even amongst themselves what these words are supposed to mean. I'm not the one introducing confusion here; I'm pointing out that the only way these arguments seem to make sense is if you don't try to say what they actually mean.
I don't think you can defeat the argument here, Bradford, but if you can it will require a principled counter-argument rather than the mere accusation of obscurantism.
EDIT: You failed to respond, for example, to my question regarding your point about "mechanism". What does "mechanism" have to do with your saying that the intelligence of computers is somehow different from that of humans? You are the one playing Bill Clinton here, I'm afraid, shuffling your definitions like 3-card Monte.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Hey AIguy,
I think the problem is that it isn't the mechanistic part that is the problem but the fact that computers are an extension or augmentation of our own intelligence, and the requirements of that intelligence.
Our intelligence is able to identify problems and calculate that there is a possible solution to said problem (even or especially, if we cannot identify that solution on our own), and then we use computers to help us overcome our knowledge and precision gap. Whether that be tracking the weather, or designing a spacecraft to maximum efficiency and precision, computers are "designed" to fill some of those specific gaps in our own identifiable dis/abilities.
So in this regards I might say that while computers can and do mirror some of the aspects of human intelligence they are not representitive of it (Yet). Maybe when quantum computers are more prevelent in AI we will see that gap close.
Also in this regards I think we may be able to see a difference between a designer of us and a designer of computers. We do not seem to be needed by the designer in the same regards as we need computers. Our relationship with computers is more intimate like a designed symbiosis if you will.
Comment by Kuma — June 6, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Hi Aiguy,
You wrote…
At least our disagreement is tangable and not simply semantics.
The point isn't moot if there is no such thing as randomness or chance.
I presume you are somewhat familar with quantum computing. The whole concept is based on the fact that qbits are interconnected and NOT random.
I am arguing that it make no sense to presume that "true random sources" exists in our known universe.
Radioactive sources are non-deterministic, but that doesn't make them random.
You might argue for all practical purposes (FAPP) but then for all practical purposes the interconnected quantum effects is the unknowable intelligent designer, agency, meddler, etc all rolled in one.
Regardless of what the definition of "is" is.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
aiguy,
I'm saying that as a programmer, you're capable of intervening in your program. Your defense is 'Yes, but I don't'. Anything after 'yes' is unimportant to me.
'Can incorporate random input', 'can learn from unpredictable environments'. Can, meaning not not by necessity, but by possibility given your state as a programmer with finite mental capabilities (like all of us). But a program can also have code within it that will have a definite result at the right point.
Really, are you telling me that the result of..
10 PRINT "Hello World!"
20 GOTO 10
..is something that 'cannot even in principle be predicted'? Or an instantiation of 'after X amount of time has elapsed, run that program'?
Not all of the time. If you never had any idea what your program would do (other than 'fail', I suppose) each time you ran it, you wouldn't be aiguy. You'd be carwashguy.
Let me be clear here: I am not doubting that programming is complicated, or that you're capable of creating such a complicated program that you can't be 100% certain it will compile, or that you can't be 100% certain of what it will do totally. But you can still create a program you are near-100% certain will compile at a certain that at time 4:44pm will perform a given action. And you can still intervene if you like.
There's no defeat going on here, for all the reasons I've outlined. It really seems like you're arguing 'I can imagine never intervening in my program, or never coding something in which overrides other operations at a given point, therefore that's not a question you have to address.' Was Kasparov being irrational when he raised the possibility of DB receiving guidance? Was Hofstadter being irrational when he came to the conclusion that the 'AI' he was dealing with wasn't an AI after all?
Purely on the grounds that human or human-like intervention comes into play. Again, reference Hofstadter – when he was dealing with the "AI", was he dealing with a 'completely deterministic (law or law+chance)' system? To give an answer to that is to rule on human minds, despite there being a computer and programs between him and the fake.
Who says I don't consider that? Frankly, I'm open on that possibility. Doesn't seem to be pertinent here, though.
Here, let me try to package it concisely:
No matter what example you give with a computer, you're saddled with an agent right from the start. You don't even seem to be fighting this one, and that's fine. But the moment you're entertaining the possibility of an agent external to the computer (at any point, but particularly at the start), you're opening the door to the intervention of the agent at any point while the program is running. Arguing that you don't personally do this means nothing to the argument, because the possibility remains. Likewise, no matter how 'unpredictable' your programs may be to you, there do exist programs that are either perfectly or essentially perfectly predictable – and it's entirely possible (hell, at times it's common) to include code that will lead to an essentially/perfectly predictable result at a given point.
Put another way: It seems like you want to regard computers as examples of nature, as they're capable of puttering along according to exquisitely complicated programs, achieving intelligent results by nature of their program alone. My response is that computers demonstrate that you can have all that – and yet A) an agent can still intervene at will, and provide an on-the-spot personal touch within the program, and B) include within the program a point at which something definite will happen, no matter how apparently random the program is.
TP,
No. I said for the purposes of what I was arguing, I was willing to give aiguy what he wanted for the sake of moving the discussion along – I even said outright,
..And likewise insisted that, I can slap whatever label demanded on a computer. Agent, intelligence, etc. But the need to address the human and human-like traits remain on the table, due to the particular examples of computers.
I'm surprised this is getting so hacked up in conversation. I swear it's obvious. Every single one of us in this thread is making use of programs, yet we're all involving ourselves directly as human agents.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Hi Kuma,
I've pointed out that is just like the supposition of ID, which is that humans were designed by a Designer, just as computers were designed by humans. So if you wish to continue to say humans are bona fide intelligent agents, rather than simply extensions of the intelligence of the Designer, then you must also say computers are bona fide intelligent agents.
Sorry, I don't follow. How are computers not "representative" of human intelligence?
Sorry, I don't understand this either, nor what it has to do with whether or not our concept of "intelligent cause" includes both humans and computers.
Hi TP,
Yes, refreshing isn't it?
My goal here is to show that the (variously phrased) central claim of ID makes no sense. In the canonical formulation, "intelligent cause" is distinguished from "blind, unguided, natural process". My argument here shows that
1) Any description of "intelligent cause" that ID might want to adopt applies to both computers and humans equally well
2) Any description of "blind, unguided, natural process" that ID might want to adopt applies to the way digital computers operate
3) Therefore, ID can not distinguish "intelligent cause" from "blind, unguided natural process".
QED.
As I said, I understand that the notion of "random" is difficult and controversial. I think questions involving randomness and quantum effects are interesting, but off-topic, unless you can show how they relate to the argument here.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Bilbo wrote:
aiguy responded:
Are we dealing with a pure hypothetical here or is there an actual machine with an actual program that can be studied?
I hate to sound so skeptical, but where is the research paper or the data supporting this truly remarkable claim:
A machine that has "learned." A machine that "decides all by itself what it is that it wants to design." Pretty impressive. Should be a slam-dunk for the next Nobel if it is true. Then again, maybe it is just another in a long line of machines that superficially appear to do something interesting, but that don't really "learn" or "decide" or "want," unless of course those terms are redefined and watered down so as to not really mean what most people understand them to mean.
It would be amazing to see the results aiguy proclaims. Until then, a few hypotheticals, coupled with equivocations about what is really going on in the machine, leave at least the present individual highly skeptical.
Comment by Eric Anderson — June 6, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Hi nullasalus,
Again, you've failed to say why this matters, and you've failed to say why you believe your Designer doesn't intervene in your behavior.
What is your point? If some (even if not all) programs do this, what difference does it make that others do not?
I think I've already been clear: I'm not talking about "complicated" – I'm talking about unpredictable in principle. And I've told you why several times now – random input, and unpredictable interactions with an unpreditable environment.
All you've said is that you can imagine programs that have neither of these attributes. So what? My argument requires only that one single computer which does incorporate these elements can exist and can exhibit the tell-tale signs of intelligence that ID relies on. And yes, many many computer systems exist that meet these requirements.
Please respond to the points I've made above, thanks.
Either you are accusing me of "cheating" (secretly intervening) or not. I shall assume you are not, and so your point is nonsense. Kasparov was wrong, because nobody was intervening in DB's operation. Hofstadter was correct, because that was an instance of human intervention, but again I don't have to show that every computer system operates independently of human intervention! I need only show that one does.
It is pertinent because you want to say that human intelligence is somehow different from machine intelligence. If you are not saying this, fine – we're done, and my point is made. If you are saying this, your supporting reason is because humans design computers (and your nullified "possibility of intervention" argument). But since you believe a Designer designed people, this again defeats your point.
No matter what example you give with a human, you're saddled with an agent right from the start.
Perhaps someone else here can make sense of the "possibility of intervention" argument that you have been making, but it makes no sense to me at all. For the last time:
1) Even if AI programmers intervene sometimes, they do not all of the time, and all I require is an existence proof that computers can behave intelligently without intervention.
2) You consider humans to be intelligent, but can't deny the Designer could intervene in your behavior
Not just complicated, but unpredictable, even in principle.
I've already said why this doesn't matter many times.
Simply mistaken. The behavior of my programs cannot be predicted any more than your behavior can be predicted. There is no more possibility of intervention in my programs than there is in you. There is no more chance that there is something "definite" and hard-wired in my programs than there is that chance for you.
You're wrong about this, Null. Try saying, as concisely as you can, exactly why you think your "possibility of intervention" means computer intelligence is different from human intelligence.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Organisms and computers function in accordance with natural laws but more than references to laws of physics is needed to explain their causal origins.
Yes and…? The reason I know laws of physics do not suffice as the basis of an explanation is simply because human ingenuity is required to explain the causal origins of computers. But you know that and are more intent on obfuscation than in dealing with reality.
Why not take a page out of Bill Clinton's book and say it depends on how "is" is defined? We can parse definitions all day long. Beats getting impeached.
No, it's the same game you have been playing. Intelligence is a broadly defined term with many different facets. Non-IDists use the term all the time and context reveals the facet they are focused on. Are non-IDists being disingenuous when they use the word or are they only confused when in ID forums?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Eric,
Virtually all (except the very simplest) programs exhibit this feature. A hierarchy of conditional choices is the general design of all but the most trivial of computer systems.
This is all quite well known. Please read about machine learning; you might start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Thanks!!! Please call Stockholm immediately!
Please provide your definitions for these terms, so we can clearly see if computers really learn, decide, or want – or not.
I don't think you have spent much time thinking about these things, Eric. Sorry.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
aiguy:
Your problem is with #2. Computers are intelligently devised, purposely manufactured and programmed with goals in mind. Nothing unguided about this.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Eric does not need to spend a great deal of time to realize that obfuscation rather than clarity is the goal of critics. Anything accomplished through use of a computer is the product of intelligent design. The same can be said for a screwdriver and some hammers and nails.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Again, sorry to come into this discussion so late, but have any of you read Babbage's Ninth Bridgewater Treatise: A Fragment? Here is a summary (from Wikipedia):
Charles Babbage was a 19th century English inventor and mathematician, who invented what he called a "calculating engine" – essentially a programmable mechanical computer. The Bridgewater Treatises were a series of book-length essays, funded by the bequest of the Rev. Francis Edgerton, the eighth Earl of Bridgewater, to expand on William Paley's Natural Theology, which was a systematic response to the rise of science in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, based primarily on Anglican principles.
ID has sometimes been called "neo-paleyism" (in response to "neo-darwinism"), and Babbage's ideas are remarkably close to many of those expressed in this thread.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 6, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Bradford,
Pretty much everyone else in this thread has managed to debate the issues without personal attacks. Why can't you?
If you want to attack my argument, please do. Here is my argument:
1) Computers operate according to law + chance
2) Computers are bona-fide intelligent agents
3) Therefore ID can draw no distinction between law+chance and intelligent agency (aka "guided" vs. "unguided" processes)
Please say which of the premises you deny, or why you deny the conclusion, or both. I think we all agree on #1, that computers really are machines that operate according to the principles of physics. I think you deny premise #2, and I think the reason you offer is because humans design computers. But I have pointed out that humans are themselves designed (according to ID), so again human and computer intelligence seems to be indistinguishable.
Anyone reading this thread can see that ID proponents disagree among themselves about what the word fundamentally refers to. What concepts are essential to the notion of intelligence? Consciousness? The experience of knowing? Unpredictability? Physical necessity? Mechanism? Creation of CSI?
If there are no essential attributes whatsoever, then clearly we can't assign any meaning at all to the term "intelligent cause". You must say something about what is supposed to distinguish intelligent cause from unintelligent cause. So, what is it? How do you distinguish them?
As for your "people use the word all the time" argument – people use the word "intelligence" to describe what we need to explain, not what explains it. People use the term "athleticism" too, but that doesn't explain why cheetahs can run fast. If you want to know that, you actually have to find an explanation that tells you something about how cheetahs run fast.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Allen –
Yes, but the response to Babbage is that the divine programmer might have instead been a divine program, and nobody would ever be able to tell the difference.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Babbage's Ninth Bridgewater Treatise is available free online:
http://www.victorianweb.org/sc...
So is Paley's Natural Theology:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/co...
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 6, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
To me, it seems unremarkable that computers should behave like the nervous systems of living organisms. After all, the design of digital computers has been based on the operation of biological nervous systems for decades. And, as Gregory Bateson pointed out in Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, biological nervous systems are based on the more general operating systems of physical reality. So, if computers seem to mimic the operation of physical reality, there is an uncomplicated and unsurprising reason: they have been based on it since the very beginning (i.e. not the other way around).
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 6, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Allen,
Not really, no. There are neural net simulators that run on general purpose computers, and (equivalently) there is general neural net hardware, and there are also special-purpose chips that do model aspects of neural structures (like Mead's artificial retina). But none of this matters – I'm talking about Turing machines here.
I think you're making assumptions that many here will disagree with (i.e. that humans are nothing beyond mechanism). I have avoided making these assumptions in my argument.
My point is that however human intelligence operates, it is qualitatively indistinguishable from computer intelligence, and we all agree the latter is purely physical. Therefore we cannot distinguish purely physical (blind, unguided…) effects from "intelligent" effects.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
The reason I know laws of physics do not suffice as the basis of an explanation is simply because human ingenuity is required to explain the causal origins of computers. But you know that and are more intent on obfuscation than in dealing with reality.
Why do you ignore what I wrote about human ingenuity being required to explain the causal origins of computers? That's what I mean when I say you are not dealing with reality.
Why not? Virtually everything entails both law and chance so how is this an obstacle?
Intelligence is a broadly defined term with many different facets. Non-IDists use the term all the time and context reveals the facet they are focused on. Are non-IDists being disingenuous when they use the word or are they only confused when in ID forums?
How did you derive that conclusion?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I don't agree with that. The symbolism inherent to computer function is evidence for an effect of a mind. That's what detection of intelligence is about- the ordering of physical systems.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Bradford,
I did not ignore it; my response, once again, is this: You believe the Designer's ingenuity was required to explain the causal origins of humans, but that does not convince you to say that humans are not bona-fide intelligent agents. Therefore, by reason of consistency, you must concede that the fact that human ingenuity is required to explain the causal origins of computers does not mean computers are not likewise bona fide intelligent agents.
You ignored my response (but I still do not attack you or your motivations). Please respond to my argument.
Sorry, I don't follow. An obstacle to what? Again, for clarity, let's see if we can focus on these two premises and single conclusion. Are you saying my conclusion does not follow from the premises, or again are you restating that you take issue with premise #2?
For example, some here argue that the relevant distinction between intelligent and unintelligent cause is that the latter lacks "the experience of knowing", or that the latter "is physically determined", or that the latter is susceptible to "intervention", or… and so on. These are all fundamentally different ways to try and distinguish intelligent cause from unintelligent cause.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Bradford,
I believe you are trying to make yet another sort of distinction between intelligent and unintelligent cause, this time based on "symbolism" (what philosophers would call intentionality, not to be confused with the notion of intention). I believe that both humans and computers have intentionality, and I'm certain you have no way to suggest a method to see if I'm right or not.
The causal chain may begin with the sort of "intelligent cause" that you intuitively think about, Bradford, or it may begin with the sort of intelligent cause that arises from algorithmic systems. You can't tell the difference by looking.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
aiguy, you are arguing with yourself. I make a fruit of the poison tree argument. If intelligence caused x and x caused y intelligence is causally linked to the result y. That's why the computer concerns are vacuous.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I can discern these message exchanges are intelligently generated without knowing the designer identities.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Bradford,
You complain that I do not respond to your points, and when I do, over and over again, you ignore them. Review our last few exchanges and you will see I have responded to each of your points, while you continually ignore mine.
For example, I've countered your claim about necessity of an intelligent designer for a computer by pointing out the necessity of an intelligent designer for a human – what is your response?
No, I am arguing with you.
I don't know what you mean by saying the computer concerns are "vacuous". What I claim is this:
1) Computers operate according to law + chance
2) Computers are bona-fide intelligent agents
3) Therefore ID can draw no distinction between law+chance and intelligent agency (aka "guided" vs. "unguided" processes)
Do you still deny premise #2? On what basis?
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Bradford,
Nobody is talking about anyone's identity here, so I don't think this is relevant.
Again: The causal chain may begin with the sort of "intelligent cause" that you intuitively think about, or it may begin with the sort of intelligent cause that arises from algorithmic systems. You can't tell us any way to tell the difference.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Hi Aiguy,
Where you and I disagree, is that I believe a distinction can be made between a turing machine (glorified calculator) and something more, call it "consciousness".
I make the distinction by suggesting consciousness is the property an entity gets by being plugged into the universe through interconnected quantum effects.
You won't get any argument from me about the inherent confusion the ID Movement generates with its definitional shell games.
Yes, I believe there is nothing inherently preventing artificial intelligence from being as conscious as a living creature, for example a dog. But, this is our argument, I say that to do so the AI must use quantum processing otherwise it is just simulating consciousness, not actually being conscious.
This is the lead in to the subject that most ID proponents like to avoid.
Since animals design, create and appear conscious wouldn't they qualify and be "bona fide intelligent agents"
If not, why not?
This makes the AI challenge a little easier. It isn't that hard to imagine an artificial pet. One that mimics a living creature in every way with possibly one exception intuition and, possibly, consciousness.
I suggest if the artificial pet included ties to the interconnected quantum effects, it would have both intuition and consciousness.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
aiguy:
You counter point is a non-sequitur.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
TP,
OK (but of course a Turing machine is not a "glorified calculator"; it is everything that can result from lawlike cause).
Sounds like Penrose/Hameroff to me, yes? Sure, good suggestion.
Yeah, it gets really old. Hopefully this thread will make the point.
I actually think I've managed to hit on the subject that ID proponents most want to avoid already, and I don't have to talk about consciousness at all to do it. The claims of Dembski, Mike Gene, FMM, Pez, KB, Nullasalus, etc. etc. do not appeal directly to consciousness, because then it would become apparent that ID was nothing more than our speculating about metaphysics. Nobody had to rename metaphysics "ID" in order to do that.
So I leave consciousness out of it, and I think that is what makes my argument clear and valid.
I think this is a topic for another thread.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Bradford,
I make my arguments as clear as I can. You ignore them, and when you do respond, you make unsupported assertions. You need to make an argument here, Bradford. Instead you simply say I'm wrong (that my response doesn't make sense), but you neglect to say why.
Let's try this one again. You say computers aren't intelligent in the same way as humans because computers must be designed. Then I say that according to ID, humans are designed too, so they are the same in that regard too.
What is your response?
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Hi Bradford,
The thread is about understanding a distinction between artifical intelligence and natural intelligence.
Your response is your tried and true "you can't explain OOL".
And then you suggest we are making a non-sequitur?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
TP:
TP, a calculator and a brain with consciousness are differently defined. The latter has a particular property the former lacks. Why would anyone pretend they are the same?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
TP – I would say the topic is understanding the difference between "intelligent cause" and "unintelligent cause", as these terms are supposed to be used in the context of ID.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
When is the last time I mentioned OOL? Why must I make a distinction? That's not my problem.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Bradford,
Are you now turning to consciousness in order to salvage your distinction between intelligent and unintelligent cause? Is this your final answer?
(And by the way, what about responding to my questions?)
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Hi Aiguy,
Yes, what I am talking about is pure Penrose/Hameroff.
If your only purpose is to further expose the ID Movement definitional shell game than you are right, I am off topic.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
TP –
No, not just exposing the shell game. I'm giving ID every possible benefit of the doubt here – they can mean consciousness, or they can mean dualism, or they can stick with folk psychology and intuitionism, or any other thing they want. No matter what they mean, they can't tell from the evidence they claim whether intelligent or unintelligent cause is responsible, according to their own definitions.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Not what I said. Humans and computers are different. The former designed the latter. Design flows from an initial cause. That's why evolution, even devoid of an FL concept, can be seen as a design process if the first cell was designed.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
aiguy, was your message a product of intelligent design? Yes or no?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Bradford,
Think of computers not as the PC sitting on your desk, but as the action of law plus chance. Now, please tell us in what sense you mean humans and computers are different, and how you know. Is it consciousness that you are referring to?
Computers are designed by humans. Humans are designed by something else. OK.
Yes. My point is that the intitial cause might be a human-like intelligence, or it might be a computer-like intelligence. In your terms, this means it might have been "guided" or "unguided".
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Bradford,
I'm not sure – what do you mean by "intelligent design" How can you tell the difference?
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
God and humans are different. The former designed the latter. Design flows from an initial cause. That's why humans are not intelligent agents themselves, but mere mechanistic extensions of Gods intelligence, totally dependent on God for their creation.
Do you get the point now that aiguy is trying to make? Why do you believe that humans and computers are different, when both are designed?
Comment by hrun — June 6, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Hi hrun, nice to see you. Thanks – my fingers are tired.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Hi Aiguy,
Now you have reopen the door for my arguments being topical.
I suggest there are earnest ID proponents out there who don't subscribe to the ID Movement's positions as presented by Dembski and the Discovery Institute.
It is arguable that Hameroff's ideas are supportive of ID SCIENCE.
This less rapid critics of ID will admit that foresight is one of the distiguishing features of Mike Gene's Front Loading ideas.
It has the potential of furthering scientific understanding of evolution.
If life and the consciousness of life somehow are interconnected over time then that would definiately be a radical departure from status quo thinking.
Somehow I think more than one ID proponent would find reason to gloat if it turns out that there is evidence of a timeless consciousness inherent in the interconnected quantum effects that make up our universe.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Bradford:
aiguy:
Me:
Comment by robin — June 6, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Hi Hrun,
I agree with Aiguy. That argument was well presented.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
TP,
Again, I am addressing the arguments as presented by Mike Gene, Nullasalus, Fifth Monarchy Man, Pez, Kornbelt, Debmski, and everyone else I talk to who tries to say what ID means over and above metaphysical speculations about ontology, consciousness, and God.
Computers can have foresight, so "blind, unguided, natural processes" can have foresight. That is unless the definition of "foresight" entails consciousness, in which case we're just back to Metaphysics 101.
EDIT: TP, yes, if ID wants to say that its conception of intelligence actually does entail consciousness, then it can turn to Penrose for support. I'd be perfectly happy if ID was explicitly based on Penrose's theory.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
aiguy, was your message a product of intelligent design? Yes or no?
aiguy, get a dictionary and look up the word design.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Hi Aiguy,
I sympathise with you over trying to find a clear understanding of the positions of most ID proponents. However, Mike Gene has spelled out most of his basic position in his book, The Design Matrix. While I think he places way too much emphasis on "human-like intelligence" his ideas aren't inherently based on that assumption and Mike has backed off when pressed.
I think Nullasalus leans towards Hameroff's ideas when he isn't too busy defending religion and the ID Movement.
However, like I said, I can sympathize with your frustration, but I think there are some interesting and defendable ideas buried in all of the thinly disguished religious junk.
EDIT: I would be happy to have the ID Movement embrace Penrose/Hameroff too. I think it is telling that it does not.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
What do you mean by computer-like?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
They can both be designed and be different at the same time. How does that strike you Sherlock?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Not mere mechanistic extensions of God's intelligence; but endowed, by God, with characterists held by God. Of course, this isn't the case if you're arguing against some other notion of God.
But you're still highlighting an important point – contingency v necessity. And the reliance of one on the other.
Comment by Doug — June 6, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
aiguy,
Because, as TP has pointed out and as I've suggested, it isn't automatically clear that the human agent functions just like known computers. I think a lot of the problem here is we may be talking past each other, so forgive me if I skip some of these replies.
I think TP alluded to this as well: What constitutes 'random and unpredictable' depends on some fundamental assumptions about the universe that are up in the air. To you, personally, they may be essentially unpredictable due to your own limitations. Especially with regards to computer-as-world-sim, whether a hypothetical 'programmer' would have those limitations is another issue.
This is a good time to point out, again, that I personally don't think these questions can be distinguished between each other 'scientifically'. I may be reacting to what I saw as 'using computers to prove there is no design', when your focus seems to be 'showing the difficulty in discerning between design and non-design'. I know, I know, this happens repeatedly.
And I only need to show that one doesn't. Ah, impasse. Anyway, as I said above, I think we're addressing different concerns here.
Just to clarify on this point: My argument was that you can code a definite event into any complicated program, no matter how unpredictable it otherwise is. Link up however-many millions of computers using folding@home as you like. If 'At 11pm EST, shut down simulation' is placed into the programming, at 11pm EST, down it goes. And you can predict that.
Anything else I'd argue here would be entirely in the realm of philosophy, which doesn't seem to be the subject of aim. And since you're already open to Penrose-style investigations and otherwise, there's not much for me to fight.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Hi Bradford,
It looks like you are getting desparate.
Are you ready to talk about the fundamental differences between artifical intelligence and natural intelligence now?
How about starting with something simple?
Let's compare a real dog to an AI dog.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Then was your message designed and did your intelligence make possible the design?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Hi Doug!
Thanks for your response.
As always, refreshingly honest and open.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
TP, explain to me why I need to make the distinction.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Hey, AIguy
I gotta give it to ya, when you think about it your way thats a darn blurry line between the both concepts you've laid out for intelligence, unless we bring consciousness and true subjectivity into the mix which takes things partially to the metaphysical and still doesn't really leave you with much of a distinction.
What about if we look for a measure of subjectivity in the design, in general many human artifacts are not only designed with purposful function of some sort in mind, but also a purposful appeal to subjective pleasure, either for the designer or the subjects viewing the design or both.
In simple terms we often design things to be pretty to ourselves and others and incorporate that ideal of some type of beauty or appeal to others within our designs, often foregoing function almost completly.
I throw this out for your consideration to seperate human like from machine like intelligence, and a possible indicator of more than blind process…. subjective intervention to pretty up the design.
Just tossing that out there….
Comment by Kuma — June 6, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Nullasalus
We can certainly show that humans do not function just like known computers – there are all sorts of experiments that show our methods of memory storage and retrieval are different for example. I think none of this has anything to do with the topic.
And as I pointed out to TP, there is no problem in computers availing themselves of any source of randomness that you believe is "truly" random, including quantum randomness. But my argument doesn't even rely on this either, since the unpredictability you were concered about derives also from interactions with an unpredictable environment.
I'm making a bit stronger claim in this thread, though. I'm arguing that we can't even distinguish them conceptually until we explicitly reference the metaphysical issues of consciousness, libertarian free will. Since you and others have denied that ID requires that we delve into these metaphysical issues, I wanted to make clear here why ID actually does inevitably end up there.
No, there is no impasse; you really are wrong here. My claim was some lawlike mechanism could have intelligence (in the sense of designing, learning, etc). "Some" is an existential quantifier, and so a single computer that acts intelligently without intervention confirms my proposition. You are trying to negate my proposition ("No lawlike mechanism can be an intelligent agent") and so a single counter example does nothing for you, because "no" is a universal quantifier.
This is like saying the fact that you have a predictable element in you, you aren't a bona-fide intelligent agent either. Your patellar reflex seems definite in the same way as this printed message example, don't you think?
In that case, here is what I claim to have shown over your objections: Unless one references questions of consciousness and libertarian free will, the distinction ID attempts to draw between intelligent and unintelligent cause is meaningless in the context of ID
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Hi Bradford,
You requested…
Because earlier you declared…
How?
Come on, you can do it, because one is divinely "…endowed, by God, with characterists held by God" and the other one isn't, right?
"Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Why are you using your ignorance to deny my providence?"- Job38:1-2"
Did you miss me?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Kuma,
That is music to my ears, Kuma. Thanks.
I understand where you're going here, and sure – I do the exact same thing. As I tell people here, I do not myself believe that physical cause as we understand it can ever explain all that is going on in terms of OOL, our own mental experience, and other things.
My goal here was to show that these issues can't be resolved by pretending that something we can find in the artifacts of life somehow tells us whether the ultimate cause was somehow fundamentally different from all the rest of the causes in the universe (i.e. it was a mental rather than a physical cause).
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Great thread, everybody. Let me say where I think we are at this point:
1) The question is, "What is the difference between intelligent cause and unintelligent cause"
2) Human beings are intelligent in the sense that they can generate complex form and function, solve novel problems, and so on.
3) Human beings were created by something
4) Computers are also intelligent in the sense that they can generate complex form and function, solve novel problems, and so on.
5) Computers are also created by something (human beings in fact)
6) So, humans and computers are both designed, and they are both intelligent
7) Computers are machines that operate according to law + chance (blind, undirected processes)
8) So, what we call intelligence can be seen to – at least sometimes – be the effect of blind, undirected processes.
9) And so, when ID is described as "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process", we see that ID makes a false distinction. The explanation could in fact be "an intelligent cause which itself arises from an undirected process".
And here is the conclusion that I believe we have reached:
Unless one explicitly references metaphysical questions (of consciousness and libertarian free will), the distinction ID attempts to draw between intelligent and unintelligent cause is meaningless in the context of ID.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Hi Aiguy,
Now that you have repeatedly equated consciousness with metaphysics, it is time for me to object.
Both consciousness and quantum mechanics skate very close to the edge of metaphysics.
However, we don't discard all of quantum mechanics as non-scientific.
Neither should we discard consciousness as totally metaphysical.
Asking, "…but is it intelligent?" may be a silly joke.
Asking "…but is it conscious?" is a bit more serious, IMO.
P.S. Aiguy, I will give you credit. I have tried to point out the definitional challenges for ID behind the word "intelligence" multiple times, but you have managed to do it much better than I ever did.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
We've been told that many times by many people. The alternative is that intelligence does not arise through an undirected process; only a directed one. In that case you are left opposing ID with nothing but metaphysical baggage in hand.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Why must consciousness be equated with metaphysics? The common theme in your writing is materialism. If it does not yield to explanation it must be metaphysical. Consciousness has not yielded to empirical explanations but that, like the origin of life, is evidence of a flawed approach.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
TP,
Of course not. We don't "discard" anything, of course, because metaphysics is not a trash can. But yes, ontology, consciousness, and volition are very traditional metaphysical domains. We all hope that empirical investigations can inform our views and someday move these issues (or parts of them) into the realm of science. Hasn't happened yet.
I completely agree – it is completely serious, and one of my favorite things to think about.
Why thanks.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Computers are guided by their human creators.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Hey, AIguy,
But there is a partial good end to this story too though isn't there. The way you have outlined it the concept is a double edged sword against physicalisms view of intelligence also. They can't tell the difference either between guided and unguided (loose terms here) processes and designs.
grrr in a way we are back where we started, but some good thinking was done along the way!
Thanks
Comment by Kuma — June 6, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Kuma, you're right and this only shows something philosophers of science have been aware of long before this thread existed namely, that even empirical disciplines have an underlying metaphysical component. Nothing new about any of this. What is new is the realization by some of what others have known long before they were born.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Bradford,
It needn't be; it traditionally has been because there have been no empirical methods suited for solving the problems of consciousness as traditionally framed by philosophers.
Uh, no, that's not true; I've even explained to Nullasalus in this thread why I am not a materialist. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.
In any case, let's just be clear here – isn't that really the goal whether we're doing science, philosophy, or anything else? Do you, or do you not, say that conscious awareness is necessarily part of what you mean when you say biological complexity is the result of intelligent cause?
For example, I submit that by "directed" here you really do mean "conscious". Do you agree?
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Hi Bradford,
This is one of those time I actually start feeling sorry for you.
Dogs can have foresight too.
Your entire philosophical position is so dependent on the definition of life and its origin.
Ignorance of the OOL is your strongest and practically your only argument, yet on your web site you still have that biblical reference about how ignorance denies God's providence.
To quote Arte Johnson, "very interesting".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Kuma,
Physicalism does not require that we distinguish between "guided" and "unguided" cause, because in the view of physicalists, there is no difference. These terms refer to the difference between mental and physical cause that physicalism denies.
I am not a physicalist (not a materialist). I simply point out that no matter what one's metaphysical commitments, there is no way to distinguish mental from physical cause by observing evidence.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Why must consciousness be equated with metaphysics?
Which will continue to be the case if duality is reality.
What I mean is that physical evidence in the form of symbolism can be interpreted as a consequence of conscious planning or a chemical phenomenon devoid of that. The choice can be made as a matter of epistemological preference. As LaPlace pointed out long ago even an empirical investigation, yielding to an explanation grounded in laws of physics, tells us only that teleology was superfluous to the derived result. It does not negate a teleological interpretation on a non-empirical basis. With regard to an initial functional genome we don't even have a superfluous condition vis a vis teleology and its connection to the causal genesis of that genome. To the contrary we have physical evidence consistent with all known expressions of conscious intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Bradford. You are just not arguing in good faith anymore. And it is apparently painfully obvious to multiple readers on this thread.
Your argument was that because computers were designed by humans, they are merely "mechanistic extensions of human intellligence totally dependent on humans for their creation."
By the same argument, humans are merely extensions of Gods intelligence.
So, you must have reasons OTHER than the fact that computers were designed by an intelligence to explain WHY humans should be considered as intelligent agents, yet, computers should only considered to be extensions of their intelligent designer.
Comment by hrun — June 6, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Bradford,
Agreed. Dualism may be true, and nobody has any idea how to confirm or deny it.
Absolutely, yes. I can now make sense of what you are saying, because you have replaced the meaningless, unqualified usage of term "intelligence" with the term "conscious", and we all know what that word means in all contexts because we all inter-subjectively acknowledge that we experience it.
Good, now we're talking about the evidence for and against the consciousness of the Designer. We can have a much more meaningful debate now. Hopefully the others in ID who have denied that this commitment to conscious intelligence is necessary (including Dembski and Mike Gene) might rethink their positions.
Now, let's see where this inquiry leads. Some folks here think the Penrose/Hameroff theory of consciousness might represent our best hope of bringing consciousness in from the realm of metaphysics into the realm of empirical investigation. Like all other investigations of consciousness, Orch-OR describes the critical involvement of particular physical structures in the brain in conscious phenomena. Let's be careful here: I'm not saying that anyone can show the brain is sufficient for consciousness, I'm saying that some particular aspects of the brain appear to be necessary for consciousness, and this is true even in the Penrose/Hameroff model.
Given this evidence, it appears that if we follow the evidence where it leads, one of two things is likely to be true:
1) The original Designer (the front-loader) had a physical organ with some critical similarity to the human brain
OR
2) This Designer was not a conscious being.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
TP, give me one good reason why chemical causality is the preferred explanation to a planned outcome resulting in the generation of the genetic code. Symbolism is considered apparent by materialists and atheists because of the metaphysical blinders they wear. They think a chemical explanation will someday be forthcoming. The answer is right in front of them and the dots easily connected but it is they who hide behind ignorance and issue promissory notes where empirical results hold sway.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Actually, that's what a lot of theists think.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 6, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Yes of course hrun. That's obvious is it not?
They are that so your point is what? How do we know humans are not mere extensions as well? Free will. Revelation. What's your philosophical preference?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Bradford,
If both computers and humans are both "extensions" rather than "intelligent agents", then the claims of ID to be able to detect mental vs. physical cause still fail, for the same reasons. The only meaningful distinction you've landed upon is conscious awareness, and this remains true even if you accept the theistic notion of humans as being not independent intelligent agents.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Hi Aiguy,
or
3) This designer is so unlike human or life as we know it that suggesting it is/was "human like" makes no sense.
This would be consistant with a timeless entity. It seems ridiculous to think about timeless entities making decisions that they already implimented.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
So then your argument is NOT that computers are only extensions of their designers intelligence BECAUSE they were designed. Your argument is that computers and humans are different because one has free will or volition and the other has not.
What I really don't understand is a) why you don't say so in the first place and b) why when it becomes painfully obvious that your prior argument is misguided (or just plainly wrong) you don't admit that it is and move on.
Comment by hrun — June 6, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
TP:
How blind can you be TP? Abiogenesis is relevant to my empirical position, not my philosophy. Did you miss the point of the exchange between LaPlace and Napoleon?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
hrun:
What is my prior argument (as opposed to what is attributed to me)? I don't see the need to make most of the philosophical points made in this thread. What you believe is news to me is in fact old hat.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I think maybe the distinction is that we are not uncoupled from computers nor they from us (yet). That is why i chose the term "designed symbiosis" earlier in this thread. While they may be able to function for the short term on their own, computers still require us for maintenance, power and many of the inputs they recieve as we use them as tools to expand our own human intelligence.
On the flip side in the case of our designer, to us the designer may be far removed from us and we have long been a completly self sustaining being from the cell up. and there is a good possiblity that we simply no longer require to live and explore our universe, such an intimate relationship with our designer.
Perhaps when computers are more able to do more things like us (as a single unit not as labrtories around the world producing 1 or 2 human like traits) navigating and problem solving and relating to other creatures in a more self sustaining way we may be able to divorce ourselves from our design and old preconceptions…..
Comment by Kuma — June 6, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Hi Bradford,
We are moving now.
So, are you going to render an opinion on the free will ability of animals now?
Are monkeys and dogs conscious, intelligent beings?
I say yes.
However, I will leave it to you to rule on their status in the divine pecking order.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
aiguy, philosophers can and will make their cases for and against free will, consciousness etc. I know these things. I'm also aware that some will use philosophy to shield their own metaphysical views from alternatives and think it was all about science.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
TP,
This is my position exactly. I believe there is no philosophical or empirical foundation for evaluating the question of the consciousness of the designer, because it is utterly unlike anything in our experience.
Anyway, I'm happy to have moved the discussion away from the pretense that any of this made sense without explicit reference to conscious awareness. At this point what I think everyone will find is that there really isn't much farther to go with it.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Bradford
You bet, me too.
Maybe so, but not me. For me, it's all about thinking about life, the universe, and everything. I just like as much clarity as possible, since otherwise it feels like we're just wasting time.
I think the transition here from the unqualified use of "intelligent cause" to "conscious intelligence" has been a major step toward clarity. And it's been quite a battle, too!
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Kornbelt, I haven't heard from you lately. As you've seen, your idea that ID makes sense without consciousness has taken a bit of a drubbing. Any thoughts?
What about your arguments regarding sleepwalking about blindsight – care to bring those up?
For the rest of you, KB's arguments were that intelligent behavior does not require consciousness. I happen to agree.
If ID entails consciousness, this really would leave ID in a pickle.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Hi Aiguy,
You may be right about people avoiding this religious sounding debate.
I have noticed that even though people raised up to suggest consciousness wasn't metaphysical that arguments immediately turned religious and philosophical.
It is a slippery slope that even Hameroff falls into.
I think there is room to look at the evidence of life being directly dependent on quantum mechanics.
I believe life is a direct result of interconnected quantum effects.
It would explain the Origin of Life.
There is empirical evidence in support of it.
There are experiments being done with more to follow.
If and when we understand it, it may very well be possible to say with certainty what is and is not conscious.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
TP,
I think the best summary of this would be:
1) We have established that the hypothesis of ID requires "consciousness" to be meaningful
2) Neuroscience has established that neurological structures are necessary, if not sufficient, for consciousness
3) Neuroscience has also established that intelligent behaviors (planning, etc) can be exhibited by people without being conscious of them
4) Therefore there is not much of a case to be made for ID
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Hi aiguy,
Huh? Where did I deny any commitment to conscious intelligence? I'm the one who continually reminds people of what Monod wrote "“ "Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object's "naturalness" or "artificialness."
Thanks to Allen, I can now add the following from Charles Babbage: "THE notions we acquire of contrivance and design arise from comparing our observations on the works of other beings with the intentions of which we are conscious in our own undertakings."
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Hi Mike,
I'm glad you could join us. I was uncomfortable arguing your position.
I think this thread is taking an interesting turn.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Mike,
Sorry, I mistook your position – it happens a lot around here
As you can see, some people here agreed with you that consciousness was central to what distinguishes intelligence from non-intelligence, while others denied it.
I liked this part:
The response to Babbage is that the divine programmer might have instead been a divine program, and nobody would ever be able to tell the difference.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Hi Aiguy,
I would agree that ID strongest SCIENTIFIC argument is via consciousness studies.
However, I think you are leaping to a predetermined conclusion to suggest that organic neural mechanisms are part of the source of consciousness.
Radio receivers are required to complete a transmission, but they are not the source.
Likewise, the fact that "intelligent" functions can occur without consciousness is no more surprising than "intelligent" programs existing that are clearly not conscious. They are two separate things.
The fact that the "I" in ID stands for Intelligence hasn't bothered many ID proponents I know. It is clear that an ability to learn (standard definition of "intelligence") is NOT a requirement of the Intelligent Designer.
ID is, and always has been, about a purposeful CONSCIOUS designer.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
It's Rabbits and Ducks all the way down.
Babbage also makes a good theological point:
HT to Allen for the link! I anticipate finding some juicy blog material.
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
aiguy,
And my claim has been that such a lawlike mechanism (in this case, 'personified' by a computer), whether or not it is or is not an intelligent agent, could still have an actual agent operating directly behind it (Hofstadter example) or preplanned in advance (timing examples). Again, I'm not convinced that even if this is the case that it's a proposition that could be explored in a scientific sense – back to metaphysics.
Where am I denying that a computer is demonstrably (in a scientific sense) not a 'bona-fide intelligent agent'? I've drawn attention to the particulars between computers as we know them and what we may discover with human minds. I certainly never said that having a predictable element means a person is not an agent, whether said element is part of their choice, or another agent's influence (immediate or originating, etc).
Speaking as someone who suspects that all events are essentially intelligently caused, I'm already essentially on that boat as-is.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
TP,
Again, I think current consciousness studies argue rather heavily against ID, since they all center on neuroscience. I think ID needs dualism and libertarian will.
No, I said the evidence was that some critical aspect of brains seemed to be necessary, if not sufficient.
Transimission theory does not help ID because even in that old analogy there is always the need for a receiver. That is all I'm saying: The evidence shows that some critical aspect of brains seem to be necessary, if not sufficient. So if we follow the evidence, ID would have to start looking for reasons to think the Designer had this critical feature too (microtubules perhaps).
Yes of course, this was already demonstrated in the case of computers, but there could always be the person who decides computers really are conscious after all. (I've heard weirder claims).
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
nullasalus,
Right – sounds like my theological point about God moving the atoms as though they were bound by natural law.
Pretty much for the past twenty posts or so
You've said it was merely in service to an intentional agent, it was manipulated by it, etc. If you think that are both intelligent agents in the same sense, we could have skipped a lot of typing.
In that case I don't know what your point was, but we agree:
1) Computers and human beings are both intelligent agents
2) Computers operate strictly according to law + chance
3) Therefore, "intelligent agency" can operate strictly according to law + chance
Are we OK with this now?
Cheers then!
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Hi TP,
Glad to see you have some time to join us this weekend.
As for the DM, I have made it clear many times here that it embraces subjectivity and doesn't pretend to be otherwise. Heck, that is one of the fundamental reasons I don't consider it to be science.
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Mike,
Ok then, just so I understand you – do you mean that the difference between a Rabbit and a Duck is that a Rabbit is conscious and a Duck is not?
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Hi Aiguy,
You wrote…
A religious movement may need to keep its big tent free of heretical ideas.
Those interested in following the emperical evidence wherever it leads do not.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 6, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
aiguy,
I also said I'd be willing to grant it for the sake of the discussion. I didn't see it as mattering all that much to the point I was making, hence my saying we may be talking past each other.
I don't believe they need libertarian will – I still don't get that claim, especially since odds are that question will never leave the philosophical realm. The same largely holds for dualism – it's as secure a position as any can be in philosophy (hence the recent trend towards it, even if panpsychism, some kind of emergence, or otherwise are generally more popular than classic substance dualism), just not a terribly popular one in some quarters.
If we follow the evidence, we can also end up at simulations – and reaching that point introduces a swarm of new considerations into the mix. But I'm probably just repeating myself here; I know you're not a pure physicalist on mental issues, at least for humans.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Nullasalus,
Yes, I can agree with this. Many ID ideas (those of Dembski et al) do require dualism and free will by other names, but yes, I can see how you could bracket that and continue with the phenomenology.
Right again, and again I have some thinking to do about the simulation issues. Thanks again, you are a joy to debate with.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
In my opinion, at this point I think it would be interesting to review some basics about conscious minds and ID:
1) How can we tell what things are conscious and what things are not?
The answers to this question are fundamentally different from questions about mere intelligent behavior. As we've seen, even computers can be intelligent, but we don't think they are conscious. And much of human intelligent behavior is accomplished unconsciously as well.
2) Why don't we think computers are conscious?
What is the difference between a computer and a person that convinces us that a computer is not conscious but a person is?
3) How can our answers to #2 be applied in the context of ID, where the entity in question cannot be observed?
What other lines of evidence regarding conscious experience might be relevant?
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
aiguy,
Right back at you. Normally I don't say it, but it should go without saying. Rare to have metaphysical disagreements with someone, but the points of agreement are highlighted, and the tone is kept cordial and sans-smug.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
But the notion of computers is accounted for by Dembski (and others like Robert Marks and myself):
"some surrogate" could be a computer. This was the point of the No Free Lunch conjectures which Dembski put forward, that surrogates, like computers which create designs (a factory is an excellent example, or a genetic algorithm), still regress to something that is akin to conscious intelligence. Now, since we seem to be in agreement that conscious intelligence is ill-defined, I would like to point out in Dembski's later papers he offers a formalism that is mathematically definable, namely saying the ultimate source of regress cannot be stochastic. Stochastic is defined as a simple distribution in terms of something like a few statistical moments….
Since conscious intelligence is not characterizable mathematically (as far as I know), the later formulations seem to be more modest and less vulnerable to the objections you raise, and the concerns I myself have had for a long time….
The work Robert Marks, I, and others were doing at the EIL was to show that genetic algorithms, expert systems, and other evolutionary computation must reasonably regress to something not describable to by simple stochastic processes or regularity. The fact that AI guys like yourself must be the ultimate source of evolutionary computation, is consistent with the claims of No Free Lunch (NFL)….
Now we could argue Darwinian evolution is an evolutionary computation, and that for it to work it too must be designed. However, of late I argue it is a moot point because Darwinian evoltution as it is now conceived cannot operate like genetic algorithms in a computer.
See my postings at UD on Genetic Entropy, Gambler's Ruin, Magnetos, Speed Limits of Evolution, and Nachman's U-Paradox to see why I believe human-made genetic algorithms are an in-appropriate model of real evolution as observed empirically in the real world….
I believe ID is reasonable because the definition of design is decoupled from the notion of intelligence. If this decoupling were not present, I would have to insist that it come into existence….
If this decoupling were not present, we would have nothing but self-referential tautologies wrapped around an undefined notion of intelligence — not a good state of affairs….
best regards,
Salvador
PS
I think this is a good discussion. We have agreed on a few things which is more than our usual.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 6, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Mike Gene quotes Charles Babbage approvingly:
Mike,
I'm surprised that you, an advocate of front-loading, like this quote from Babbage. After all, front-loading is itself an example of the kind of divine interference that Babbage dismisses as theologically unpalatable.
Judging from the quote, Babbage would ask why an omnipotent God should find it necessary to interfere in the world by creating life, or by front-loading it with the potential for multicellularity, instead of choosing a set of natural laws that would give rise to these things without the need for interference.
Comment by robin — June 6, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
robin,
Wouldn't 'choosing a set of natural laws that would give rise to these things without the need for interference' be front-loading?
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Hi Sal,
Actually, that's not what I think. Once you qualify the term with "conscious", everybody knows what you are talking about, since we each inter-subjectively acknowledge our conscious awareness. It is only when ID attempts to talk about "intelligent cause" without this qualifier that I believe the semantics are missing. Unless you are actually talking about conscious awareness, there is nothing about "intelligent cause" that is in principle different from any other type of cause, as far as anyone can tell.
All the other mentalistic terms that come into play like "purpose" and "intent" and "foresight" and so on hint at consciousness, but do not specify conscious awareness explicitly, and this leads to endless confusion in these discussions.
Actually, in human pscyhology this is the only way intelligence is characterized, as the general intelligence factor or "g". g is a factor analysis of human cognitive function test scores. There is no conceptual meaning associated with g, but it is widely assumed to exist at all because of the neurological covariances found across humans. Because the Designer in ID is not assumed to have human neurology, and because we can't administer these tests, g has no meaning at all in the context of ID.
Well, fine, but it really does seem like an unannounced retreat. Here's the DI still pushing the wedge at the culture war front while the generals have basically surrendered the notion that intelligent cause can explain biological complexity.
Bingo. The good thing that I see here is perhaps that ID can boost the popular revival of interest in consciousness studies and AI!
I agree, thanks.
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Nullasalus, Robin -
Wouldn't those natural laws existing all by themselves with no divine programmer to create them be front-loading too?
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Aguy
If ID was successful in moving the discussion scientificly from chance and law to divine program vs programmer I for one would be happy. A divine program as designer is a much better explanation for what we see around us than what we have so far scientifically speaking.
I would be ecstatic to move the discussion there.That would indeed be progress and a nobel goal for ID
On a purely philosophical note a divine program requires a explanation and a divine programmer does not (if it's God). We theists won that argument a long time ago with Plato and Aristotle.
Peace.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 6, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
aiguy,
Philosophical disagreements aside, it seems less natural to me in how it sounds. 'Front-loaded' implies a thing to do the loading. 'Just is', maybe.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Zachriel
To "learn" (whatever definition aiguy may have for that), a computer must use its own output as input. This can never be truly random.
Let's revisit the Deep Blue vs. Kasparov example. If Kasparov suddenly decided to take one of the captured pawns, label it a "donkey" piece, put it on the board, and declare that it captures all other pieces and automatically wins the game, what would Deep Blue's response have been? "Illegal move" or "error", same as if no new piece had been introduced and Kasparov had moved a legitimate piece incorrectly. Therefore the computer really can't do anything unpredictable, can it? Unlike Kasparov.
The input must be constrained by a programmer before the computer can process it. Feeding weather data into a program designed to accept weather data produces (outputs) pertinent information. Feeding the same weather data to Deep Blue for a chess game yields, what? The same thing that assigning the word "giraffe" to a variable's value in an algebraic equation – nothing meaningful.
I wasn't talking about using every possible input. I was talking about examining an output and backtracking to the same input each time. If this could not be done, debugging software would be as impossible as curing mental illness.
It's good that you used the word "deterministic". That's exactly the problem with artificial intelligence. It is stuck in a 19th Century paradigm.
No kidding. It could say anything the programmer told it to say. That's the point I was making. It has no way of assigning its own goals.
There's no problem at all as far as the computer "thinks", no matter what the application. There is an input or series of inputs, and outputs, and that's it. The computer is really not solving anything, in the way we think of solutions. We have the problems that need solving, and when it's operating correctly the computer provides the information (which we must then interpret) to solve it.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 6, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
What I meant by characterizing intelligence is that the characterization would be sufficient in principle to re-create an intelligence's most essential features — which I suppose was the goal of AI.
I didn't mean characterize as in measuring IQ. Sorry for my lack of clairty….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 6, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
FMM,
I think the movement has been from "chance and law vs. intelligence" to "unconscious vs. conscious". That really is the fundamental aspect of the entire debate.
I don't think it's scientific, no. Anyway, there really are two choices:
1) natural laws giving rise to life and consciousness
2) conscious mind giving rise to natural laws giving rise to life and consciousness
It seems to me that #1 is the simpler hypothesis, but I don't think that's a very strong argument. I just don't think there is any way to ever tell.
I don't think you got that right, actually. Explanations can always be requested, no matter if they are defined away or not. Option #1 requires we explain how the initial natural laws came to be. Option #2 requires we explain how the initial concsious mind came to be. We can't answer either question.
Null
You're right, it does sound more natural – and Steve Pinker's book "The Stuff Of Thought" explains just why that is, too! (He explains how our language reflects our intuitive understanding of agency – very relevant).
Comment by aiguy — June 6, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Sal, when did you work at EIL? I thought you went to Hopkins instead?
Comment by olegt — June 6, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Hey Aguy,
I'm not talking about this little internet debate it really has nothing to do with the real word. I'm talking about the ID discussion as a whole. For me unconscious vs conscious is meaningless as a scientific discussion you can have it.
No if the initial conscious mind in option 1 is necessary it requires no explanation that's what necessary means
As for option 1 if you want to claim that the divine program is necessary you can but a divine necessary program is something far removed from simply chance and law and requires no small amount of blind faith
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 6, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I wish Sal was telling the truth and he actually worked at EIL. ID could use more labwork and less internet philosophizing.
Comment by steve — June 6, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
A computer can learn to navigate a maze, for instance, the very method we use to test learning ability in mice. The maze is external data. The result is a change in the computer's internal state. This outside data could be chaotic, e.g. turbulence.
You must be using a different definition of "predictable" than I am. We can predict with reasonable certainty that Kasparov won't do that.
That's called determinism. Many complex systems are just not predictable.
That's precisely the problem. Some software is so complex, there is no way to know that it will 'behave' in all environments. All you can do is test it in a variety of conditions, and hope there are no surprises. This is an important finding in Complexity Theory.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Hi Robin,
Front-loading is an example of divine interference? Where did I say that?
Just as I have maintained for so long that ID is not science, so I have maintained that ID is not religion. Just because I am a theistic evolutionist does not mean my views about ID are theologically motivated or theological expressions. In fact, just today I outlined the theological options and made my preference clear. [Rather than derail the thread, I'll post it again as a blog entry.]
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I believe one of the findings of cellular automata, some of which are found in nature, is that with certain ones there is no way to predict their output. Running them is the only way to know what they'll do. I believe Feynman tried to prove Wolfram wrong on this, and eventually gave up.
(I am not an expert in the field, however)
Comment by steve — June 6, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Also, the Halting Problem shows that there are fundamentally unpredictable features of certain computer programs.
Comment by steve — June 6, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
nullasalus asked:
I suppose you could call it that, but a) it's not what Mike means by 'front-loading', and b) there's already a term for it — deism. Calling it front-loading would only confuse the issue. Dog knows, there's been enough definitional confusion in this thread already.
aiguy asked:
If the laws are eternally preexisting, then where's the front-loading?
Comment by robin — June 6, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Mike, please take the following comments in the benevolent way I intend them:
"ID" in the parlance of our time means something different than how you're using it. Generally speaking when someone says Intelligent Design, they use it to mean
1) a valid scientific theory
2) comprised of IC and CSI
3) that disproves the theory of evolution
4) has nothing to do with religion
5) belongs in science classes
6) but is suppressed by a conspiracy of atheist scientists
to broadly outline it. If your argument is significantly different than that, it just confuses the issue to also call it "Intelligent Design".
What I'm saying might not be clear. So for example, let's say you were a tree-hugging communitarian type who really felt a lot of love for his country. And you said, hmm, I'm going to call myself a National Socialist, or Nazi for short. While your beliefs might literally fit that kind of usage, you're giving yourself a label which really carries a lot of baggage and means a lot of things you don't mean. So that makes it a bad label, and you need to get a different one.
Comment by steve — June 6, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Wow, yous guyses have been busy lately.
That's what I think. Computers can be programmed with goals, knowledge, insight, capability to learn, and foresight. They may not be conscious, but IMO nobody has made a convincing argument that consciousness is required.
Just my two humble centavos.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 6, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
robin,
I'm not sure deism is the only type of belief compatible with such a view. And hey, definitional confusion in discussions with philosophical aspects? As near as I can tell, the vast majority of philosophical fights rest on definition-muddling. I kind of like it, so I can't really complain.
Comment by nullasalus — June 6, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 12:09 am
I did a little volunteer work for EIL since I was interested in the topic….a lot of ID work is not paid for, if you haven't noticed….
My small amounts of volunteer work (particularly in connection with Avida) was partly the reason I was offered a tuition and stipend, not to mention I got a good reference from Bill Dembski.
If you're accusing me of lying steve, you're welcome to say you're opinion….but it's just that, an opinion.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 7, 2008 @ 12:09 am
June 7th, 2008 at 12:12 am
I did volunteer work via e-mail and phone from 2006-2007 sporadically. I don't know that it was formally known as EIL until whenever, but the nature of the work was the same — analyze Avida.
My small amounts of volunteer work (particularly in connection with Avida) was partly the reason I was offered a tuition and stipend, not to mention I got a good reference from Bill Dembski.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 7, 2008 @ 12:12 am
June 7th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Sal, you said in October 2007 that you had been offered a position, but that the lab was cancelled and you declined the position.
I've emailed and talked on the phone with Wesley Elsberry about AVIDA, but I don't tell people I worked at the Devolab at MSU, because that would be dishonest. You need to not exaggerate your accomplishments if you want to retain credibility.
Comment by steve — June 7, 2008 @ 12:58 am
June 7th, 2008 at 1:01 am
steve,
Your swipes at me are off-topic, and you can post your complaints about me in the lastest rabbit thread.
What you're doing is derailing the discussion….
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 7, 2008 @ 1:01 am
June 7th, 2008 at 1:46 am
FMM,
That's funny – whenever I talk about the ID discussion as a whole (Dembski, the DI, whatever), people here upbraid me for that. Now you complain in the other direction… it's hard to learn the protocol around here
In that case, there really doesn't seem to be much left for you to talk about.
That's what I meant by "defined away".
You are completely correct about that. Of course there is the same reason to assume that either the original programmer or the original program was necessary. And yes, holding either position is nothing other than an act of faith. I myself have no faith in either answer, and that is why my answer is we do not know.
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 1:46 am
June 7th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Robin,
Sorry, I don't have my ID glossary handy… Does "front-loading" entail consciousness? If that is part of the definition, then you're right – preexisting laws (a divine program) would not be considered front-loading. I suspect the consciousness part is just an extraneous hypothesis, however.
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 1:51 am
June 7th, 2008 at 2:34 am
All -
I'd like to see if I can spur the thread to keep on track here, and stir it up a bit more. Here I've rephrased the central argument, which I believe has held up here pretty well, and its implications:
When we see complex form and function that exhibits apparent purpose and rationality in a biological system, or we find new forms arising quickly, or without intermediate steps, etc., there are two possible explanations:
1) An unconscious natural process of some sort (like a computer)
OR
2) A conscious process or entity of some sort (like a human)
Of course, neither humans nor computers on Earth can actually design living things at the moment, so #1 is not exactly like a computer and #2 is not exactly like a human. But here I'm assuming computer-like things are unconscious processes that operate according to law+chance, and human-like things are conscious the way humans are.
Since, as we've seen, either type of process can be intelligent (e.g. able to produce complex designs), it doesn't actually help to investigate the biological form per se – nothing about how irreducibly complex and intricately designed the forms are can help distinguish the products of an unconscious natural process from those of a conscious process, when both of them are equally intelligent.
Given the discussion above, would anyone like to say where I've gone wrong here?
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 2:34 am
June 7th, 2008 at 3:50 am
nullasalus:
I just thought that since I
1) directed my comment specifically to Mike Gene;
2) referred particularly to his advocacy of front-loading;
3) made a point that applied to his version of front-loading, and not to the deistic alternative; and
4) explicitly described the kind of front-loading I meant,
that you would understand that I was not talking about a totally different kind of front-loading.
aiguy asked:
My point is simply that the term 'front-loading', as a gerund, refers to an act. But if the laws of nature are eternally preexisting, then no act of front-loading (in your sense of the term) is, ever was, or ever will be necessary. To my mind, therefore, the term just doesn't apply when the laws themselves are eternal.
But let's go no further down that particular semantic rathole. There's no cheese there.
I agree, which is why I think ID proponents are overreaching when they try to show that some particular structure could not, in principle, be formed by an unconscious natural process.
A better bet for them is to try to show that the structure in question is out of reach of particular natural processes, such as natural selection. That is difficult, though, because their two main weapons, IC and CSI, have proven inadequate for this purpose.
Comment by robin — June 7, 2008 @ 3:50 am
June 7th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Hey Robin;
I agree but would rephrase it to say
A particular structure is highly unlikely to be the result of any conceived of natural process.
In this vein the more natural processes we identify or imagine the more likely the design we see is real and not apparent. it's never set in stone but the other side becomes materialism of the gaps.
I don't understand, are you saying that IC and CSI have been proven to be the result of natural selection or are you saying that IC and CSI could conceivably have been the result of natural process?
How likely is it? It's conceivable that monkeys will fly out of my pants but I would not bet the farm on it.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 7, 2008 @ 7:08 am
June 7th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Robin:
I must have missed something because I have yet to get an explanation as to selection criteria en route to that first cell. After that selection has been vaguely defined in reference to many IC examples.
Sorry about that TP but your side tends to act as if OOL is not fair game for ID.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 7:23 am
June 7th, 2008 at 7:27 am
aguy:
Wait a minute you're the one who is all gung ho for definitions. You can't have it both ways. Why is defining intelligence as conscious good but defining God as God bad?
Not exactly, If the original programmer is God he is necessary by definition. To call a program necessary is an complicated addition that must be explained.
Agnosticism is cool as long as you keep an open mind and don't think yourself superior or more scientific or more rational than those of us who know the answer to that most important question.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 7, 2008 @ 7:27 am
June 7th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
I'm surprised that you didn't receive credit for your work. The information cost of no free lunch devotes considerable space to an analysis of Avida but they don't even mention your name. It's standard practice: I even had an undergraduate co-author a paper a couple of times.
Comment by olegt — June 7, 2008 @ 8:35 am
June 7th, 2008 at 10:31 am
More properly, evolutionary processes can result in IC and CSI (given appropriate definitions).
Comment by Zachriel — June 7, 2008 @ 10:31 am
June 7th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Olegt, I responded to some of your concerns in the open thread here so as to not derail the topic of the current discussion. Feel free to ask more questions about anything if you feel so inclined…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 7, 2008 @ 11:35 am
June 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Wow.
This is one of the most interesting and stimulating threads I've ever read anywhere. Makes me almost wish I hadn't gone to bed about the time it got really interesting.
Anyway, this comment caught my attention [WARNING: METACOMMENT]:
Part of my point in posting the quotes and link to Babbage's Ninth Bridgewater Treatise was to point out that the whole debate around ID seems to me to be rooted in concepts that reached their highest level of elaboration in the late 17th to early 19th centuries. In particular, I have pointed out on numerous occasions that "front loading" bears a striking resemblance to to Deism, especially as it was thought about during the period from 1648 to about 1859. Deism as a religious movement disintegrated in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as some of its supporters either became quasi-Unitarians or agnostics/atheists, while others retreated to more traditional theistic (and eventually fundamentalist) positions.
I mention this in this thread only to point out that this same process of disintegration seems evident now, both in this thread and in the ID movement as a whole. Deism disintegrated as a religious movement because it became increasingly obvious that it was indistinguishable in virtually all of its major tenets from Huxley's agnosticism, which was in turn indistinguishable in virtually of its tenets from atheism (as Bertrand Russell eventually showed). This "indistinguishability" seems to me to be precisely the point that aiguy has been making in this thread (and doing an outstanding job of it, BTW).
Going forward, I would very much like to participate in a series of threads extending these ideas, building on the clarity that has come out of this thread and moving forward to consider the following questions:
1) Can "intelligence" be operationally defined, in such a way that one can verify or falsify its existence and operation empirically? [I do not mean "intelligence" in its "IQ test" version, but rather in the sense used by most ID supporters]
Alternative version of this question: How do we know if something is "intelligent"
2) Can "design" be operationally defined, in such a way that one can verify or falsify its existence and operation empirically? [same caveat; also, please feel free to substitute "purpose" or "teleology" for "design"]
Alternative version of this question: How do we know if something is "designed"
3) Can "consciousness" be operationally defined, in such a way that one can verify or falsify its existence and operation empirically? [same caveat]
Alternative version of this question: How do we know if something is "conscious"
I'm only beginning to read Mike's DM, but already can see how some of the ideas he presents can be the jumping off point for discussions of some possible answers to these questions. If we are to make any progress beyond what has happened in this thread (and I believe that we have made substantial progress here), I believe that we need to address these questions. I would be happy to get the ball rolling; just give me a (metaphorical) soap box to stand on and I'm ready to blather at length!
MG has already posted a few snippets from Babbage. Perhaps a thread in which we dissect Babbage's ideas of "front loading". Are you up for it, Mike?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 7, 2008 @ 11:49 am
June 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Allen,
Greetings.
My tentative answers to your very good questions:
1. No
2. Yes
3. No
This leads to the question of wheter ID is science. Although I have my opinion that it is, I won't insist or try to defend it, it is more important whether the hypothesis is true or not, and I have no great indigestion that people like Mike don't think ID is science…I respect his view…..
Does lack of definition subvert the ID hypothesis? By way of comparison, we can't define life either, but it does not prevent us from trying to solve the OOL problem…we can't exactly say that the issue of definition is unique to ID alone.
Always a delight to hear from you Allen.
Sal
PS
I welcome hearing what others have to say about the 3 questions…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 7, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
There is one big difference between the two. OOL researchers generally clearly state what transition they are researching: non-replicating RNA to replicating RNA, RNA to protein transition, non-compartmentalized to compartmentalized, … Why don't ID researchers simply do the same?
Nobody want ID to generate definitions of intelligence or design that are valid in all contexts these words are used. They merely have to define them operationally, for whatever study they are currently conducting.
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Is ID a form of Natural Theology
The interesting science which I do see possible [and I do not mean to say possible implies probable] is the discovery of biotic steganography. Beyond that and genetic entropy, I have no other ideas at this time….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 7, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hi Sal,
Interestingly, my tentive answers to Allen's three questions are…
1. maybe
2. no
3. yes
The reason for the difficulties in finding an operational definition for intelligence is that people refuse to agree on a simple definition. "An ability to learn" is a solid, emperically detectable trait but people tend to want it to mean something more than that. As Aiguy pointed out with his AI joke. Nothing will be ever be good enough.
The reason I doubt we will ever find an operational definition for whether or not something is designed is because, to some extend, everything is designed. This is getting into Mike Gene's Rabbit/Duck philosophical outlook. It is the not-so-secret secret that most ID proponents think the entire universe is designed. Since, philosophically, that can never be disproven ("I don't know the Truth") we will never have an operational definition of design because we will never be able to agree on what is not designed.
Consciousness is a hard problem, but I don't consider it an impossible one. I believe we are an the verge of discovering the big AH HA. Even though it sounds too woo like for my tastes, I am forced to admit that it looks like the definitions of life and consciousness are wrapped up with each other through the semi-hard science of Quantum Mechanics.
Joy and I have speculated about how the foundations will the severly shaken for people on both sides of the culture war as these insights come to be accepted.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Hi Allen,
I'd be happy to host it as a guest posting. Either post it in a Rabbit thread and I will copy it and post it as a blog entry or simply e-mail me the formatted posting and I'll put it up.
Sure. But I have to first read Babbage and you need to finish the DM.
Comment by MikeGene — June 7, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Allen,
The connection to deism and indistinguishably seems spot-on; thanks very much for that instructive historical analogy (and the compliment).
Cognitive psychologists have written a whole literature on the issues of characterizing mental function, and the attempts to derive a workable notion of general intelligence that could applied meaningfully to all human beings. The result (the so-called g factor) remains controversial, and without conceptual interpretation even when applied exclusively to humans; it is even more problematic when ethologists attempt to broaden the concept to animals in general.
As for some useful operationalized definition of intelligence that can be applied to arbitrary systems, processes, and entities, even when the subject can never be tested or observed directly… let me say I would be surpised if ID researchers could make progress on that front, but who knows?
Again, obviously ID is not the first attempt to think about these questions. The classic paper on Behavior, Purpose, and Teleology ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/9460... ) already defines the idea of teleology operationally… but of course requires that we actually be able to observe the system in question. The challenge for ID is to address the fact that there is no "subject in question" in the context of ID; only a hypothetical construct.
I think it's important to clarify this. I have argued here that once ID qualifies its concept of "intelligence" with the concept of consciousness, their statements become meaningful by reference to our inter-subjective verification of conscious awareness. But meaningful is not the same as operational.
Here, the hope of ID rests on the back of neuroscientists, who attempt to shed light on consciousness by studying its neurological correlates. I personally can't see how these efforts could relate to ID in the future (since even speculative theories such as that of Penrose require physical brains for conscious experience), but, again, who knows? We'd all love any sort of breakthrough about minds and brains, and if someone can relate the results to ID somehow, then maybe ID would avoid the fate of Deism.
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Does lack of definition subvert the ID hypothesis? By way of comparison, we can't define life either, but it does not prevent us from trying to solve the OOL problem"¦we can't exactly say that the issue of definition is unique to ID alone.
This is the best basis for opposing ID in my view and I'm surprised the point is not brought out often by ID critics. A problem with transitions is inherent to a process wherein choice is the determinent. Once determinism or randomness is supplanted by choice contingency becomes problematic.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Bradford,
"Life" is not the explanation of anything, it is just a loose description of what we wish to study. Likewise "intelligence", or "athleticism". To understand the problem of explaining biological complexity by appeal to "intelligence", think of explaining track scores by appeal to "athleticism".
Your appeal to "choice" here, I think you'll find, is an opaque reference to libertarian (or "contra-causal") free will. If that is what you mean, I understand your point, but it is a metaphysical point. Otherwise, you need to explain what you mean by "choice".
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Hi Bradford,
I am sure you have noticed the phrase "nailing jello to the wall" or similar has been used as a description of what it is like to be critical of ID.
Mike Gene has put together a positive ID proposal in the Design Matrix.
Even Behe's Darwin's Black Box had some substance to it.
Other than that, there is very little substance to ID to deal with.
For example, could you offer your ID friendly description of OOL?
Here is mine…
The interconnected nature of the universe (past, present and future) results in orders upon orders of magnitude of more information being available than simple cause following effect allows for.
There is no such thing as randomness or chance.
The universal deck was/is stacked ("Front Loaded") with OOL being inevidable.
Whether the deck was/is stacked by a divine programmer or an unguided divine program is a philosophical/religious discussion, not a scientific one, IMO.
With that in mind, I think there is value in considering the existence of the RNA world and its pre-cursors. I think this line of OOL research has promise.
What is your alternative suggestion?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
What is? That ID is unwilling or unable to put forth an operational definition of the terms it's using? I thought that is one of the most common complaints by ID critics.
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
aiguy, is the concept really that opaque? I could illustrate the point with a construction project in which the order of physical construction yields to options and that in turn to choice but I'll use this response instead as it affords me more choices.:mrgreen: There are thousands of ways of making a point in writing. I have different words available to me and different examples as well. I brought this out in a prior thread and I'll repeat it. Empirical studies of organisms other than humans have taken place in which their choice between options is an integral part of the study. The scientists involved did not have to resolve metaphysical arguments related to free will. They can leave that to philosophers. Their job is different and one can link choice to many and varied causal factors in a chain of reasoning, which in the case of human like intelligence, can be quite complex.
If there is more than one option available then choice is operational for pathways to an end. The reason choice is problematic is not the metaphysical disputes involving free will, but rather that, in cases involving multiple steps, each one entailing multiple options, pathway possibilites become enormous and the one actually used may be impossible to determine.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
FMM,
Yes, that's right. We must define our terms.
I'm not asking for it both ways.
No, no, no. Defining intelligence as entailing consciousness provides meaning. As we've seen, nobody can provide any definition of intelligence that we could us to distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent cause in the context of ID Theory (OOL, etc). This is what the computer analogy helped us to see: There is nothing about human behavior (which we think of as intelligent) that in principle can't be reproduced by something that people do not intuitively consider a mental (or intelligent) process… like the blind, deterministic operation of a computer. So, nobody could say just what ID meant when it said an intelligent cause was responsible for life rather than an unintelligent cause.
These terms like guided vs. unguided, or directed vs. undirected have no meaning in ID since nobody will say what is guiding or directing anything.
The only thing that gives these terms meaning is consciousness, because we all know what that is from our direct experience. ID must mean that conscious mind is guiding and directing things.
Obviously that is a tautological definition, and so that's just useless. I think you are asking why it doesn't help to define God as necessary. Well, you can do that if you want, but it just doesn't help answer the question of why God exists, because we can't say why is God necessary, and we could just as easily declare the universe was necessary.
No, let's try this again:
1) A necessary God exists and writes the divine program that creates life
2) A necessary divine program exists that creates life
It is actually the second explanation which is the simpler.
Thanks, but I don't call myself an agnostic; I am a theological non-cognitivist (sometimes called an "ignostic").
That is one of the funniest comments on this thread. No, FMM, I will certainly bow to the notion that you know the answer, whilst I wallow in ignorance. Thanks!
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
hrun:
When the definition required makes outcomes contingent on choice rather than necessity you have a more intractable problem.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Bradford,
What I meant was that your use of the word "choice" was really a reference to libertarian free will, but it was "opaque" in the sense that you didn't say that is what you were talking about it. Bad choice of words – I should have said "implicit" – sorry.
When humans or animals or computers make choices, it is not "choice" that is the operative agent, but the human, animal, or the computer itself. It doesn't mean anything to say that "something chose" – that means nothing except "something happened".
You are trying to reify choice, the same way you tried to reify intelligence, and that is why you end up in metaphysics. Reifying mind is dualism, and reifying choice is libertarianism. These are both meaningful positions, but they are both metaphysical positions for lack of any way to see if they are true or not (at least currently).
If you disagree, can you say what the difference is between a human making a choice and a thermostat making a choice (this is the classic example from philosophy of mind)?
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
TP:
The RNA world may be a suitable for assessing life's origin from an informational perspective. The belief that information systems, like the ones in evidence within cells, arise incidental to chemical reactions is implausible in my view. At this moment I'm left in a philosophical lurch hearing others claim that codons came to be linked to specific amino acids through a series of chemical reactions; determinsm underlying the process. Their symbolism is apparent rather than real to some- like some strange side effect of reactions. OTOH, the symbolism can be viewed as evidence of a cognitive process. That's my view.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Allow me to try to help.
What is the difference between..
a) Divine programmer making a choice.
b) Divine program making a choice
c) Human making a choice
d) Animal making a choice
e) Computer program making a choice
Fundamentally, the biggest difference is that Divine programmers or programs are inevidably timeless and don't actually make choices.
I suggest unless you bring religion into the mix, you can not distiguish between human intelligent choices and animal intelligent choices.
The point of the thread is that even AI can make intelligent choices depending on how one defines the word "intelligent".
My ID friendly response is to suggest there is no such thing as choice at the emperical level. There is no such thing as randomness or chance. Free will is directly linked to the metaphysical realm that is hidden behind the non-deterministic nature of Quantum Mechanics.
Non-deterministic, yet non-random.
I suggest we will never know if there is a divine programmer or an unguided divine program hiding behind that NOMA wall.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
aiguy, I only have to point to a physical effect. If the effect, like the existence of a spaceship, can be ruled out as having been caused by mother nature then I am accurate in inferring choice. Those constructing may have used ai systems in the manufacturing process but that issue is for a subsequent investigation.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
TP,
No, I don't think timelessness is the issue. And no, not religion per se either. The issue really is what people call "volition" or "free will".
Let's keep intelligence and volition separate for starters. ID attempts to reify intelligence, or mind, and that is tantamount to the metaphysical position of dualism. Likewise, ID usually reifies "choice", which is the metaphysical position of libertarian free will.
Lots of folks have tried this angle over the past hundred years or so. One problem is that getting away from determinism doesn't really get you free will directed toward anything. But I think the relevant point here in this thread is that when ID talks about "choice" there needs to be a recognition that there are metaphysical commitments, and those need to be made explicit.
Once everybody agrees on that point, I think we can start to explore how quantum physics, etc. might inform our understanding of volition in the future – as well as the fascinating cognitive psychology experiments that are being performed on the same topic!
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Hi Bradford,
But if everything is designed (the entire universe is designed) what is the fundamental difference between inorganic intelligent choice and organic intelligent choice?
You usual "nailing jello to the wall" is to presume there is a difference and to challenge us to prove there isn't.
I suggest your presumption is based on philosophical/religious foundations.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
See, I don't even want to make it difficult. If it's easier to have an operational definition that leaves out choice, then so be it. ANY operational definition would be preferable to the common: "You know what I mean with intelligence." or "Just look up design in the dictionary."
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Bradford,
I say a river chooses a path to the sea, and a cloud chooses to release a lightning bolt. I say a flea chooses to jump on a dog, and a virus chooses to infect a cell. I say you choose to write a message, and you choose to dialate your pupils when your eyes are exposed to light, and you choose to make antibodies in response to infection.
Can you say why any of these are not examples of choice? Or do you agree that all of them are?
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
hrun:
If you're looking for something that is context specific why not specify what that would be?
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Hi Aiguy,
The suggestion that some of these ideas are old doesn't bother me in the slightest.
For example, one of the oldest truisms keeps getting rediscovered over and over.
Philosophically, we don't know the Truth and probably never will.
By your recent response to FMM, I suspect you agree with this truism.
However, I do believe recent discoveries of the inherent use of quantum conductivity in photosynthesis and quantum computation in DNA lends support to the idea that we may be getting closer to better defining the gray area between the emperical and the metaphysical.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
? Me? I have no idea how ID can go about defining 'intelligence' or 'design' in a way that is meaningful to their theory? Do you think I should identify the context? Again, I have no idea what that would be. I think it would be a step forward if ID would define these terms in ANY context in an operational way. Just let ID pick one and we can see if it is workable.
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
aiguy, the river's path to the see can be determined by reference to physical factors alone- gravity etc. The outcome is physically determined. I know the tune of the next song. Free will is really explainable by chemistry which makes it a physical processs… That's philosophy. I don't, for example, have to go there to show that these message exchanges are not reducible to laws of physics for they cannot provide adaquate causal explanations. If a definition is sought, relevant to the context of messaging, then a more realistic question is posed.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
How do you 'KNOW' that? Wouldn't 'believe' be the better word to use here?
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
TP:
I agree. Gotta go for awhile. Life intrudung on fun.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Bradford,
You commented on the river, but what about the flea? The virus? The immune system? Your pupil dialations? Can you say if these are instances of choice or not?
Your definition of "choice" now seems to be: Anything that happens that we can't reduce to physics, or anything we can't show is physically determined, or in general, anything we can't explain any other way. Is that what you mean?
No, I am not making any claims about what can or can't be reduced to physics. You keep mistaking me for a physicalist, but you are mistaken every time.
All I am pointing out is that if you define "choice" as that which we can't explain, that is an obviously unsatisfactory definition (because you make argument from ignorance each time you employ it).
So your options are to either claim that "choice" is a real, causal thing that is distinct from physical cause (this is called libertarianism), or to surrender your position that we can somehow tell when a choice is being made and when it isn't. Otherwise all you mean by choice is "it happened, and I can't say why".
Comment by aiguy — June 7, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hi Hrun and AIguy,
Hrun wrote…
Now that Bradford has left, I appear to be the closest thing to an ID proponent left.
AIguy, I suspect you might have wanted to get confirmation "… that when ID talks about "choice" … there are metaphysical commitments, and those need to be made explicit."
Sorry, ain't going to happen.
At best you are going to get individual admissions. Doug will gladly voice that his religious beliefs are influencing his scientific outlook. Bradford will do it only if forced. Nullasus is an interesting case, he vigously defends ID's right to mix religion and science because he feels the opposition did it first. However, he states that in general science and philosophy should be kept separate.
With the obviously religious tone of Expelled there is only a muted reaction to the suggestion that ID has inherent metaphysical components to it.
I offer this thread would have gone a whole lot differently had it been attempted prior to the release of Expelled.
However, I don't think you are going to get an honest admission, especially from Bradford. Old habits die hard.
What I do is simply make the presumption it is true, announce that fact, and continue the discussion.
Note, many ID proponents have openly critisized my quantum hypothesis as not being an ID hypothesis for exactly the reason that it stops short of offering a satisfying metaphysical solution.
If I modify my hypothesis to say a metaphysical Divine programmer is behind it all then, suddenly, it is clearly an ID hypothesis and accepted as such.
On the other hand, if I modify my hypothesis to say it is an unguided, unknowable program behind it all then, just as suddenly, it is clearly NOT an ID hypothesis both in the eyes of the ID proponents and critics.
BTW, most ID critics agree it is a challenge to the status quo regardless of the metaphysical presumptions. I find it telling and amusing how many ID proponents act like my ideas are standard materialistic Darwinsm.
Yes, the ID Movement is a religious movement and very much interested in the metaphysical nature of whatever terms they are using including "Intelligence" and even "Design".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Hey Aguy,
First of all let me commend you on your ability to juggle umpteen off topic rabbit trails and still remain focused on your mantra. A lesser man would get distracted. I stand in awe.
God if he exists is necessary by definition to ask why God is necessary is like asking why water is wet. It is a nonsense question.
You could but unless you are willing to say that the universe is God you must explain why it is necessary. Get it ?
Not at all since God is necessary and devine and the creator of life by definition our options should read
1) God exists
2)A necessary divine program exists that creates life
Option 2 is much more complicated we must ask
Why is the program divine?
Why is it necessary ?
Why is it a life creator?
These are especially difficult questions given we know of lots of programs that are none of those things
I sense a note of sarcasm as if you know that it is impossible for me to know the answer to the most important question in the universe. That's what I mean by agnostics like yourself pretending to be superior rationally.
You simply have no way of knowing what I and folks like me can know so please don't act as if you do.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 7, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Hi FMM,
I will let Aiguy speak for himself, but let me offer this…
It is obvious from your chain of logic that you believe the simpliest explaination is that God exists because you know God exists.
We understand that, no sarcasm needed.
Your challenge, if you decide to accept it, is to get us to understand how this makes sense.
To those of us who don't know the Truth, the choices are…
a) Something we can't detect exists and created the universe in a way we have yet to understand.
b) the universe simply exists in a way we have yet to understand.
The second choice is clearly simplier unless you are predisposed to presume God exists.
Assuming God exists and thus suggesting it is the simplier solution to forward your argument that God exists is what I refer to as "assuming your conclusion." Others call it "begging the question".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
aiguy:
aiguy later:
again:
Per Penrose/Hameroff:
TP said:
aiguy responded:
I've attempted to catch up with this too-long but very interesting thread. These are the posts by aiguy (with TP weighing in) that escaped my ken awhile back. Since I can't keep up longer, I'll just make some points that seem to have been missed in all this celebratory camaraderie.
First, as far as I know I am the one most familiar with the consciousness project currently starring Penrose and Hameroff, on this forum. At no time during my introductions, my participation and completion of the course, or in any subsequent follow-up research and reading, was it ever asserted by either Penrose or Hameroff that identified physical mechanisms for expression of consciousness – no matter how quantum – equate to the phenomenon of consciousness being expressed. The examination is to mechanism, not causation (explicitly).
Because causation doesn't have to be a 'given' or even a 'hidden variable' in any physical description of mechanism of expression. Maybe in biology causation and mechanism are the same thing, but in physics they aren't. This is how we can have finely-tuned descriptions of effects without any more than corellated mechanisms and sans causality altogether. i.e., Gravity.
These are three levels of description and three levels of explanation. What we seek to explain is evolution, described as change of form/function over time in life. We can describe mechanisms – variation, selection and all the newer mechanisms being documented from the field and described in developing, expanding theoretics. 'Orthodox' biology would like the investigation to stop there, allowing ideologists in its ranks (and, by extension, outside its ranks) to speculate wildly on the philosophical metaphysics of causation. It's just that the 'orthodox' in biology would like to forbid speculation about and/or belief-in causation outside its wagon-circle. It's just us Indians riding the perimeter who think causation shouldn't be a brick wall with razor wire on top scattered with scary signs declaring it RANDOM – Don't Ask Questions.
The existence or relevance of formal consciousness on the causal end is moot at this point in the investigation. All computers are intelligently designed, as are all computer programs. That is a plain fact. All that should be considered when attempting an analogy. So, to this exchange…
…I'd have to say, 1) Computers can display computational 'intelligence' as a reflection of the computational 'intelligence' their designers designed them to display. I doubt that anyone but transhumanists hoping to upload themselves as avatars for a guarantee the electricity will never go out actually believes that computers are equal-to-or-greater-than the humans who designed them.
2) Computers operate strictly according to law. Chance has nothing to do with it. We programmed the computer laws that operate in accordance to physical laws, and we program the pseudo-random generators too. And if worst comes to worst, they can always crash. Data deleted, do not pass Go!, do not collect $200.
3) Yes, "intelligent agency" can operate according to law + chance. That is its normal mode. In not-normal circumstances, something a whole lot more still appears to be present.
Thanks for cool subject matter, sorry I've been so busy. Carry on, I hope you all settle the matter. But I doubt that it'll be settled between critics in a manner satisfactory to me. That's okay, since if everybody agreed with me I'd think something was very, very wrong with the world.
Comment by Joy — June 7, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Hey TP
wassup
.
I'm not sure if such philosophical challenge is what we should be discussing on this site and I don't expect you to understand it's the whole unregenerate thing. For now I'm just happy that we have finially moved from assuming atheism to an arguement about program vs programmer. I'll give you a hint of my argument just for kicks.
lets look at your two choices first we can remove all that the two have in common because that is not involved in the choice we are left with…
a) Something we can't detect exists and created the universe.
b) the universe simply exists
As for option one you assume that we can't detect God. billions of theists would disagree with you.
So it would be more correct to say.
a)Something that TP and a small minority of humans have yet to detect exists and created the universe. His existence is affirmed by the vast majority of mankind past and present.
b) the universe simply exists
At first glance the second option might still seem simpler to you, but remember we are not talking about any old universe we are talking about an intelligent information laiden program, a program vastly beyond our capability to create at the present time.
Now if I were to find a complex program I would naturally assume it was created by a programmer. You are not required to make that assumption scientifically but common sense says that such a thing requires an explanation.
To explain such a thing would be anything but simple.
Welcome to the world of philosophy after ID.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 7, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
No. I'll give another example. My cat likes to hang out with me when I type. She walks across the keyboard at times. Toddlers of friends of mine sometimes compress keys. Even falling objects have that capacity. The letters you see typed in these sentences resulted from what- my cat, a toddler, a falling object or someone known as Bradford? The conclusion is based on positive evidence that can be articulated. Ignorance is not used to impute anything. Bradford has the capacity to choose. I know determinists will contend it is illusory. It matters not. Every argument has a self-evident premise. That is mine.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
TP, of the two sides I'm becoming convinced that the one that is truly blinded to metaphysical commitments are not those who believe in God but rather those who disbelieve or who say they are unsure. The illusion is that it is only religious types who let their metaphysical beliefs influence an objective assessment about the origin of the universe, origin of life, consciousness and other matters. Anyone thinking he is free of predispositions, driven by his own own metaphysics, is the blindest of all.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
So are you saying that cats and toddlers don't make choices as they compress keys? Could they not chose to put their hands and feet elsewhere?
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
They don't make choices relevant to explaining the message outcome. Really hrun this type of response indicates an ideological blindness. Why not write NO everytime an IDist suggests something. That would save time.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
The reason why I feel compelled to write these responses is because every time you asked on how to recognize all these ill-defined things like choice, design, intelligence, … your basic reply is "I know it when I see it.
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I'd spell it out but then again what is the point when the two of us are engaged in sending encoded messages to each other and only one of us acknowledgess the messages are evidence of choice on the part of the sender. We both know they are and we both know your side is not communicating in good faith. I pick out the most obvious example of a designed outcome to establish whether or not any common ground can be reached. The response is to pretend we cannot discern evidence of choice. I only wish the public were aware of the depth of deniability on the part of ID critics.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Hi FMM,
It's been a while. I have been really swamped.
This is a short respite so please excuse any unusually abruptness I demonstrate.
Thanks for responding. But to the debate…
You wrote…
I am truly surprised that you finally succummed to arguing mob rule.
Yes, if the mob insists that Black is White, the moon is made of cream cheese and that the premptive war in Iraq was justified then for all practical purposes, all of these are true.
This is the tactic of the ID Movement's big tent strategy. It is much easier to win the "scientific" argument with majority rule than by doing the science needed to make the case.
Yes, you can have ID win by fiat. History has shown that.
You will just have to tolerate us vocal minority pointing out what you are doing as loudly and as often as we can.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Funny, Bradford. Do you think you are fooling anyone? When have you willingly spelled out an operational definition of anything relevant like choice, intelligence, design, … ? You don't even have to bother to type it out. Just link to it.
If you present operational definitions we can test if they are applicable to ID scenarios. If you don't present operational definitions we can not. It's as simple as that, isn't it?
And, if you like, I can work with your example: I believe that the message I receive from 'Bradford' is indeed a product of choice. I recognize the pattern as written language and I know from my own experience that generally human being like I am are responsible for such messages. Since I believe that I am making 'choices' I conclude that the entity that writes the other posts is making choices. Now what do we do with that?
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I would be curious if ANYONE thinks you are just now "becoming" convinced of this. Of course you think that.
I suspect that despite all my explainations of how I think God is Love or accept God as possibly being the Ultimate Engineer you are firmly convinced that I somehow hate and fear the idea of God.
I would love to find out that our universe is a metaphysical science fair project. I would think that would be absolutely hilarious and neat.
The idea that the universe is just an unguided program isn't as satisfying, but it is the more logical explaination.
The question, "who designed the designer?" doesn't go away just because it has been asked too many times.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
hrun:
Formalize the recognitions as axioms and apply the same to any system having similar properties. When one finds patterns conforming to convention and used to send messages one has a reasonable expectation that choice was exercised in the set-up of the convention and transmission mechanism.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Huh? Did you not read what I wrote? I recognized that 'Bradford' generates things that I know humans generate. I thus assume that the messages are human-generated. Since I believe that I make choices, I think that the entity 'Bradford' also made choices.
Could you maybe spell out to us how you would "formalize the recognitions as axioms and apply the same to any system having similar properties" Because I don't get it.
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
TP
I was not sugesting that you follow a mob only that you don't claim to a Truth when you say you don't you know it.
That my thought provoking friend is a Truth claim, a Truth claim that you try and force on others (we instead of I)
I merely pointed out that your Truth is not mine or most of the rest of the world. We would appreciate it if you did not try and force your world view on us.
If you are going to claim that you don't know the Truth please be consistent that's all I'm saying
It does once you specify that the designer was God. No one designed God by definition.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 7, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
A more precise depiction of my position is that you (and others) dislike a God with authority over your personal behavior. As for the who designed the designer? Noone. God is eternal. Is that a difficult concept? Yes. So are turtles all the way down. There are no easy outs.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
While I may have been sloppy and lazy in using the word "can't", it is you who claimed a Truth as "…affirmed by the vast majority of mankind past and present."
You wrote…
If you are so convinced that you and the "vast majority" know the Truth, then isn't it your moral obligation to silence those of us who dare challenge this Truth in the one nation, under God that trusts in God.
Doesn't this mean the Dover school board actions were justified in your view?
Does this mean the DI Wedge document is justified in your view?
Doesn't the Truth need to be defended at all costs?
Please excuse the hyperbola. As always, I thank you for your responses and enjoy our exchanges.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I agree with Mike that ID is not a scientific discipline and although I think there is evidence to support a strong suspicion there is a need for much more. I'm of the belief that an informational approach is most likely to yield results. Here is an abstract from one of several papers that have influenced my thinking:
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Huh? Just a few posts earlier you complain about 'my side' not arguing in good faith because it ignores your great example of choice. I accept it as an example of choice and ask you what it means. And promptly, rather than explaining how me believing that the Bradford entity is making choice when typing a message is relevant to ID, you simply state that you don't think ID is science and quote some paper.
Now that's arguing in good faith.
Come on, Bradford. Either you do or you don't have operational definitions of these terms. Either you can or you can not explain how your examples are relevant to the discussion. But don't accuse 'my side' of not arguing in good faith, and then, when I clearly show that your accusation (according to your example) is simply false, just back out of the discussion.
Comment by hrun — June 7, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I've already specified choice as evidenced by a physical outcome not explained by natural laws. I stand by that.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Saying the "Universe is eternal" is an easy out and is simplier.
Actually, one of the interesting aspects of the fact that the universe is four dimensional space-time is that time is packaged INSIDE the universe.
The universe transends time.
Penrose's has refined his concepts of the universe to suggest the increasing entropy is the key to understanding the eternal nature of the universe.
Basically, the increasing entropy means in the far distant future all that will be left are massless particles and massless particles are timeless (they experience no time). This is the same condition that would give rise to a Big Bang.
Here is Penrose's own words…
"Physically, we may think that … in the very remote future, the universe "forgets" time in the sense that there is no way to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even say that to a massless particle, "eternity is no big deal". So the future boundary, to such an entity is just like anywhere else. With conformal invariance both in the remote future and at the Big-Bang origin, we can try to argue that the two situations are physically identical, so the remote future of one phase of the universe becomes the Big Bang of the next." link
God is unnecessary. Not because I hate the idea. Not because I am even sure he/she/it doesn't exist.
God is unneccesary for the existance of an eternal universe that can be eternal all by itself.
And if you ask who created the creation, it will be you who is starting the "turtles all the way down". The extra turtle (God) is not needed.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
TP:
Except that it is not true. The age of the universe is finite. Even if it were not you would have an uncaused universe as opposed to an uncaused God. As I said there are no easy outs.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Really? I thought choice was evidenced by recognizing patterns that are similar to patterns created by entities we believe capable of making choices. Now you come up with a completely different definition? Which one is it? Do you think they are interchangeable? Do you think you can show that when you make a choice, the outcome can not be explained by natural laws?
This is really greatly confusing stuff, Bradford.
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 12:04 am
June 8th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Where's the problem in imputing choice to patterns when the patterns in question would not be generated by natural forces alone? Time for bed. You got the last word today.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 12:16 am
June 8th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Because you pre-suppose that choices made by humans would not be generated by natural forces alone. That means, you think that something within human beings runs counter to 'natural forces'. Can you support that notion? Of course not!
And that's where the problem comes in with your simple examples that fail to make operational definitions clear. Do you now understand why we continuously question you? Because without my questioning you would have simply claimed that 'my side' is arguing in bad faith.
What we actually find out is that you simply stipulated that choice in humans runs counter to 'natural forces'. And that in addition, your operational definition of choice has nothing to do with your example at all. It's all very confusing, Bradford.
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 12:37 am
June 8th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Hi Bradford,
Did you read past my first sentence?
When you consider that the universe is made up of four dimensional space-time, then you can see that time is a property inside the universe not something external to it.
Have you read the multiple times Joy talks about how the concepts of time break down inside a naked singularity?
The big bang was a naked singularity!
The universe is inherently eternal because all time is inherently contained within it. Time is warped to infinities in and around singularities. The universe started with a singularity. An infinate amount of time is contained within it.
There is no "if", our observable universe is eternal even if it appears finite.
While the concept transcends what we call "time", there is a concept of an infinately repeating cycle of a universe starting with a Big Bang and expanding to infinity and then starting over again with another Big Bang.
Penrose believes the increasing universal entropy is supporting evidence that this is what happens.
This would mean there are eternities upon enternities. Infinite number of infinite time.
No matter what, the turtles all the way down can stop with the first turtle.
The universe is eternal.
Stop, no more turtles.
The second turtle (God) is not needed.
He/she/it may exist, but that isn't a requirement.
P.S. In case the relationship to the Thread's topic isn't obvious.
The universe is the AI Program (Intelligent or not, guided or not).
God is the programmer (Intelligent or not, purposeful or not).
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 12:41 am
June 8th, 2008 at 1:31 am
FMM,
I won't argue theology with you. I'm not interested in challenging people's theistic beliefs.
When I say a "program" I do not mean a piece of software running on a digital computer. I mean something that operates according to law+chance and is – as far as we know – a "blind" (unconscious) process.
I am not pretending anything, and I do not consider myself to have "superior rationality" to people holding theistic beliefs. And as I told you, I am not an agnostic (nor an atheist, nor a theist).
LIKEWISE
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:31 am
June 8th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Joy,
The assertion of consciousness (and/or libertarian free will) is the only meaningful aspect of ID's central claim. Without the claim of consciousness (I don't know what you mean by 'formal' consciousness) then ID can't distinguish its notion of intelligent cause from "blind, natural processes".
We've discussed this at length above, where I've shown that "who designed the designer?" is not relevant to the question of the intelligence of the designer. Computers are intelligent because they can do things like learn to solve new problems and design things. It doesn't matter that they themselves are designed – humans are designed as well.
Wrong again, as discussed repeatedly above. You haven't actually said what difference you think it makes that we use pseudo-random input, but obviously random input from physical devices is available as well.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:32 am
June 8th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Bradford,
I asked you if you could tell me if each of those things could make choices or not; you refused to answer twice, so I assume you didn't know.
You told me that the reason a river didn't make a choice was because it was "determined by reference to physical factors alone". That's fine – you've made your position clear. Your position is what philosophers call libertarian free will or sometimes contracausal freedom. You believe in it, that's fine. It is not a self-evident position, however, and not even the strongest advocates of libertarianism believe that it is. Nor is it a position that can be demonstrated empirically.
I am not a determinist, and I am not arguing about the truth or falsity of libertarianism.
What I am saying is that ID should make these metaphysical commitments explicit. People say that ID is "only about detecting design", or detecting "intelligent cause", or "teleology", but none of these words express what you are really talking about (or if they do, you certainly don't make that clear!).
Instead, your idea of ID is that "some entity possessed of contracausal free will created life". Perhaps that sounds too metaphysical (or religious), compared to the way "intelligent cause" sounds. That is because it is a metaphysical assertion.
ID suggests that we all know what "intelligence" is because we have experience with "intelligent agents" and we can detect these "intelligent agents" and see when they make "choices", and that all of this is mere common sense and that we don't need anything more than a dictionary to agree on what all this means. I have shown here that the conception of intelligence that ID posits is either 1) laden with the implicit metaphysical baggage of dualism and/or libertariansm or 2) meaningless.
There are no scientific theories that rely on the falsify libertarian free will. But (your version of) ID absolutely relies on the truth of this metaphysical position.
I do not challenge the truth of your belief; I ask only that you acknowledge that it rests on these metaphysical assumptions, and that other scientific theories do not rest on either libertarianism or its negation.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:34 am
June 8th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Heya all.
I've just been watching this devolve (In my opinion) from spirited debate to more of a train wreck. Y'all may wanna take a breather like I did, as – considering no one I notice is arguing ID as-is is a science here – a wall seems to be hit. Aiguy (with a full serving more politeness and consideration than most other ID critics I see) will stick with 'other than subjective access (consciousness) how do you discern between the truly intelligent and the seemingly intelligent'. Bradford's argument boils down to 'it may not be a science, but damned if all the data doesn't indicate we're dealing with a designer', which I personally sympathize with greatly – but I also notice that no one here apparently wants to have a metaphysical fight, a decision I think is incredibly wise.
For the hell of it, I'll even suggest a new potential topic to kick around: There's a game coming out this year, by the name of Spore. In it, you guide (intelligently design? Ha ha) life from the OoL stage all the way to spacefaring. The question: Considering it's one of the most anticipated games of the year, just how much screaming do you think it's going to prompt between ID proponents and ID opponents? My guess is 'a lot.' I'm looking forward to it. (The game, not the screaming.) (Okay, that too.)
Anyway, that's my two cents. I'll be back in a couple days – it's too damn hot to contribute to a debate rut.
Comment by nullasalus — June 8, 2008 @ 2:28 am
June 8th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Nullasalus,
Thanks. A bit of correction with what I'll stick with:
1) One can describe meaningful attributes of the "intelligent cause" posited by ID, including the attributes of consciousness, or libertarian free will.
2) Unless at least some actual mental attribute is specified, the bare assertion of "intelligent cause" in the context of ID does not distinguish it (from "blind, unguided, natural processes", or anything else).
3) The attributes that various IDers do claim distinguishes mental from physical cause cannot be observed, or tested empirically.
Can you please be clear that you mean a conscious being with free will, as Bradford seems to? Or do you mean something else?
Agree 100%.
To (re)clarify my motivation here: My only complaint about ID is, and has always been, its equivocations. ID says that the explanation it offers for life is one which is familiar to us all – it is nothing but "intelligence", a cause that is "directed" by some mindful entity (rather than a lawlike entity). But as it turns out, this way of presenting it is utterly misleading.
In order to see if ID is true, we all need to know how mental (intelligent) cause is supposed to be different from physical (lawlike) cause. But nobody can say what the difference is in the context of ID… And so, as we've seen here, ID proponents inevitably end up arguing that ID entails consciousness, libertarian free will, or both (although they often initially deny these commitments – as Joy is doing even now).
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 3:14 am
June 8th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Hey TP
Unlike your untestable blanket contention that we can not detect God I just posted an observation that we can test via opinion polls no "Truth" claim here. why not take my comment as an atempt to clean up your sloppy and lazy use of "can't" and leave it at that.
Odd how most of the world disagrees with you yet you are safe in bed tonight
I know you have a tendency to be paranoid but this is too much even for you. Just because folks disagree with you about whether or not God is detectable you don't need to head for the fall out shelter.
Instead why not look at this as a genuine difference of opinion and relax. It's better for your health.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2008 @ 7:02 am
June 8th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Aguy
Program:
a: a plan for the programming of a mechanism (as a computer) b: a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism (as a computer) c: a sequence of coded instructions (as genes or behavioral responses) that is part of an organism
Words have meanings Aguy they are not to be twisted beyond recognition just to bolster our arguments.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2008 @ 7:14 am
June 8th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Aguy:
Why can't a cause be law like and intelligent at the same time? The law could not be a simple one like gravity it would have to be a complex one like a divine program. We all agree that computers can be a intelligent and they are nothing if not law like.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. What am I missing?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2008 @ 7:29 am
June 8th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I believe the usage in question was defined above when Allen_MacNeill introduced this analogy by Babbage.
The meaning seems quite clear, and it was clear to me from context even before I looked upthread.
Has that been universally established on this thread?
Comment by Zachriel — June 8, 2008 @ 7:38 am
June 8th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Where's the problem in imputing choice to patterns when the patterns in question would not be generated by natural forces alone? Time for bed. You got the last word today.
This is confusing to me. Are you claiming that I must disprove duality in order to impute a cause to a human action?
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 8:16 am
June 8th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Listen carefully. It is not a position that can be negated empirically. IOW, at this stage of the game arguments about this are purely metaphysical.
Bradford has the capacity to choose. I know determinists will contend it is illusory. It matters not. Every argument has a self-evident premise. That is mine.
Since duality is not negated empirically and since it confers utility in explaining comsciousness, which has been resistent to standard explanations, I see no problem with making a point entailing my assumptions and then leaving the rest for metaphysicians to argue about or perhaps 23rd century scientists to shed empirical light on. As it stands now one side is injecting stealth metaphysics into the mix by presuming what they are unable to empirically demonstrate. That would be fine if they acknowledged this but they do not. Instead the search for answers is labled "science" and the unspoken rules tell us studies related to the human mind presume that conscious decisions flow from underlying biochemcal reactions. There is ample evidence that a change in thinking can induce changes in brain biochemistry but sequential events are presumed to be a one-way street. There must have been a physical event that preceeded that change in thinking! Whatever you say metaphysician.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 8:40 am
June 8th, 2008 at 8:58 am
TP:
But causality has been raped.
ai programs come cheap and without the benefit of causality through genesis by intellect. We do not know these things empirically. Stealth metaphysics.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 8:58 am
June 8th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Well, of course. If you make the claim that 'choice' can not be explained by 'natural law' alone, then you have to show WHY 'choice' can not be explained by 'natural law' alone.
Is this really confusing to you?
And read carefully, I do believe choice exists. From my experience I think I know what choice is. And from the similarity of me to other humans I believe they make choices too. Nowhere does that say anything about whether or not 'natural law' alone would be insufficient for choice. If you claim it is, then show that it is so. Otherwise, it is merely an unsupported philosophical opinion of yours.
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 11:04 am
June 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
What natural laws explain the existence of a rocket? The strong force? Weak force? Gravity? When I cite natural laws as insufficient explanatory devices I'm not claiming contravention of natural laws, merely their inadaquacy as sole resources. Incidentally, philosophy was not introduced into the thread by me.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 11:11 am
June 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am
You are not serious, Bradford, are you? You claim something is not explainable by natural law. You have no way to back up your claim. And you know full well that this is a philosophical claim that has been unresolved probably for millennia. Rather than admitting that this is the case, you come up with silly questions like 'what natural laws explain the existence of a rocket. There are countless things that we can fully explain by known laws. Virtually everything you see around you can't, at some level of detail, not be explained. So, according to your criteria, NOTHING can be explained by natural law alone.
And, by the way, your excuse of 'philosophy was not introduced into the thread by me' is very weak. You assert an unresolved philosophical claim to be true, yet you bristle at being called on it an claim you are not responsible. Weak.
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 11:30 am
June 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
aiguy:
Guy, your personal take on the matter is not authoritative enough to accomplish what has been attempted for the past few months by a string of ID critics here on TT – the re-definition of evident design in biological systems as UNintelligent. Your problem pinning down a definition need not affect anyone else's perception of the issue.
You want consciousness to be involved in the definition, but the most advanced current theoretic related to consciousness postulates that the quality is fundamental to manifest reality in our spacetime. This would mean that all things manifest in spacetime owe their existence to the 'hidden variable', the fundamental parameter representing consciousness.
IOW, there may well be no blind, natural processes uncreated by the action of consciousness. This little glitch in the system has arisen in all its ugliness in fundamental physics for a little more than a century and it's not going away. The distinction you want so badly to make simply is not there.
Everything is designed, proceeding from the mind behind the matrix of reality. My personal take on the matter (fwiw) is that manifestation is the effect of ripples and eddies in the fabric. So the question you want an answer to does not hinge on either the "intelligence" or the "consciousness" of a designer, but on the power of effective concentrations in the fabric to influence lesser concentrations. Think of these eddies as lenses of a sort, through which designers can design.
Gravity is such an effect, and it designs the universe we see around us. Each eddy in the fabric that we call "matter" is a concentration in the field [fabric, because fields are infinitely extended]. The refraction of its lensing lends it a quality we call "mass." This quality attracts other eddies to itself and form evolves as the influence grows. The accumulating concentration grows its influence (both in the field and in the fabric) until it becomes itself an artifactual designer by causing ripples to extend outward from itself through the field and organization comes to the expanding aggregate. A sun and planets, a star cluster, a galaxy, a cluster of galaxies… intelligible order becomes an observable quality of spacetime, reflecting and refracting the qualities of the underlying parameters of the matrix – including consciousness.
Thus the fact that our artifactual designs are effective designers themselves is nothing more than a ripple in the fabric, as are we ourselves. If consciousness is fundamental, it affects everything. Life may be its most highly specialized concentration, manifesting the quality of awareness rather than the quality of mass (we aren't heavier than stars, our influence is directly focused mind, not extending ripples of gravity). Mind as "The Image of God." Or, put another way, God experiencing Itself inside the matrix that arose when the first ripples went forth to begin the work of creation.
You haven't actually acknowledged that the issue isn't what YOU believe, or even what I believe. About mind, any of its attributes, or whether there is a material difference between "random" nature and "pseudorandom design." Or either of these with "intelligent design." Truth of the matter is, far as fundamental physics at this point in time is concerned, there is no such thing as random. That's a human-designed statistical device, not a fundamental parameter of the universe or a feature of the matrix.
Later, to nullasalus:
That which designed and created our reality as a product of Mind (if indeed that is the best we can figure) has no need of attributes and qualities we humans attempt to define and apply to ourselves and our world. All such attributes and qualities are artifactual, sub-expressions of a unified fundamental to which such definitions simply cannot apply.
I could say God is "intelligent." What in the world would that mean outside of my own mind and how I personally perceive and intuit the nature of that quality? It's a word, a semantic device, a finger pointing at a moon but NOT the moon. We may agree or disagree on the words we define and whether they apply. That *IS* majority rule, but that doesn't necessarily apply to what's real.
ANYTHING that can be defined as "intelligent" is several times removed (designers as turtles). We apprehend the quality because we experience, intuit and display the quality, and can use it to design artifacts that display the quality. This stack of turtles in fact does appear to be how reality works. A desire for simple answers doesn't make the answers simple. C'est la vie.
Again, this thread is too long for my participation, I must go through the admin page and that's a lot of trouble. Just wanted to respond so you wouldn't keep making assertions (with my name attached to them) that don't accurately represent what I have tried to say.
Comment by Joy — June 8, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
hrun:
So what is your problem with attributing result x to intelligent source y?
I did not say philosophy was introduced by you but it was introduced to undermine a claim through the free will metaphysical argument.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
It is not my safety that concerns me. It is the safety of my children and their children.
In 390AD Pagans lived openly among Christians in civilized society not fearing for their lives. St. Augustine's father was a Pagan who had married a Christian. It wasn't that unusual. The director of the Library of Alexandria, was a Pagan named Leon. It is not hard to imagine the sun worshipping Leon arguing for a heliocentric model of our solar system in opposition to Ptolomy's geocentric model.
25 years later (after Leon had died of natural causes), Leon's daughter was dragged from her chariot to a church and skinned alive.
The future saint Augustine formalized the concepts of Original Sin, a Just War and the Diefication of the Jesus Christ (Filioque Clause).
Politically the timing was right (or wrong depending on your point of view). The public and those in power had lost their tolerence for ambiguity (see other thread) and demanded black and white answers.
FMM, the public reaction to Bush's Iraq War was startling. Whether you like it or not, Islamic fundamentalism has direct roots to Christianity circa 400 AD. Two hundred years after Augustine's "just war" concept, Muhammad was preaching about Jihads.
While people openly talk about how the Iraq war was really about oil, the prevailing undertone that is too often denied ("me thinks she doeth protest too much") is that this is an ideological war on Islam.
Once again, the world is looking for a single Truth. A Truth they are willing to kill and die for.
This is the Truth you are so sure you know you know.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
TP, can we take it as a given that anti-Christianity is the driving force around which your viewpoints are framed?
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
FMM,
You are still confused, sorry. The argument I've made regarding computer programs is an analogy. I just told you exactly what I meant by the word "program" in this context. You reply by quoting a different definition from a dictionary, as though by law we have to use a particular dictionary definition. I'm not complaining that ID doesn't use a dictionary definition; I'm complaining that ID provides no specific definition at all.
The issue with defintions, FMM, is that we need to be able to say what we mean by these critical terms in the context of how we're using them. I just got through doing this, telling you just what I meant. The issue is not that the English dictionary is a science textbook, or some Bible of meaning that suits all contexts – it really is not the case.
That's just fine. But since computers are lawlike and intelligent, it makes no sense of ID Theory to claim to be able to distinguish intelligent cause from lawlike cause.
You are missing the fact that since intelligent cause is indistiguishable from lawlike cause, then when ID say "The best explanation is intelligent cause, rather than blind, lawlike cause…" it is nonsense. Only if the word "blind" here is given some meaning will this make sense.
Now, I do not insist that this word "blind" be used according to the dictionary defintion, of course; I just want ID to say what it is supposed to mean. I believe it means "conscious" in this context; maybe you think it means something else?
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Bradford,
We agree – arguments about free will are metaphysical.
No. Every argument has a premise; not all premises are self-evident. Libertarian free will is not self-evident.
In other words, although free will is a metaphysical assertion, you want to make this assertion but claim that it has support because it can "explain consciousness". But it does not "explain consciousness" in any way that we can see is true because of empirical evidence. And so it is nothing but a metaphysical claim, just like physicalism.
I'll say it again, this time in bold because apparently you didn't read it the last few times I've said it: No scientific claim can rest on the truth of libertarian free will or its negation. Only you are resting your argument upon the claim that this type of free will exists; all other theories, and my arguments here, do not require this to be either true or false.
This is a persecution fantasy. There is no such unspoken rule of course, and lots of people write all sorts of things about how consciousness might arise. You are making up this conspiracy theory out of whole cloth, and it is bizarre.
This is precisely what physicalist theory requires of course. Evidence for your view would be that changes in thinking can occur without brain changes. But I suggest we not derail the thread into an argument about dualism – I think we should agree that questions of dualism nor physical or libertarian volition nor its negation cannot be empirically decided.
If you consider that an insult, you actually will be insulting only yourself: I repeat, none of my arguments rest on any of these metaphysical claims regarding dualism or free will. I am agnostic about these issues. You, however, have built your theory of ID directly on the particular metaphysical claim of free will. This makes you, Bradford, the metaphysician, and not me.
Metaphysics isn't a bad thing in my view. You should simply accept your beliefs as metaphysical and not pretend you are basing your beliefs on empirical evidence. There's nothing wrong with that.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Politically, I am motivated by a lot of things. An expectation of consistant, ethical behavior is a biggie. That is why I am distrustful of overly religious people in power. It matters little whether they are Christian, Islamic or even Evangilizing Atheists.
Those who think they know the Truth tend to allow moral imperitives to override ethical obligations. Sometimes to the point that they don't even think about the ethics anymore.
The difference between Islams running jets into skyscrapers and Christians completely destroying a modern city (Falluja) is just a matter of tactics. The motivation and rationalization are the same. They both think what they are doing is right and just because they think they know the Truth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Joy,
You did not respond to me regarding the relevance of the "Who designed the computer?" issue you raised. I take it you concede the point?
You are doubly mistaken, as I'm neither arguing from authority nor trying to redefine anything. I'm simply asking people to actually say what they mean by the mentalistic terms they are using.
You're mistaken here too. If you read the thread you'd see it wasn't me who introduced the concepts of free will and consciousness; I simply forced people to make their assumptions explicit regarding what these words like "guided" and "directed" and "blind" and "intelligent" are supposed to mean in this context.
If you'd like to base your version of ID on a particular theory of consciousness, that's fine. But you'll need to make that explicit so people will actually know what you are talking about.
When you say "blind", I presume you mean "unconscious". Is that correct?
You are again mistaken; you have imputed a number of arguments to me now, none of which I've actually made.
I have never claimed that the issue is what I personally believe, so it seems a bit much to ask me to deny something I've never said.
My claim here is that while it might mean something inside your own mind, it has no meaning to the rest of us until you qualify what it is you are talking about.
This is my point exactly. I don't object to your ideas per se about ID or anybody else's either. I object only to the fact that over and over here we see that people are talking about consciousness and free will, and over and over they deny it!
Why do they deny it? Because they want to pretend ID is more simple than it actually is; here's how: ID pretends that everyone knows what intelligence is already. ID pretends that intelligence is a thing that we all experience every day and that can be detected by forensics detectives and archaeologists and so on. That is the pretense – the semantic sleight-of-hand – that I object to, as I have objected to it for years.
Contrary to the way ID is presented, we do not know about intelligence. There is no unified concept of what intelligent is (even Sal acknowledged this early on in this very thread).
Nobody knows if we have libertarian free will; it is still a controversial issue to say the least. Nobody knows what sorts of things might be conscious and what isn't; that too is still wildly controversial. ID tries to sidestep these controversies by pretending that it has nothing to do with them, which is misleading… to say the least.
Let's take a look:
Here is what you said:
Here is what I said:
I don't believe I've misconstrued your comment, but you can clarify that now: What do you think the terms "intelligent cause" and "undirected" mean in the following statement: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
aiguy:
I'll say this again in bold. Take that.:mrgreen: No scientific claim need await a resolution of underlying metaphysics. Actually your claim is inconsistent because it allows a counter-metaphysical resting point. Namely the negation of free will. The negation assumption is de facto operating procedure at present time. What this all amounts to is an attempt to squash any investigative effort that indicates a mind as a cause.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I don't have any problem with my typing being attributed to me. I don't have any problem with me being considered intelligent. What's your point? I also don't have any problem with me being considered to make choices. Again, what's your point?
You claim that choice or intelligence is not explainable by 'natural law'. Will you back this statement up or will you admit that this is a philosophical notion, that is unresolved and that you can't support with evidence?
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Edited.
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
You're neglecting the Pol Pots, Mao Tse Tungs and Stalins of the world whose specialty was the demise of millions of humans. I'm concerned with those who act as if they know the truth. Many talk one way and walk the other.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
What is the natural explanation for my choice of these words hrun?
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Bradford,
You must make your metaphysical commitments explicit, rather than hiding them behind ambiguous terms. That is what this call for definition is all about. If you mean conscious free will, then say it. If you mean something else, say that instead. But we can't know if you don't tell us.
I have told you now five or six times that this is not true. No scientific theory rests on the negation of free will. How many times must I say it? If you disagree, please tell us one single well-accepted scientific theory that assumes the libertarian contracausal free will OR its negation?
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Yes, you have repeated your assertion but as far as I know you are not omniscient are you? Scientific theories do not have to delve into free will metaphysics. They only need point to intelligent agency and let the aiguys of the world take it from there.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Bradford,
Over and over you do not respond to my points. You ignore what I write and repeat yourself. I will ask you to re-read my last two posts to you and respond to the points I am making, thanks.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
aiguy, you err in demanding resolution by science of metaphysical issues. As LaPlace told Napoleon, I'm in no need of that hypothesis.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Bradford,
1) Your version of ID requires that libertarian free will be true in order for your theory to be true.
2) Neither evolutionary theory nor any other scientific theory make any claims about either the truth or falsity about libertarian free will.
3) This means your version of ID is based on an untestable, unknown metaphysical claim of free will, but no other scientific theories do. You are making metaphysical claims about free will, and I am not.
Please be as specific as you can and tell me which of these points you disagree with.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Thought Provoker
I think you mean Theon, not Leon, and his daughter Hypatia. I have not seen any reference to Theon worshipping the sun, though he and his daughter were definitely not Christians. Platonic pagans, perhaps. (whoa… alliteration)
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 8, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Hi Bradford,
Back to the thread's topic. To my…
"The universe is the AI Program (Intelligent or not, guided or not).
God is the programmer (Intelligent or not, purposeful or not)."
You wrote…
We don't emperically know about programmers who come cheap without the benefit of causality.
Empirically, we can show an eternal program exists (the universe).
Empirically, we have no reason to presume a programmer exists.
It requires very unstealth-like metaphysics to presume one.
The God of the Bible may exists and be the causation you are looking for.
Interconnectect quantum effects may also be the causation.
Are interconnected quantum effects a program or a programmer?
At that point it is only a semantical difference.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
All,
One reason there seems never to be any movement toward consensus in these debates is because they peter out without anyone attempting to summarize what the points and counter-points are, and if there have been any concessions from either side.
So, I propose we attempt to summarize here.
I claim the following argument stands, overcoming any of the objections raised here:
1) For any detection criteria for "intelligence" that ID may want to adopt, computers are intelligent.
2) Computers operate according to "blind, unguided, natural processes"
3) Therefore ID can't distinguish between "intelligent cause" on one hand, and "blind unguided, natural process" on the other hand.
Can anyone mount a counter-argument to what I've said, or can we agree that the conclusion is valid?
Furthermore:
4) What ID means by "guided" or "directed" or "intelligent" entails conscious awareness. Otherwise these words mean nothing at all in this context. This means that ID must actually find evidence that the Designer of Life is a conscious being in order to have any theoretical content at all.
5) At least some versions of ID (like Bradford's) require that libertarian free will be true. This is a metaphysical claim that is irrelevant to scientific theories, but critical to this (metaphysical) version of ID.
Agreed?
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Hi AngryOldFatMan.
Thank you for the corrections and the links.
Yes, I meant Theon.
And yes, I was stretching things to suggest Theon was an active sun worshipper.
However, it is one of those interesting things I speculate about. There is plenty of evidence that the Serapeum (a Pagan temple which was attached to the Library of Alexandria) contained Pagan symbols.
I wonder if one or more of those Pagan symbols showed the Sun being at the center of the solar system. Something like the Pantheon's dome ceiling designed by the Sun worshipping Roman Emperor Hadrian. We now know people suggested a heliocentric solar system long before Copernicus. It isn't beyond reason to suggest Theon might have been exposed to that concept and open to the idea.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
aiguy:
No. It requires credible supporting evidence which can be consistent with a free will metaphysical explanation. I do not have the burden of proving free will. You need to make this distinction.
True.
The metaphyscial implication may not be tested but that is not my concern Nor should it be yours. Data can be consistent with metaphysical claims. That does not mean the claims themselves need to be concurrently tested.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
TP, there is more to what is shown empircally with reference to cosmology. Your interpretation is too restrictive. A post on this would be a good idea.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Hi Aiguy,
While there is a lot of things we agree on, you seem to be trying to sweep under the rug something both Joy and I have been saying repeatedly.
Here is Joy's version…
I think she and I have also stated repeatedly that there is no such thing as randomness or chance.
While this is a show-stopper for Culture Warriors on both sides. It goes to the heart of the conflict.
Bradford is correct that it is "stealth metaphysics" to assume chance and randomness exist much less has the ability to be a primary cause.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Bradford,
Either you are talking about libertarian free will when you talk about "intelligent cause" (or telic cause, etc) in this context, or you are not. I believe we've established that this is exactly what you are talking about.
All evidence is consistent with both the assertion of libertarian free will AND its negation. There is no evidence that can distinguish between free will and determinism. That is why this topic is discussed as a metaphysical issue.
This means that your version of ID is metaphysics, but that scientific theories are not.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
aiguy, I'm taliking about data consistent with free will. There is a difference.
My hypothesis does not require resolution of the free will issue. See LaPlace on superfluous interpretations.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Do you happen to have a link to your hypothesis?
Here is a link to my ID hypothesis.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Aguy:
.
What if I distinguish an intelligent cause from an unintelligent one with no mention of law at all?
An advanced computer (call it Big blue 2000) would be an intelligent cause my bookshelf would not. I would not expect my bookshelf to be the cause of CSI or IC but I might expect it from Big Blue 2000.
Notice I make no use of free will or consciousness or metaphysics or blind or anything in your mantra yet the difference is still relevant and obvious to anyone who cares to look.
What am I missing now?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
So, if I understand you correctly, your definition of intelligence is that which produces CSI or IC?
Comment by Zachriel — June 8, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Aguy:
I not confused the analogy of a program works because it fits the universe (some what). Do you disagree? Are you saying that the universe is nothing like a program other than being not conscious?
Suppose you said the Antarctic is like a refrigerator and after a long discussion I agreed with you and said" yea it's cold down there" only to have you say "by refrigerator I mean something that has metallic contents, I'm not implying anything about coldness."
I think I would be would be justified in crying foul don't you?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Bradford,
You argue that because a computer operates strictly according to natural law, any intelligence it exhibits must derive from its human designers.
You believe that humans, like computers, are the product of design. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that by your logic, humans themselves might operate strictly according to natural law, with any intelligence they exhibit deriving from their designer.
You've offered no means of distinguishing intrinsic intelligence from derived intelligence, and you therefore have no basis for asserting that humans possess the former rather than the latter.
No basis, that is, other than the fact that you want humans to have intrinsic intelligence, because that fits better with your metaphysical preconceptions.
Comment by robin — June 8, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
TP to aiguy:
Everyone interested enough in these debates to participate brings their own personal baggage to the stage. That baggage includes conclusions they have subjectively reached about the evidence and experiences they personally have accumulated. There's just no help for that – it's how we work.
And while authoritarian force might succeed for awhile forcing knees to bend at sword-point to the imaginary deity of randomness, once the peons figure out they don't have to play the game, their power vanishes into thin air. Neither science nor religion (nor 'education' in either application) has the power to control beliefs of individual intelligent agents. I honestly don't believe this debate is about truth, but about power. And I'm the joker in the deck who reminds everybody (ESPECIALLY the lurkers) that even the best-laid plans of mice and men…
They say the joker – the wild card – appears at random. I don't believe in randomness, therefore I cannot be randomly inserted here. Who better to argue that point than the one labeled (by both 'sides'?) "random?" §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 8, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Zach:
Not at all, I don't have a private definition of intelligence the standard definition works just fine in my book
I do however have a hypothesis that only intelligent entities can produce CSI or IC
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 8, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Fifth Monarchy Man.
One of the main points of this thread is ID's definition of "intelligence".
Here is the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary version…
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gencePronunciation: in-'tel-&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
2 : mental acuteness "”in·tel·li·gent /in-'tel-&-j&nt/ adjective "”in·tel·li·gent·ly adverb
An AI program could meet this definition and be intelligent.
Ergo, ID's "Intelligent Designer" could be a glorified AI program that is the universe itself.
It is a false dichotomy to force a choice between ID and an unguided universe running its program. They could be the same thing.
…UNLESS…
ID's definition of the word "intellegence" includes something more.
It has been my experience that most ID proponents think God would qualify as an intelligent designer even though technically he/she/it would have no ability to learn or adapt to new things (being all-knowing has its drawbacks).
It isn't unreasonable to suggest it is consciousness, not intelligence, that ID is talking about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Let's have a game, Bradford. Pick any 'natural' process you can think of and we can compare how deep we have to delve before we reach insufficient knowledge to explain it.
I love how you, yet again, completely skirted the issue, though. You assert something is true (choice, intelligence, … is not reducible to natural law), yet, you know full well that the issue is completely unresolved, and that you have not evidence to support your assertion. Now, if you scientific theory rests on your assertion to be true, then you have to show that your assertion is true.
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
hrun:
My thinking; specifically in the form of my next message to you. A good science theory has the capacity to make predictions. Use your knowledge of natural laws to predict what my next response to you will be. Be precise. After you post a response to this simultaneously post my response to that in code. There are 26 lettters in the alphabet. Use numbers to represent letters and write out my response. If you lack some needed information to complete the task specify exactly what it would be.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Robin:
My intent is to identify an end product of design be it direct (a designs x) or indirect (a designs b which in turn designs x). Distinguishing derived from direct is someone else's project.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
Explaining something in terms of natural law does not entail being able to predict its behavior perfectly.
You can't predict the next design that aiguy's program will come up with, yet you concede that the computer operates strictly according to natural law.
Therefore, the fact that hrun cannot predict your behavior says nothing about whether your behavior transcends natural law.
Comment by robin — June 8, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Bradford wrote:
If that were the extent of your project, you wouldn't be so adamant in insisting that humans, unlike computers, transcend physical law in some way.
Comment by robin — June 8, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
And yet again you skirt the issue. Now you are asking about predictability. Can't you just stick with one thing and get it to a resolution?
You asserted that choice can't be reduced to natural laws. You KNOW that this issue is unresolved by philosophers and scientists alike for many thousand years. Yet, you simply assert it to be true.
Do you have any evidence that all these people before you have no access to? Would you like to share with the group.
If not, than I can only conclude that you do not have such evidence and that you simply stated an unsupported assertion as truth.
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Perfectly? You can't even come close with this type of challenge.
It says much about limits of science though. One among you (TP) attempts to explain consciousness by reason of a natural ai program derived as a consequence of quantum mechanics. (Is that accurate TP?) The program could be the result of divine inspiration or could simply be. I'm willing to listen. One interpretation is consistent with my metaphysical views and one is not. There is no means of settling the metaphyscial dispute but there are, at least in theory, ways of assessing the Penrose-Hammeroff ideas. I'm fair and reasonable.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
hrun:
Were people able to observe different colors and the sources of color variation before knowing anything about the correlation between electromagnetic wavelengths and distinctive colors? Were they able to make predictions as to what color a plant would be when looking at a seed of that plant before knowing about the underlying physics related to colors?
We can distinguish between the placement of an object by design and its location as a consequence of wind displacement or some other natural force. An emptied box of scrabble letters will tend to assume random patterns with respect to the English language when spilled. When the letters spell out long words or sentences another implication can be drawn. All natural forces in play except in one case natural forces plus zero is sufficent to explain things and in the other natural forces plus intelligently expressed choices explain things. Like those in the pre-electromagnetic radiation age who dealt with color I do not have need of resolving the matter perplexing philosophers and scientists alike. It is sufficient to point out that the choice of an intelliget agency explains the letter sequencing. Whether that choice is reducible in the future is not my concern for it is not at the moment.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I can come close.
I asked you for a link to the ID hypothesis you suggested you have.
I predicted you would ignore the request and you did.
I have a prediction for how you will respond to this comment too.
I will let you know what it is after you respond.
P.S. your description of my ID hypothesis was fairly accurate.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
That's cheating TP. I have to rely on your integrity since I have no independent means of verification. I'll clue you in to what I have in mind. A mathematician named Herrmann wrote an essay pointing out that predictions of mathematics can lead to ambiguous physical models or at times no plausible physical models at all (from the perspective of our visualization capacity). It's been years since I read it but I think I still have the link. I believe this might be applicable to your cosmological views.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I wrote:
Bradford replied:
That's odd. As I was hitting 'Post', I predicted that you would evade the issue yet again. Sure enough, my prediction was correct.
And still we have no justification for your claim that the human mind transcends natural law.
Comment by robin — June 8, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Bradford,
See how easy that was? Both Thought Provoker and I were able to predict your behavior.
And that was without knowing the details of your physical makeup.
Comment by robin — June 8, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Hi Bradford,
My prediction was a 40% chance you would yell "not fair" or otherwise shield bash.
30% chance you would send me to another person's web site instead of your own.
20% chance you would ignore me again
10% chance you would surprise me
P.S. yes, I agree it wasn't fair.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
In an attempt to try to get back on track…
Aiguy wrote…
I say "yes" and "no". I readily agree that many ID proponents are probably thinking about consciousness while saying intelligence. A lot of them are clearly looking for a designer that is conscious of the design he/she/it is creating.
While I believe it is possible for a computer with links to the interconnected quantum effects to maybe be conscious. It is a stretch that I am not sure everyone would be willing to make.
If there is no connection to interconnected quantum effects, I would agree it would be safe to presume it was operating in a deterministic fashion. It is hard to say with certainty that a programmer doesn't guide the computer to act in a certain way for a specific circumstance even if he/she is unaware of it.
The number of exceptions to this have gotten too large to say that with any conviction.
I agree that ID is probably more about purposeful consciousness than "intelligence".
I agree that there is a tendancy for many ID proponents to initially reject hypotheses that don't presume they have free will.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
And I'm getting more accurate in predicting your responses to me. The human mind does not have to transcend natural law. At this point in time we must proceed without knowing the resolution to that conundrum. Reduction is not now possible.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
TP, my theology tells me we are not entirely free-will beings. That's what the phrase slave to sin signifies.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Bradford yesterday:
Bradford today:
Which is it, Bradford?
Comment by robin — June 8, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
And yet again you skirt the issue. How unexpected.
ncidentally, the people studying plant colors did not make unsupported assertions about the underlying theory of electromagnetism as the basis of their theories. You, on the other hand, do just that.
Comment by hrun — June 8, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Science and the requirements for something to be a scientific theory cannot be empiricially confirmed they are based on metaphysics as well.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 8, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
FMM,
Now you are missing that an example is not a criterion. You have picked arbitrary examples of things you think are either intelligent or not, but that doesn't help. You actually have to say how we can decide for ourselves which things are intelligent and which things aren't. Otherwise, we would have to ask you each time.
Ok, perhaps I haven't been sufficiently clear. You are correct that all analogies require that some things be the same and some things be different.
Rather than "program" and "programmer", let me make my point using "unconscious process" and "conscious process". Using these terms, I have shown that if you believe computers are not conscious, then it is at least as likely for an unconscious process to have created life as it is for a conscious process to have created life, and nothing we can observe in living things (or anywhere else) helps us decide the matter.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
TP,
You didn't respond to the point. To be responsive to the point, you must say what detection criterion you would adopt for intelligence, and show why computers fail to meet that criterion.
Here you are interpreting "blind, unguided, natural process" as "deterministic fashion" – something I did not say. The phrase in question is from ID, and so I grant it is of course ambiguous. In my argument, it should be read as "whatever sort of natural process that ID believes is not intelligent".
No, it's easy to say that, and it is perfectly obvious that it is true. If I have no way of knowing what circumstance the computer will encounter, and I have no way of knowing what the computer will do in any circumstance at all, and I have no control over what the computer does once I turn it on, then it follows that I can not "guide" or determine the computer's actions. This is in fact the case.
I am aware of not one single "exception". You'll need to actually say what you are talking about here.
I've shown something much stronger than that. I've shown that unless ID resorts to metaphysical claims (of, for example, conscious free will), their characterization of "intelligent cause" is perfectly vacuous, unable to be distinguished from any other cause.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Hi VividBleau,
I don't think this is relevant to my claim at all. Perhaps you think that since the epistemology of science can't be itself scientifically demonstrated, we should simply reject science. If so, that's fine… but it has nothing to do with my claim. My claim is that ID can't be evaluated within science because of the implicit (hidden, often denied) metaphysical claims it makes regarding mind and volition. In contrast, no scientific theory has this problem, because scientific theories don't rely on the proposition that free will exists, nor do they rely on the proposition that free will does not exist.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Bradford,
If you identify this end product, you will have shown nothing except that it is result of what may have been a completely blind (unconscious), natural, physical process.
In summary, I believe I have shown, over your objections, that:
1) Unless you qualify the term "intelligence" in the context of ID, you cannot distinguish intelligence from the blind, natural, undirected processes that ID considers "unintelligent".
2) Your response to #1 was to describe intelligence as contracausal freedom. I accept this as a meaningful assertion, but pointed out that in contrast to scientific theories, your ideas were outside the realm of empirical inquiry.
3) While your version of ID requires an indemonstrable metaphysical postulate of free will, the rest of science (and my arguments here) require neither that free will exists or does not exist.
Of everyone here, I have found that you alone will not read and respond to my points. You do not even acknowledge what I say, even when I respond to each of your points by carefully quoting you. As both Robin and I have pointed out, you repeatedly and directly contradict yourself (as when you say that mental cause must transcend physical cause, and then you say it doesn't, only to say again later it does… )
I conclude you are too uncomfortable with the implications of my argument to continue. However, if you would like to actually debate these points, I would be very happy to debate them with you. But for that to happen, you would have to respond to my arguments as well as make your own.
Comment by aiguy — June 8, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 12:05 am
HI Aiguy,
If ID cant be evaluated within science because of the implicit metaphysical claims why does science get a pass? It seems to me that one of the implicit metaphysical assumptions we make is that we are rational conscious beings and that the universe can be understod rationally.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 12:05 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:28 am
My intent is to identify an end product of design be it direct (a designs x) or indirect (a designs b which in turn designs x). Distinguishing derived from direct is someone else's project.
That depends on the nature of the evidence. If signals are received on earth and found to be encoded and subsequently are decoded, the meaning of the symbols composing the code would be sufficient to infer a conscious, intelligent sender.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:28 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Hi Aiguy,
Hey, I was trying to be open. Unfortunately, I think your wording makes it difficult to agree 100%. Blame the ID smoke machine if you want to, but that is what is happening.
Here is what I can offer in my own words…
The standard definition of "intelligence" is an ability to learn and adapt to new situtions. AI programs meet this definition. Ergo, it is a false dichotomy to suggest a forced choice between ID and an unguided universe since an unguided universe is equivalent to an information processing machine, i.e. a program.
Arguments that presume purposeful consciousness or free will risk crossing into metaphysics if the only support offered is philosophical logic instead of empirical evidence.
On the flip side, a presumption that true chance or randomness exists is also risking crossing into metaphysics, especially if used as the mechanism for causation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 12:29 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Hi Vivid,
I think the easiest way to answer is this: By your reasoning, then, shall we say that all metaphysical postulates are equally scientific?
For example, imagine another theory called X-Force theory, where "X-Force" is defined soley as an unspecified, completely undetectable force that can explain anything you want it to. There's nothing it can't do, but no way of telling what it does do.
Shall we consider X-Force Theory to be scientific too?
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:30 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Very good Vivid. By advancing the arguments they do critics make the case that they are unable to distinguish the rational from the irrational and that in turn would make a farce of any discipline dependent on rational thought.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:33 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Bradford,
I have already argued that nothing about the nature of the evidence can help you distinguish the two. That is why I say your claim is metaphysical: No evidence can tell us if something has no physical cause.
No, they would not, for the reason I have explained to you very, very many times now: The signals could obviously have been sent by an unconscious machine.
I've made my argument to you above – many times now. Please try to counter my argument by quoting my points above and responding to them. This strategy of ignoring my arguments and simply rotating through your own has already worn thin many posts ago.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:35 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Bradford,
I've already rebutted this argument; please see above.
Now that you've run out of arguments completely, you are resorting to calling me irrational? Or saying that if you believe my argument, we must all be irrational?
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:37 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:38 am
By your own logic aiguy you would need to show that a force can be undetectable so as to exclude the metaphysical interpretation that forces are intrinsically detectable.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:38 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Bradford,
Very good Bradford – X-Force theory cannot be a scientific theory. By the same reasoning, neither can ID, QED.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:39 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:41 am
If signals are received on earth and found to be encoded and subsequently are decoded, the meaning of the symbols composing the code would be sufficient to infer a conscious, intelligent sender.
Any machine capable of sending, for example, the extra-terrestrial equivalent of the works of Shakesphere, would also be evidence that it was the end product of an intelligent designer.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:41 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:43 am
TP,
Sure. Different terminology still, but I recognize my argument here.
I'd say the criterion is "no known way to establish any empirical evidence".
I've never heard of any theory that requires "true chance or randomness" to explain anything at all. I don't think this has anything to do with the argument here in any case.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:43 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Except that the force, in the form of electromagnetic signals used in my prior example, are detectable. Your assumption of undetectability is a superfluous metaphysical add on like your other superfluous add ons.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:44 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Bradford,
Good thinking, Bradford. Now please just tell us your definition of "intelligent designer".
Seriously, you simply rotate back through the same tired and defeated points endlessly, Bradford. Are you attempting to win this debate by attrition?
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:45 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Actually it was your reasoning I was responding to that prompted my response. If you see that this is the net result of your reasoning have at it.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 12:46 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Why are you doing what you accuse me of doing-repeating yourself in the form of a question asked and answered before? At an initial point in a causal chain a conscious designer is required to produce an effect like a work of Shakesphere. If a work is forwarded by a computer it is indirectly sent via intelligent agency.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:50 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Vivid,
No. I believe that science has proven to be an effective process of knowledge generation, despite the fact that the philosophy of science cannot itself be made scientific. The reason that science is effective is because all scientific claims must be amenable to empirical investigation.
The question of libertarian free will – which is central to this (Bradford's) version of ID – is not amenable to empirical investigation, and so cannot be evaluated within science.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:50 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:54 am
That's your personal opinion aiguy. It may be very amenable in the future. Technology has a way of making what is presently unknown knowable. But unlike you I would not rule out of bounds any data pending the resolution of a metaphysical dispute.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:54 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Bradford,
One last time, if you are interested in debating these issues, I would like to do so. I will respond to each point you make; please return the courtesy.
I consider this an unsupported assertion. In order to argue that this is true, you must explain why you think that consciousness is required. I suggest you start by saying how we might demonstrate that consciousness is always, necessarily required for anything at all.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:55 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Bradford,
I'm talking about what we can in principle demonstrate and what we can't. Nobody can suggest any way to demonstrate free will, and this is not a controversial statement in the least.
Nothing is "out of bounds". You can think anything you'd like to think. My only point is that you are making metaphysical claims that have not been made explicit in the ID literature (or on this blog).
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 12:58 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Hi Aiguy,
You wrote…
Very good. You have worked your way around to what Joy and I were talking about.
A more familiar version is to suggest that a consciousness (God) was required to create the universe. However, that is generally understood to be unquestionably metaphysics.
I happen to think there is a middle ground in the field of Quantum Mechanics where there is a clear division between empirically detectable effects and metaphysical X-force (stealing your label).
Suggesting everything is dependent on Quantum Mechanics isn't a hard sell. Suggesting Quantum Mechanics is on the edge of metaphysics isn't that hard of a sell either.
Is the X-force a conscious, decision making programmer or an unguided program?
I suggest this may forever remain a metaphysical question.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 1:12 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:13 am
The above is a metaphysical positio that we share.
Unless I am not a proper subject for empirical investigation, and I cannot myself make empirical investigations, I do have empirical evidence that I have a will, that given the options available to me I choose according to my strongest desire and I am conscience and aware. How about you
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 1:13 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Hi Vivid,
This I-think-therefore-I-am stuff can get complicated real quick.
How do I know you aren't me and I'm not you?
Is there some scientific experiment we can do to sort that out?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 1:20 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:27 am
TP,
This is what I think too.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 1:27 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Vivid,
Good then – we both value science and the limits imposed by its empiricism.
The sort of will Bradford describes is not just any conception of will, but rather what philosophers call libertarian or contracausal will. This concept entails that mental causes occur without antecedent physical cause (and Bradford himself described intelligent cause this way). There is no empirical evidence for or against contracausal free will, and nobody can suggest any way to resolve the issue by appeal to observation.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 1:28 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Science does not demand 100% certainty. Furthermore in order for me to deny my existence I must affirm that I exist
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 1:30 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Aiguy,
How about you?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 1:35 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I've answered your question, Vivid. You are mistaken, because you have no empirical evidence that you have a libertarian free will.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 1:37 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:45 am
At an initial point in a causal chain a conscious designer is required to produce an effect like a work of Shakesphere.
Coming from you that is comical. You have made quite a number of assertions yourself.
We know that machines can transmit works of Shakesphere or their ET equivalent. I'm making an assumption that some conscious entity somewhere in the causal chain was essential to this transmission. That's an operating assumption that 99.99% of people will accept. I'm not going to argue the point. If you think a blind force of nature could generate that type of literature or a machine that could send it then you are entiled to that view.
But unlike you I would not rule out of bounds any data pending the resolution of a metaphysical dispute.
Then review the literature regarding such things as choice and you will find no disclaimers about metaphysical secondary implications. Rarely do you find any mention of metaphysics at all even when metaphysical implications can be drawn.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 1:45 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Hi Bradford,
On the oft chance it is late enough and you are tired enough to actually make the concession…
Since a majority of people believe a God created the universe, isn't it a given that a majority of people think everything is the result of a consciousness?
And by that logic, isn't the most challenging thing ID has to do first is find something that ISN'T designed before it could go about detecting design.
As an engineer, I would find it real easy to make a design detector for theists. It would just be a green light that is always on.
P.S. going to bed now, good night
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 1:52 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Hmmm,
So you dont know if you choose what you want, you dont know if your conscience and you dont know if you are aware?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 1:53 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Vivid is able to exercise his will and prove it in that manner. Opponents of free will will of course claim his perceptions are dilussional. That does nothing more than assert the epistemological superiority of their own views. Free will debates are a waste of time because noone acts as if they believe it anyway. I once deleted some comments of someone telling me I had no free will while explaining that he was right. It was an uncontrollable force making me do it. He did not appreciate the humor.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 1:54 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Bradford,
I see. You have taken the central claim of ID Theory, which I have been attacking for this entire thread, and you have now chosen to defend it by saying that 99.99% of people will accept it as true. I hope you have been saving your weakest argument for last, so that we've now seen the last of your attempts at rebuttal. (Not only is argumentum ad populum a fallacy, but you aren't even correct in your estimate!)
Yes, I'm afraid that had become apparent some time ago.
If you would like to begin referencing the literature, I will gladly provide links to authoritative philosophical references which back up everything I've said here regarding the empirical status of the libertarian free will you describe. If I do so, will you concede my argument?
Honestly, I think we've gone about as far as we can here. I'm pleased to see that you have conceded that your entire conception of ID critically relies on the truth of libertarian, contracausal free will. I'm happy to let the fair reader draw their own conclusions regarding the implications of your concession.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 1:56 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:59 am
The obvious response would be that atheists are obligated to deny consciousness as a first in a causal chain. Metaphysics.
I think LaPlace had it right. It is a matter of whether or not design is essential to a hypothesis. Non-design hypotheses have spun wheels in some disciplines.
That is true. But the point of this blog is what evidence the detective can gather to support his case.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 1:59 am
June 9th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Vivid,
I am conscious and aware (until I go to sleep, that is), and have never indicated otherwise.
Nobody can tell if they choose what they want instead of wanting what they choose. Nobody can tell if they are the speaker of their thoughts, or the hearer of them.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:00 am
June 9th, 2008 at 2:02 am
We know that machines can transmit works of Shakesphere or their ET equivalent. I'm making an assumption that some conscious entity somewhere in the causal chain was essential to this transmission. That's an operating assumption that 99.99% of people will accept.
This borders on dishonesty. The claim references a specific type of information transmission which 99.99% of people would accept as designed.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:02 am
June 9th, 2008 at 2:07 am
You're arguing with yourself. The free will canard is not a show stopper for research. You can debate the issue all you like.
ID need only identify evidence for intelligent agency knowing that metaphysicains like you will take the data to a philosophical level afterwards. Good luck with your philosophy.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:07 am
June 9th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Bradford,
You are accusing me of being dishonest? About what?
1) 99.99% of people would not say that consciousness is required for communication. For example, many people have been next to a human being who talks in their sleep. And other people have taken philosophy courses where they study consciousness, and have learned that there has been a raging controversy over this exact issue for at least 2000 years, and there is no consensus opinion on the matter after all this time. It is THE PROBLEM OF FREE WILL and it has not been solved.
2) Even if 99.99% people really would say it, it doesn't make any difference, because argumentum ad populum is a fallacy (an invalid argument).
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:09 am
June 9th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Bradford,
No, I'm arguing with you.
I'm happy to let the fair reader draw their own conclusions regarding the implications of your concession that all of ID rests upon the metaphysical speculation of contracausal free will.
There is no meaning to the term "intelligent agency" in this context, but I have given up trying to explain to you why. Best of luck to you too, Bradford.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:13 am
June 9th, 2008 at 2:14 am
You ommitted the specificity of the reference to transmission of works of Shakesphere or similar literature. That's what 99.99% of people would agree to as an indicator of design.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:14 am
June 9th, 2008 at 2:19 am
The odd thing about the free will point is that those advancing it acknowledge that free will is a possiblity but that no resolution exists either way. So rather than asserting that no meaning is attached to intelligent agency, by their own logic, the absolute no is really contingent on there being no free will which in turn is unresolved. Shutting off approaches based on possiblities rather than certainty.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:19 am
June 9th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Bradford,
Yes, I understand that is what you said. I won't even bother pointing out that you haven't said what the relevant aspects of Shakespeare are supposed to be (the fact that they are in a generative language perhaps?), nor was I going to complain that you are still equivocating on the meaning of "design" (do you mean "conscious cause" then say so)
I don't have to, because it doesn't matter, as I've pointed out three times now.
That's what I am saying, yes.
You are again mistaken on this same point. The reason that the term "intelligent agency" has no meaning is because there is no way of knowing whether or not you mean to imply "free will" (or anything else). If you mean "free will", say "free will", and not "intelligent agency".
Of course the meaningful possibility exists that an entity with contracausal will and consciousness exists and this entity created the universe. We have no way of supporting this statement with observable evidence. That is why you want to phrase it differently, and you keep talking about "design" and "intelligence" instead of "free will" and "consciousness". All I'm saying is that you should be more forthcoming, not that you shouldn't discuss these possibilities.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:36 am
June 9th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Thank you for your clarification. Computers (and evolutionary algorithms) have "the ability to learn … or to deal with new or trying situations," so they are intelligent. By the same token, they are also capable of intelligent design. (There are problems with the definitions of CSI and IC, but we can leave your hypothesis aside for now.)
That's correct. The Explanatory Filter fails because there is overlap between the categories of law, chance and design.
Comment by Zachriel — June 9, 2008 @ 8:13 am
June 9th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Zachriel,
EF has another problem: you can only rule out known laws. Thus in order to apply EF you must be omniscient or else you are arguing from ignorance.
Comment by olegt — June 9, 2008 @ 8:41 am
June 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Laws that have yet to be discovered can be ruled out if one is dealing with the right specification. Trevors and Abel did that a paper published in Cell Biology 2004: Chance and Necessity do not explain the origin of life.
Trevors by the way is an atheist, in case anyone was wondering.
For information to be present, the laws of nature must allow uncertainty. It is not a matter of ignorance, but information loses definition without the possibility of uncertainty. Claude Shannon related mathematically the connection of information to uncertainty in his famous paper on information…
The software of a computer is not explicable soley in terms of the hardware. By way of analogy, if the laws of physics are the hardware, the software of life must necessarily trancend those laws, whatever those laws are or may be….
That is why the approximate Turing machine as a necessary (but not sufficient condition) for the existence of life is a strong barrier to the OOL problem — it negates reduction of life to any sort of physical or chemical law that his known or yet-to-be-discovered.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 10:49 am
June 9th, 2008 at 11:55 am
It has nothing to do with uncertainty in the laws of nature. Shannon's Information Theory is perfectly consistent with a deterministic universe.
Quite the contrary, it is a matter of ignorance. If we already know the content of a message, then no matter how complicated the bit-stream, no Shannon Information is being transmitted. That's because we can predict the content of each succeeding bit. On the other hand, a random bit-stream has maximum Shannon Information as we cannot predict the content of each succeeding bit.
Comment by Zachriel — June 9, 2008 @ 11:55 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Then oddly, enough, neither can Richard Dawkins and the Blindwatchmaker advocates, because in order to argue that there is no intelligence at the heart of reality, they need a working definition for Intelligence (or what a seeing watchmaker is) as well. Attempts to overturn ID by insistence on a definition of intelligence cuts both ways.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hi Salvador,
Science is a game of king of the hill.
You don't replace the status quo without offering a difference.
The burden is on the challenger to make a case with distinction.
On top of that, the status quo already includes and embraces Theistic Evolutionists.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Zachriel and I will never agree.
For the reader's benefit, here is Shannon's paper Mathematical Theory of Communication.
If Zachriel insists that there is no uncertainty in a communication stream, he ought to be able to predict what will appear in tomorrow's newspaper.:roll:
Shannon relates information to the reduction of uncertainty. That is a good notion of what information is. A computer's memory banks are allowed to have uncertainty, without which they could not store information. Studying the physics and chemistry of a computer will not inform anyone any better as to what information will be eventually stored in a computer's memory banks….
If we model life as an information processing system, aspects of it cannot be made inevitable by the laws of physics alone, there MUST be uncertainty in the system for there to be a reduction of uncertainty elsewhere in the system — reduction of uncertainty is information — ergo the uncertainty in parts of the system are a necessary condition.
I pointed out the approximate Turing machine as something that trancends the physics and chemistry of the system. Any sort of lock-and-key mechanism (like protein binding), login-password system (like cellular signal transduction), have aspects which trancend physical and chemical processes. We could of course choose not to look at biology as an information processing system in order to avoid reference to teleology, but what good would that do?
To quote Mike Gene who quoted physicist Paul Davies
We may not be able to define intelligence, but we certainly can make analogies between biological systems and human artifacts — this is detecting design without reference to intelligence or reduction to laws of physics and chemistry. This seems perfectly within the realm of science and appears in practice today….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Salvador wrote:
Salvador,
Trevors and Abel badly misapply the concept of Shannon uncertainty in the paper you cite.
Here is the relevant section:
Trevors and Abel fail to recognize that Shannon uncertainty is defined from the perspective of a particular observer.
Suppose we agree ahead of time that I am going to flip a series of coins. After each flip, I will send you a message indicating 'heads' or 'tails'. I flip the first coin, and it comes up tails. I send you a message indicating 'tails'. How much Shannon information does the message contain?
For you, the message reduces two possibilities (head or tails) to one (tails). Therefore the message contains -log2(1/2) = 1 bit of Shannon information, from your perspective.
To me, the message contains no Shannon information at all. I already know that the coin landed tails, and so the message does not reduce my uncertainty at all. The message contains -log2(1) = 0 bits of Shannon information.
With that in mind, take another look at Trevors' and Abel's argument. They claim that on the one hand, the genome contains a huge amount of Shannon information. On the other hand natural law, being deterministic or nearly so, contains very little. Because there is so little information in natural law, they argue, the information in the genome must have some other source.
Their error is that they estimate the Shannon uncertainty of natural law from one perspective (that of an omnisicient observer who knows the physical configuration of the entire universe, plus all of the laws governing its operation), but they estimate the Shannon uncertainty of the genome from a completely different perspective (that of a finite, local observer within the universe).
They need to do an apples-to-apples or oranges-to-oranges comparison. If they did so, they would find that either the Shannon uncertainty was low in both cases (from the omniscient perspective) or high in both cases (from the perspective of the finite, local observer).
I'm surprised that this paper gets flogged so hard by creationists and IDers when it is so obviously flawed.
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Sal,
Yes I agree Dawkins is confused on issues of philosophy of mind, as well as other issues.
Hopefully we can agree that both the claim that conscious free will was responsible for life and the claim that conscious free will was not responsible for life are both metaphysical/religious statements that have no place in science. Evolutionary theory is scientific, ID is not, and statements regarding the "blindness" of evolutionary processes aren't scientific either.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Exactly! And if we're going to invoke information concepts, at some point you will need reference to an observer to complete the circle. Sure we can compartmentalize the observer away, but need of observer reference lurking in the background implicitly.
What anti-ID OOL advocates are doing are mixing apples and oranges. They are trying to explain the appearance of telic processes in terms of non-telic agencies. This is a major catagory error. Davies sees the eventual contradiction.
I believe the ones that are mixing apples an organges are anti-ID OOL advocates, not the ID proponents, nor even the quasi-neutral parties like Trevors and Abel. The moment we begin characterizing life as an information processing system, we begin, even indirectly, invoking observer perspectives.
Some OOL researchers by-pass these problems by redefining necessary conditions for life and eliminating the question of information altogether. As hrun said:
ID proponents could do the same in defining intelligence as the source of design, but I feel it wouldn't gain anything.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Salvador, you wrote:
Zachriel and I explained to you why this is wrong (here and here).
Do you concede the point?
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
As much as I'd like to agree —-
I can't say that because I'm inclined to think ID is science, but I won't exactly defend the idea "ID is science" because I have little stake personally in whether it is or isn't in accord with someone's definition of science. I can agree that ID is not in your definition of science nor Mike Gene's. That's the most I can honesly say, and I will further say, your opinion is worthy of respect, and so is Mike's….
It is an interesting philosophical question whether we must presume the existence of consciousness to carry out the scientific enterprise. The presumption of consciousness may be axiomatic implicitly for science to progress. I will leave that question to philosophers — as Haldane observed, if he cannot trust his own mind to certain conclusions, can scientific conclusions be trusted?
Even though it pains me to disagree, and especially because of fine gentleman like Allen MacNeill, I do not view evolutionary theory (as in phylogeny and natural selection) as science. I can only defer to the words of Jerry Coyne rather than venturing my own opinion:
My critique of evolutionary biology would partly begin with the inappropriateness of using human-created genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation as a model for selection in the wild.
"Aiguy's computer" though a spectacular example of "AI" is an inappropriate model for biological evolution. Genetic Entropy is the more accurate model of biological evoltution, imho.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Salvador quote-mines Jerry Coyne:
Here's the rest of Coyne's paragraph:
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
With respect to the question which Aiguy posed, let me offer a rhetorical question: "is AI science since AI researchers also have definitional problems with intelligence?"
If we argue ID is not science because there is no definition of intelligence, to be equitable, we might have to do the same to science of AI. I am not prepared to do that since I think AI is valid and vital science even though AI does not appear to have a stable definition either of the discipline or intelligence itself….
Instead I would argue, intelligence is an undefined primitive in both the disciplines of AI and ID…..
Also, to further Mike's point about ID 101, and the non-necessity of identifying a designer, I would say designs can be identified independent of explicit appeal to intelligence. However, as Dembski pointed out and as Davies alluded, the presumption of intelligent observer is lurking in the background the moment we invoke concepts from information engineering.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Sal,
As I've explained to you elsewhere, AI has no dependence on technical definitions of "intelligence" because AI never tries to answer any question by appeal to "intelligence". The word in the name refers only to a general class of behaviors we attempt to reproduce; it simply makes no difference to the field which particular behaviors anyone happens to think are intelligent or not.
So while AI never makes the mistake of reifying "intelligence", ID is built upon a foundation of implicit metaphysical assumptions regarding dualism and contracausal free will.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Bilbo – Thanks for this great thread. I try to participate in threads started by Bradford, but every time I back him into a corner, he erases my replies and then bans me from participating!
This last time it was simply because I pointed out that he has contradicted himself many times, over and over again, regarding ID's reliance on the metaphysical supposition of contracausal free will. Oh well
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Sal,
Here is the crux of your misunderstanding. AI does not use "intelligence" as a "primitive" at all. AI does not use "intelligence" as an explanation, or a hypothesis. The only reason AI has "intelligence" in the name is because we want to give people a general idea of the sorts of behaviors we want our computers to be able to exhibit – that's all.
In stark contrast, ID offers "intelligence" as the explanation of the existence of biological complexity. See the difference? The only hypothesis that ID makes is that "intelligence" is responsible for these features of biology and the universe. For ID, it is crucial that it explain what is meant by "intelligence"; otherwise, nobody has any idea what ID is trying to say (except for our implicit, subjective, unarticulated, highly variable and personal ideas regarding minds, free will, consciousness, souls, spirits, and so on).
Do you see the difference?
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
aiguy, fret not, your replies are safely contained in the 'Memory Hole' and accessible to everyone who cares to read them.
Comment by hrun — June 9, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
As for the idea that AI relies on intelligence the same way that ID relies on intelligence, we can have the following game: Let's rename the disciplines and the most basic tenets of the disciplines and see if one or the other can do without intelligence.
Maybe Sal can start to formulate ID without the use of 'intelligence'.
Comment by hrun — June 9, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
hrun –
Excellent suggestion!!! Thanks!
Sal,
Here is AI described perfectly without any use of the "I" word at all. I shall call the discipline "computer science".
"Computer Science" is the study of how physical artifacts can be constructed to perform all sorts of observable behaviors. These behaviors include (but are not limited to) behaviors that humans perform, such as designing complex machinery, speech and language understanding, learning, pattern recognition, and theorem proving. A typical sort of hypothesis in "computer science" is "We hypothesize that the XYZ algorithm will enable our system to generate a novel, functional specification for an electronic amplifier".
If there are any terms here that anyone has trouble understanding in this context, just say so and I'll be happy to clarify them further, and continue clarifying them until independent scientific researchers have no trouble agreeing on how to tie these concepts to our shared experience. In other words, if any words here require operationalized definitions, I'll be happy to provide them.
OK then, Sal – can you please describe ID without any reference to "intelligence", or other words (like, say, "volition" or "intent") that we do not know how to operationalize?
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Bradford,
It is beyond pathetic that you banned me from your thread and continue to make (very bad) arguments against both me personally and the arguments I've made there, while refusing to debate me. You might take a moment to reflect on what you are afraid of.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Bradford,
I see; I didn't know the rules, and thought I had previewed but not submitted my comment.
In any case, as always, I am happy to debate the issues directly and politely. I promise not to ignore what you post, nor attack you or your motivations. If you will pledge the same, perhaps we either find common ground or at least clarify our disagreements better, which I think would be a benefit to the ongoing debates here.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Bradford,
I'll start with your last post on the thread I'm banned on:
As I've explained, I am not basing any of my arguments on the supposition of materialism. Moreover, neither evolutionary theory nor even computer science/AI is predicated upon the truth of materialism. If they were, they would not be scientific disciplines; they would be philosophical.
In contrast, ID attempts to explain biological features by appeal to libertarian, contracausal free will, which is a metaphysical conjecture that cannot be tested against observation.
What you fail to see here is that "intelligence" does not constitute what SETI would (perhaps someday) infer if they received some signal from outer space. As SETI astrobiologists make perfectly clear, they would infer life forms. (This is why they call themselves astrobiologists).
If instead they inferred nothing but "an unspecified something or other, who knows what, we have no idea at all, not even a guess… but we'll just say it's 'intelligent' and leave it at that, and we won't even say what that is supposed to mean" then they could not be published, because that would be a vacuous hypothesis. (In fact, everyone would think they were joking). But this is just what ID is attempting to offer as an explanation for biological complexity.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Would an astrobiologist infer the same type of life form from detecting an oxygen atmosphere on a distant planet with no detectable technology as they would from a detailed signal beamed toward earth?
If not what kind of life form would a detailed signal imply?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 9, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
FMM,
SETI is making an assumption that life as we know it from Earth exists elsewhere in the universe, and is searching for it. The assumption of extraterrestrial life is based on in part on evolutionary biology (e.g. the Drake equation)
Here are some assumptions that SETI astrobiologists make (from various SETI pages):
And here is a very good explanation from http://astrobio.net/news/artic...
So SETI astrobiologists assume human-like biological life forms exist, and that is what they are looking for: Liquid water, hospitable temperatures, etc.
If ID wants to make the same assumptions, they should join the SETI project. Otherwise, if they want to conduct an empirical inquiry, they will need to produce some other sort of meaningful hypothesis.
SETI does not look for "detailed" signals at all. They look for simple narrow-band transmissions.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Hi Aiguy,
While you may feel your efforts concerning ID's definition of "intelligence" were wasted, I do not.
I think you helped make it clearer that no one is fooling anyone.
Human-like intelligence is special because they (and religious scholars) say do. There is no room for even our close cousins in the animal world much less inorganic AI.
Bradford and others believe what they want to believe and feel little or no obligation to provide a consistent, testable (i.e. operational) definition for what they mean.
They know it, we know it.
This kind of version of ID is about protecting the divine status of God's children. It always has been. Even when the ID proponents in Dover PA swore under oath that it wasn't.
Moral imparitives are more important than ethical obligations to communicate honestly. They are definitely more important than worrying about satisfying scientific standards.
We should just feel honored that our heathenistic ideas are even tolerated, they certainly wouldn't be at Uncommon Descent.
Anyways, thanks for trying.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:18 am
TP,
Thanks TP. I actually feel really great about this particular thread; it is the most moderated and thoughtful response I've ever received on an ID forum. I've even been told by some IDers here that they've gained some perspectives that they haven't considered before. Incredible!
I myself am quite sympathetic to all sorts of ideas regarding mind in nature. Like you, I intuit that quantum weirdness somehow provides a clue to the weirdness of consciousness. (I am not as optimistic as you are about current ideas panning out, but that's OK). I only object to the equivocations employed by ID supporters – the pretense that these speculations are somehow informed by our everyday understanding of human behaviors, or tied to our understanding of human or animal artifacts the way archeology is.
They booted me off before I could even begin.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 1:18 am
June 10th, 2008 at 7:17 am
aguy:
I know it's hard but stick with me man. I think this might be the most important line of thought in the whole discussion.
That's not what I asked. I asked what SETI would infer from a detailed signal vrs an oxygen atmosphere with no signs of technology. Would they infer exactly the same human like biological life in both cases?
What exactly does Human like mean? Is bacteria a human like life form because it is carbon based? Is a self reproducing AI human like because it learns?
I did not ask what they look for I asked what they would infer from a detailed signal please try to stay focused and think about what I'm saying.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 10, 2008 @ 7:17 am
June 10th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Noise is detailed, and the universe is full of noise. If it is a narrow-band signal, then this might be suggestive of artifice.
An oxygen atmosphere might be suggestive of life, as free oxygen would normally not exist without something pumping it into the atmosphere, such as by photosynthesis.
Nor is it enough to detect a narrow-band signal or free oxygen and claim success. As with all such initial findings, the claim would be subject to further hypothesis-testing. Any such claim would be subject to significant skepticism.
Comment by Zachriel — June 10, 2008 @ 7:33 am
June 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
I provided the definition of Design without reference to intelligence. And if AI's experiments will be formulated without reference to intelligence, so can ID. Do you see the double standard in operation here hurn?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 8:50 am
June 10th, 2008 at 8:53 am
It uses the word "Intelligence" which it has never defined in all thse years. You can't get away from the fact AI uses the word intelligence to define the entire discipline, yet it has no stable definition of the very thing that defines an entire dicipline.:roll:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 8:53 am
June 10th, 2008 at 9:12 am
That is incorrect. A deterministic law which repeats itself under the same boundary conditions and does not allow a possibility of different outcomes thus prevents any possibility of uncertainty. Thus a deterministic law, in and of itself cannot be the source of uncertainty nor reduction of uncertainty. It cannot reduce the uncertainty which is not there. By way of analogy, this like trying to explore the existence and origin of software by studying the deterministic properties of a computer. It makes no sense.
It's just as futile to try to explain the software of life by appeals to the deterministic aspects of the hardware of physics.
A stochastic "law" suffers from the problem that it cannot genertate prescriptive information, even though formally speaking it has a lot of uncertainty with the outcomes, but it never reduces the uncertainty of the outcomes, thus it is not an information source if one is talking prescriptive information. So neither can we appeal to the stochastics laws in physics…
Your accusation that Trevors and Abel was a bad paper is rooted in your uncharitable reading.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 9:12 am
June 10th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Could you point us to that definition of design?
And even if you did define design without using intelligence, how about Dembski's definition of intelligent design? Let's take a number of quotes about what Dembski thinks ID is:
Can you honestly say that any of these definitions can be formulated without using intelligence? If so, I would like to see it.
Aiguy certainly showed that it can be done for AI. Can you do the same for ID? I doubt it. And hence, no double standard here.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 9:14 am
June 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Sal, your just being silly here. Aiguy has shown you how AI can be described without reference to the word intelligence. If you want to make your case, simply do the same for ID. I doubt it can be done.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 9:18 am
June 10th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Human intelligence is special because that's what we are, and that's what were using to think about ourselves, the world, intelligence itself, and to invent things like "science."
But more importantly it is what is known to be used to design things that have certain characteristics that can be detected. When I, MikeGene, and others, look at the internal machinery of cells, what we see is design effects that are analogous to human design effects. This leads to a suspicion that the cellular design is from a source that has at least the same kind of "foresight" that humans possess, but which is not known to exist in "blind" natural processes.
Aiguy has objected in the past that this "explains nothing", that "human like intelligence" merely means "something that produces human like effects", and this could be "blind" natural processes. I agree. But he misses the point. So far, blind natural processes are not known to produce such artifacts. Humans are known to produce them. This leads to a suspicion that leads to further investigation.
It's not science, it's not a theory. It's an investigation based on a suspicion.
This is my view, anyway, and I think Mike has made it clear that it's his view.
Personally, I think that a computer, in principle, could be programmed with the right kind of foresight and processes to design cellular technology. This doesn't answer how the computer got there, but that is irrelevant if one is only interested in the proximate cause of earth life. Some people think consciousness is required for this. I have no opinion of that, and I think it is unnecessary when discussing the proximate cause of earth life.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 10, 2008 @ 9:21 am
June 10th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Then TP, if you wish to be equitable, ask AIguy, why the field of AI is called AI, even though there is no consistent, testable (i.e. operational) definition for what intelligence means.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 9:31 am
June 10th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Then why call the discipline AI?
Who is really being silly, hrun.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 9:32 am
June 10th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Nice evasion, Sal.
Fact One: Aiguy was clearly able to describe the discipline of AI without any reference to intelligence.
Fact Two: You have not been able so far to describe the discipline of ID without any reference to intelligence.
From these two facts we can conclude that no double standard is being applied. If you were able to describe ID without reference to intelligence, then I'm sure that folks here would stop pressing ID for an operational definition of intelligence.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 10:00 am
June 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am
My usage of "design" was merely an identification with "effects", which could be effects from any unspecified cause, e.g, "blind design" or "intelligence design."
See this post.
Go bitch at them, then.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 10, 2008 @ 10:08 am
June 10th, 2008 at 10:12 am
No Sal, you can't wiggle out of this one. CSI is a purported indicator of design but is not a substitute definition thereof. A couple of excerpts from Dembski's 1998 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information make that abundantly clear:
Comment by olegt — June 10, 2008 @ 10:12 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Agreed. So why do think there is anything for me to wiggle out of?
CSI is claimed to indicate the action of an intelligence. But this is a falsifiable claim, not a definition of design.
Let there be no question, the goal of ID is to make reasonable the claim that intelligence is the source of CSI. But CSI is not explicitly defined with reference to intelligence. Further it is not required that we assume intelligence is ultimately true or real to put forward questions. Certainly that is the desired outcome, but it is not the starting assumption. There is a difference between the starting point and the desired endpoint. The beginning is not the same as the end.
There is a diffference between a definition and the claims made of objects meeting that definition.
As I said, I can claim, "the sky is blue", but that is not a definition of what the sky is, it is merely a claim.
In any case, no one has answered, "Why is there an "I" in AI" I only point this out to demonstrate the double standards in play. If Aiguy attempts to discredit ID as a discipline of study because it has no definition of intelligence, he has not offered a convincing explanation why AI is exempt from the same considerations.
He attempted to show AI can be formulated without reference to intelligence. Then why call it "AI" at all?
If his supposed formulation of AI without reference to intelligence can be made, then focus on design without reference to intelligence can be made as well.
Does no reference to intelligence cease to make ID, ID? Well does no reference to intelligence cease to make AI, AI?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 11:14 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
How would you propose to falsify it without defining what intelligence is?
Can we take from your refusal to describe ID without actually referencing intelligence you concede that it is indeed not possible to do so? So do you now understand why we don't apply a double standard?
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 11:35 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Sal, let's go back to your original statement:
You then wrote this:
And this:
You were then asked to provide a definition of ID without a reference to intelligence and here's you response:
But we're not interested in defining CSI. We want to see how you can accomplish the goal stated in the very first passage quoted above: define the D in ID on its own, without the I.
Comment by olegt — June 10, 2008 @ 11:56 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
FMM,
Ok, I'll stick with you.
I did answer:
1) SETI does not look for "detailed signals" – they look for simple narrow-band signals. So they don't discuss what they might infer from "detailed" signals (whatever those might be)
2) SETI doesn't know what life forms would be like elsewhere; they guess they would be oxygen-breathing, water-needing life as we know it from Earth.
They don't know – search the SETI pages yourself and find out.
I have no idea, because nobody in SETI talks about that. You can search for SETI as well as I can.
OK – then say something! What is your point?
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 11:57 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
KB,
It is not "intelligence" that can be detected; it is specific human activities.
Humans have a well-known historic propensity for anthropomorphic projection. Until we figure things out, we typically imagine something human-like is responsible.
Does "foresight" entail conscious awareness? What do you mean by "blind"
In your case, my argument is much easier then:
1) Computers can design life
2) The computer that designed life may have been programmed by another computer
3) The computer that programmed the computer that designed life may have been programmed by another computer…
4) Perhaps there was an original computer, programmed to start the whole thing. Or perhaps there was an original conscious mind. We can't tell from the evidence.
ID has no warrant to insert a human-like mind anywhere in this causal chain. You can think it if you'd like, or not, but neither position rests on any evidence.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 11:58 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Sal
Sal, apparently you haven't read my posts. This makes it hard to debate the issues with you. So I guess I'll simply repeat what I said:
AI does not use "intelligence" as a "primitive" at all. AI does not use "intelligence" as an explanation, or a hypothesis. The only reason AI has "intelligence" in the name is because we want to give people a general idea of the sorts of behaviors we want our computers to be able to exhibit – that's all.
Why would AI need an operational definition of "intelligence" if it never tries to detect "intelligence"
In stark contrast, ID offers "intelligence" as the explanation of the existence of biological complexity. See the difference? The only hypothesis that ID makes is that "intelligence" is responsible for these features of biology and the universe. For ID, it is crucial that it explain what is meant by "intelligence"; otherwise, nobody has any idea what ID is trying to say (except for our implicit, subjective, unarticulated, highly variable and personal ideas regarding minds, free will, consciousness, souls, spirits, and so on).
Do you see the difference?
I'm pretty sure at this point you won't respond to these points or questions, Sal. But hopefully you will read them and some part of you will know your argument has failed.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 11:59 am
June 10th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Sal,
OK, Sal – this is perfect. I love it when we are provided with this sort of clarity, thank you.
Obviously, in order to evaluate this claim (support or falsify it) we need to be able to identify both CSI and "intelligence" by independent, objective criteria.
I will grant, just for the sake of argument, that we can all agree on what is CSI and what isn't – just by looking at it. (That is a generous concession).
Now, once and for all, simply tell us how we can all agree on what is intelligent and what isn't, and you will have won this debate, and I shall apologize for ever doubting that ID was a vacuous play on words.
What about it? How do we identify what is intelligent and what isn't? Is there a particular test we use? A special instrument? What?
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I beg to differ, AI uses the word "Intelligence" to define the discipline. The discipline is called "Artificial Intelligence".
I did read your post, but I did not find your explanation adequate. Sorry, but it appears double standards are at work here. I think you are not seeing that.
The resolution of the problems coluld be:
1. AI is total misnomer
2. AI can be studied without explicit or implicit reference to intelligence, but we'll still call the discipline "Artifical Intelligence". In which case, this seems really odd to keep calling the discipline "AI".
3. We apply one standard to ID and another to AI
4. Intelligence is an undefined primitive in both fields of inquiry, ID and AI
I opt for #4.
I cannot define intelligence, but neither can I define truth even though I seek truth:
As Hofstadtter stated, truth is greater than provability. And by way of corollary, truth is also be beyond adequate description and definition. If intelligence is at the root of reality, we can expect the same complications if indeed intelligence is a primitive to reality.
But we don't have to be so esoteric. A claim does not have to be provable in order to be falsifiable at least with respect to certain designs like Turing machines. And if claims is falsifiable empirically or theoretically, they would appear to be within the domain of empirical and theoretical science. We can test if the major claims of Darwinian evolution can generate CSI in the wild….
In any case, can you tell me why you call AI, AI even though you have no definition of what intelligence is? By your same standard, AI ought to be a total misnomer, or the field of study is discredited from the start since it has no definition (a position I do not hold since I accept weak AI).
Rather than toss "AI" as a label for the field, I rather accept the label even though I have no definition for intelligence. Same is true for ID.
And as a personal note, even though I accept weak AI, I became disenchanted with the discipline because I realized one could not get more out of a weak AI system than what one really put in. In other words, there was no free lunch…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
So let's rename the disciplines it is confusing to you. AI or Artificial Interesting Behaviors will remain unchanged. I wonder what will happen to ID.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
That's right.
That's why the suspicion warrants further investigation.
No in my opinion. We've been through this over and over.
I guess you need an annotated playbook.
"Blind" natural processes equals natural processes other than those operating in the configuration of human brains.
You can throw out the the convenient (to me) "blind" if you want, if it makes you happy or otherwise confuses things, thus: "This leads to a suspicion that the cellular design is from a source that has at least the same kind of processing ability that humans possess that leads to machine-like processes and systems, but which is not known to exist in natural processes other than in the configuration of human brains."
It is conceivable that a system could be superior to human design capabilities. We make machines that effectively extend our own powers. A human with a well-designed computer is smarter and more productive than the same human without it. Who knows how far this can extend.
At any rate, for me it's just easier to call a non-human or non-human-like configuration "blind." In a blind system, there is no goal or foresight beyond the next proximate effect.
I agree that "human like mind" with all its implications is too strong, and it is unnecessary for the proximate cause of cellular machinery. "Human like design capability" is more specific. The proximate cause "merely" needs to possess the ability to create cellular machinery and processes, obviously. All of what human minds can do is probably not involved in creating machines and processes. The important thing is that humans and the cause of cellular machinery possess a seemingly analogous capability, and it is not known that natural forces, other than those operating in a configuration like human brains, can achieve it. That leads to a suspicion, and an investigation.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 10, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Sal, you're playing semantic games.
To see how absurd your position is, take chemistry. People aren't even sure about the origin of the word. Most etymologists trace it the Egyptian word keme, meaning the earth. It isn't exactly what chemists study and you can obviously define what chemists study without invoking the earth.
But you can't do that with ID: it seeks to prove that life (and the Universe itself) was created by someone (wink-wink) intelligent. I understand why IDers—the vast majority of them, anyway—see no need to define what "intelligent" means: for them it's just a euphemism for the Creator with a capital C.
Comment by olegt — June 10, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I started this thread back on June 5th, then became too ill to visit a library until yesterday, but spent my time viewing the horse race at Belmont, trying to decide if Big Brown's loss was "intelligently designed" (fixed).
So it's gone to over 400 posts, and I don't feel like trying to read them all. But I notice at least two additional threads have been started as a result of discussions on this one. This was probably already covered here in one of the 400 posts that I haven't read, but I'll risk repeating the issue:
It appears to me that computers can be intelligent, in the sense of learning and in the sense of behaving in terms of some sort of goal. For instance, aiguy's computer has been given the goal of designing machines, and somehow is learning to do that. "Goal" in the long run, I think, boils down to a mentalistic concept. In the end, it seems to me, when talking about intelligence, or at least goal-driven behavior, we will be forced to talk about something essentially mental.
So when we talk about ID, even if we discovered that we were designed by a computer, it would be a computer that had the goal of designing living organisms.
If ID is false, then whatever explanation we come up with for the origin of living organisms, need not refer to goals.
Comment by Bilbo — June 10, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Salvador wrote:
That's incorrect. By your argument, every entity in a deterministic universe would be omniscient, because uncertainty would be impossible!
As I explained already, the Shannon information of a message can only be measured with respect to a specific receiver of that message. The error that Trevors and Abel make — which you repeat — is to switch receivers halfway through the argument.
Their argument boils down to this:
They assert that the information content of the "lifeless, physical-chemical world" — the world that exists apart from life itself — is low. As a student of physics, that should raise your eyebrows immediately. If the physical world is so simple — so certain — then why don't we close down all of the departments of physics?
The answer is obvious: We still have an enormous amount to learn about the physical world. We are uncertain about many, many things, and we seek to reduce this uncertainty. Even if the world is deterministic, or nearly so, its Shannon uncertainty — from our perspective — is huge.
The only perspective from which the Shannon uncertainty of the universe is small is that of an omniscient observer who knows the exact physical configuration of the universe and all of the laws that govern its evolution.
Trevors and Abel make the fatal mistake of shifting from the perspective of an omniscient observer, in step 1 of their argument, to a finite local observer, in step 2. Since Shannon uncertainty depends on the perspective of the observer, their argument fails.
I hope you'll do the honest thing and stop citing this paper in support of the claim that
It's not true.
Comment by robin — June 10, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
That's not my argument but rather your fabrication.
If one has a determinsitic law, how can that deterministic law in and of itself provide for the freedom of alternatives?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Sal and Robin,
It is past my bedtime, but I couldn't resist.
What happens to the Sharron Information of the universe when you take Quantum Mechanics into account?
1. Quantum effects are not deterministic.
2. Instead of each information point being independent, they are all interconnected (hint, raises the UPB by the UPB)
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I can't speak for others, but I've never denied I personally think the intelligence which created life was the Christian God of the creationists.
I can say that is my belief, but I don't think I can easily formulate a scientific theory around that belief, even if the belief is true.
But let's say for the sake of argument, I define the intelligence as the Christian God, does that help in an operational sense or from the stand point of experimental science?
I can believe that the Christian God is the creator, but that seems like this belief wouldn't have to be invoked if one is studying the topic of Genetic Entropy or the probablity of Turing Machines arising out of a chemical soup.
Also, insistence on the creationist story would put me at odds with friends like Mike Gene and Mike Behe. I'd rather work the ground we have in common….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 12:09 am
TP,
The question of Shannon information and QM still seems open to debate. For example: Applicability of Shannon Information to QM.
So I don't have a good answer to your question, sorry.
Nevertheless, the paper I cited does say:
How this relates to the current discussion is that we cannot assert something is an information processing system without defining the elements of uncertainty in the system. When we say your computer has 40 Gigs of memory, we are specifying the degree of uncertainty in the states of your computer's memory banks is 40 gigabytes…..
Computer's are highly deterministic devices (or at least they are supposed to be)…but the determinism in the computer architecture cannot preclude the uncertainty at each communication node — otherwise it wouldn't be a computer nor an information processing system.
For example, we have a logic gate with 2 inputs and 1 output. What's the point of a logic gate if the logic gate "knows" ahead of time what the inputs will be? There must be uncertainty in the architecture of the system, even at the basic level of logic gates and the reading of memory…..
Of course, one solution is to not model life as an information processing system, and these paradoxes disappear instantly. That is what some OOL researcher are doing, they defining life in such a way that its not an information processing system….but is such a redefinition of life appropriate?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 11, 2008 @ 12:09 am
June 11th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Salvador wrote:
It doesn't. You're confusing uncertainty with 'freedom of alternatives.' They are not the same.
Suppose we arrange that I will flip a coin, and then send you a message indicating the outcome: 'heads' or 'tails'. It lands tails. Once it has landed, the outcome is fixed. It's tails. Heads is no longer possible. There are no alternatives to tails after the coin has landed.
I prepare to send you a message indicating the outcome. Before I send the message, do you know which way the coin landed? No. You are uncertain. Even though the coin has already landed, and is already definitely heads or tails, you don't know which. Until I send the message, your uncertainty remains.
There are no alternative outcomes. The answer is definitely 'tails'. But your uncertainty persists.
Uncertainty is not the same thing as "freedom of alternatives."
Comment by robin — June 11, 2008 @ 12:24 am
June 11th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Ironically, Salvador makes my point for me:
Exactly. Even though the computer system as a whole is deterministic, the logic gate does not "know" what its future inputs will be.
Uncertainty can exist within a deterministic system, even if the behavior of the system as a whole is certain.
Comment by robin — June 11, 2008 @ 12:32 am
June 11th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Which refutes your miscaracterization of my remarks:
On the other hand, I was referring to deterministic laws, not the determinism of an entire system, there is difference. For example, the approximation:
F= ma
is a deterministic law. One cannot argue any such law of similar form will build a deterministic computer….that was the point in Trevors and Abel.
The existence of an array of logic gates and memory banks are not reducible to laws of such a form. If you wish to contest that, then as an exercise you can write a series of equations (preferably differential) which you believe will create a computer full of uncertainty reduction devices [i.e. logic gates and memory read heads].
The deterministic laws can help enforce the determinism in a computer, but the deterministic laws (in and of themselves) cannot be the source of the uncertaintiy at the communication nodes — and neither can deterministic laws be the sole source of how that uncertainty is reduced (reduction of uncertainty, is information).
So before you crticize Trevors and Abel, it would be helpful if you actully understood what they put forward.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 11, 2008 @ 12:57 am
June 11th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Salvador wrote:
Hardly. You refuted yourself by contradicting your earlier position.
That's an amusing criticism, Salvador, given that my synopsis of their argument matches their own statements.
They wrote:
And:
It couldn't be clearer. They believe that the genome outstrips the amount of Shannon uncertainty available in a world governed by "reductionistic" laws.
Their error, as I have explained already, is in not recognizing that uncertainty is in the eye of the beholder. A Laplacian super-intellect, aware of all of the laws of physics and knowing the position and momentum of every particle, could never be surprised in a deterministic universe. For him, there could no such thing as uncertainty. For us, uncertainty abounds — even if it turns out we are living in a deterministic universe — and so we study physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc., because they reduce our uncertainty about the world.
Admit it, Salvador. Trevors and Abel are basing their argument on a fallacy: the idea that Shannon uncertainty remains the same when measured from different perspectives.
It does not, and because their argument depends on a fallacy, it fails.
Comment by robin — June 11, 2008 @ 2:09 am
June 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I see [sic] Rubin you've not even attempted to create a set of differential equations which will inevitably lead to a self replicating computer.
No I refutued that even your mischaracterization didn't hold water, [sic] Robbin.
By the way, since you didn't even attempt to state a set of differential equations that lead inevitably to a computer, why don't you tell the readers whether you think it is even possible in principle to create a set of differential equations which lead inevitably to a self-replicating computer.
By the way, [[sic] sick] Rubin, for the readers benefit, ID proponent Walter Bradley lists the currently accepted list of differential equations that represent a large portion of existing physics. See Table 1 in Is there evidence for God?. You can start with those. There are even some stocahstic type laws thrown in the mix.
So with those set of equations, perhaps you can enlighten the reader why the existing accepted laws of physics lead inevitably to a self-replicating computer. If that fails, as an exercise you can try finding a set of differential equations that just might do the trick. We are not looking for just necessary conditions, but for necessary and sufficient conditions to create a computer. Physics only provides necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions.
Your failure to adequately meet the challenge refutes your claim that there are no specifications that are not reducible to deterministic laws.
The design inference can succeed because there are specifications that resist reduction to deterministic and stochastic laws. In fact, those requirements are inherent in Dembski's definition of design.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 11, 2008 @ 10:52 am
June 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Regarding Aiguy's computer, I have some further comments which relate to No Free Lunch Theorems….
I consider Aiguy's work as an example of weak AI, where weak AI is an extension of human thought processes…..
Shortly after the field of AI came about, lots of developments in data compression also came about. On the surface, it would seem hard to see the relationship of AI and data compression…but the two have important relationships.
We have generally two kinds of data compressions:
1. exact
2. lossy
Exact data compression allows us to compress data to a more compact representation and then reconstruct the data exactly….optimal Huffman compression and Zip compression are examples of exact compression schemes.
Lossy data compression allows us to compress the data to a more compact representation and then reconstruct a reasonable approximation of the original form, but parts of the original are lost, and fillers are added. Mp3 and JPEG are examples of lossy compressions.
In principle, several forms can map to the same Mp3 (that is the nature of lossy compression). With a lot of work, it might be possible to create a decoder which would create several valid forms from the same Mp3….
It would appear on the surface that the process of decompression creates more bits from a set of smaller bits. We are not amazed to see a 1 meg file "become" a 100 meg file when decompression is applied. It would appear on the surface we've achieved a free lunch since from 1 meg we get 100 meg…. In fact, I could write a program (employing an infinite loop) that will decompress from about 10,000 to an unlimited number of bytes….
But clearly, there are many structures that resist compression to trivial compressed representations. One can get a hint of this by repeatedly trying to apply Zip to already Zipped files…..at some point, one can no longer get a free lunch!
The idea of a self-replicating computer (which von Neuman pioneered) is a form that resists attempts at trivial compact representations. You can only compress the essential elements of a self-replicating computer so far. The exact number of bits to achieve this is under debate, but it is not a small number and well beyond Universal Probability Bound by most estimates. That's why I'm skeptical OOL will ever succeed, unless they redefine the essentials of life to avoid mention a self-replicating computer. Some OOL researcher's have done just that in order to increase their chances of claiming they solved OOL…this seems a bit dubious, imho.
We also have observed empirically that the computer factory pipeline (in totality) is always more complex than the computers they make. There is no free lunch in the manufacture of computers in real life. Why should we expect the reverse to be true in OOL where very simple chemical soups make computers more complex than the soup?
Yes, data decompression happens where we get more "information" than what we started with, but there are limits to the compression. Self-replicating computers do not compress to a data representation that is trivial. Despite that, OOL researchers have not been dissuaded to cease their inevitably doomed quest.
In comparable manner, Darwinian evolution might be even more clearly shown to not be able to resolve various complex structures to a trivial and compact representation. That is why I do not view evolutionary biology as scientific. They rarely even consider objections from individuals in the computer science community that raise these issues. Some how, the evolutionary community feels they are exempt from the principles of no free lunch.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 11, 2008 @ 11:41 am
June 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Sal, incompressibility of data doesn't mean much. Generate a string of (pseudo) random numbers using a standard random number generator and try to compress it. The zip file will have essentially the same size. Is there much meaning in a string of random numbers? Not necessarily.
Comment by olegt — June 11, 2008 @ 11:48 am
June 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
olegt, since you are a physicist why not comment on these statements?
Are there "specifications that resist reduction to deterministic and stochastic laws?" and is it not true that:
We also have observed empirically that the computer factory pipeline (in totality) is always more complex than the computers they make. There is no free lunch in the manufacture of computers in real life. Why should we expect the reverse to be true in OOL where very simple chemical soups make computers more complex than the soup?
Comment by Bradford — June 11, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Sal,
We've been debating your claim that
I've shown you in detail why you, Trevors and Abel are incorrect.
Instead of desperately trying to change the subject (your last comment didn't even mention Trevors and Abel), how about facing my argument head on?
If you think I'm wrong, then show the readers of this thread exactly what part of my argument fails, and why.
If you can't, then have the guts to admit it.
Comment by robin — June 11, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Robin, is it your position that undiscovered laws forever hold the door open to reduction of life's origin to stochastic and determistic laws?
Comment by Bradford — June 11, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Bradford, I can't comment on that because I have no idea what the expression specifications that resist reduction to deterministic and stochastic laws means.
Comment by olegt — June 11, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Bradford wrote:
Since we are talking about a formal logical procedure here (eliminating "necessity and chance" to infer design, whatever that means), the answer would be yes, it does. This is how things are in formal logic and mathematics. You can make a conjecture and back it up with a few examples, but it remains a conjecture until you prove it formally. Take, for instance, the Riemann hypothesis. It was formulated more than a hundred years ago, there are lots of clues that it may be right, but it still remains a hypothesis.
Comment by olegt — June 11, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
olegt:
Mathematical hypotheses and hypotheses about life's origin are a study in contrast. The latter are actually misnamed. They are more like hypotheses about how specified biochemicals might form in extra-cellular environments. There is then an assumption that a process (usually unidentified in sufficient detail) exists which could be relevant to the generation of whatever biochemical a particular study is focused on. Vagueness is a characteristic quality of theories. Imprecision the norm.
Comment by Bradford — June 11, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
There's a difference between mathematics and science, Bradford. The former adheres strictly to the formal rules of logic, the latter doesn't. The lack of mathematical rigor is remedied by getting clues from experimental observations.
Dembski's CSI and EF are strictly formal constructs. There is no way to verify EF or measure CSI experimentally.
Comment by olegt — June 11, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
olegt, this cuts both ways. How does one measure the origin of genomic information?
Comment by Bradford — June 11, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Both ways? I don't think it was mainstream biologists who wanted to do that.
Comment by olegt — June 11, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
olegt:
I don't think they want that either but have yet to see a proposal detailing how genetic information arises. Maybe they can get together with Dembski and acknowledge this lies beyond the boundary of science.
Comment by Bradford — June 11, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Speaking of OOL, check out this Scientific American article:
Scientists Close to Reconstructing First Living Cell
I think that's worthy of a post. What do you say, Bradford?
Comment by robin — June 11, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
robin wrote:
Might be worthy of a post, but not much more. The article contains a number of unsupported assumptions ("cells were very different when life began 3.5 billion to four billion years ago"; "[cells] lacked the structures and proteins that now make them tick"; etc.).
The research is not even close to creating a living cell, at least not in the sense of anything that would be recognized as a living cell today.
Certainly interesting research worth following, and I do expect that at some point in the next decade or so someone will succeed in creating a "functional" cell.
At that point, it will have been empirically demonstrated that intelligent agents can create living cells (as if such demonstration were needed).
Comment by Eric Anderson — June 11, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Thank you for bringing forward this point…
The fact that a small algorithm (the pseudo-random generator) generated the pseudo-random string implies the data is compressible, ZIP was simply unable to find a more compact compression than the generating algorithm….
But as far as OOL goes, the idea is to find a compact set of simple conditions which spawns a self-replicating computer more complex than the original set of simple conditions. An honest search for OOL is essentially a search for a compression.
Trevors, being an atheist possibly doesn't think ID is a solution.
A physicist by the name of Hubert Yockey (Oppenheimer's student), who has left affiliation with the ID movement, thinks the OOL question is unsolvable by science because of the problem posed in finding a small set of conditions which can build a self-replicating computer….
Yockey published a peer-reviewed book by Cambridge University Press.
See: http://www.cynthiayockey.com/p...
It's too bad AIguy is taking a break, because he would be someone that could offer a good opinion on these matters….
A minimal self-replicating computer seems to be no smaller than about 5000 bits (and this is being optimistic since von Neuman's self-replicating automata had 100,000+ parts). Can we compress this down to say 20 bits, or twenty simple conditions for an OOL solution?
Even though Yockey apparently despises ID, I think he found a specification (in a self-replicating computer) that is the delight of ID proponents.
I suppose he rather disdains the enormous adoration the ID movement has sent his way. Oddly he was listed as a part of ARN once upon a time,
http://www.arn.org/infopage/yo...
and even this Christian organization:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1...
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 11, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I can say that I've read all the comments posted here since my post yesterday. It's all very interesting. It seems to me that there are three different lines of investigation:
1) Could the original computer come about without the aid of intelligent design?
2) Once the original computer came about, could it design machines without additional information (programs that allow it to learn, and instruct it to design machines)?
3) The current discussion: Could self-replication computers (or living organisms) come about without the aid of intelligent design?
It seems logically possible that there are undiscovered laws of the universe that are rich enough in content that they could generate a self-replicating computer or living cells. But what would they be like? If computers must be constructed in a certain order with specified parts, and if living cells must also be constructed in a certain order with specified parts, then these undiscovered laws must essentially describe the events that must take place, and the order that they must take place in for all of this to happen.
Let's take a simpler example to see why: Baking a cake. In order to bake a cake, one must have the right ingredients, in the right amount, combined in the right way, in the right order, and placed in an appropriate container, and placed in an appropritate source of heat, and baked for the appropriate amount of time. If laws of nature existed that made sure this happened, they would be far different from any that we have yet discovered. And if we did discover them, the universe would resemble a very contrived reality, which would certainly make the case for its own intelligent design far stronger than it currently is. Likewise with laws that would guarantee the production of living cells or self-replicating computers.
Comment by Bilbo — June 11, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Sal, you're missing my point. It does not matter that the sequence is only pseudorandom and that it was generated by a simple program. Take a sequence of genuinely random numbers obtained with the aid of radioactive decay at HotBits. It is incompressible. Yet it is just random noise. There is no simple code to reverse-engineer. There is no structure to it at all.
Comment by olegt — June 11, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Huh? That is contrary to what I wrote. News, by definition, contains Shannon Information because we are uncertain as to its content. But a random stream of letters has more Shannon Information than (an equal length sequence from) the Wall Street Journal. Do you understand why?
It has nothing to do with uncertainty in the laws of nature. Shannon's Information Theory is perfectly consistent with a deterministic universe.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
June 12th, 2008 at 1:25 am
To see how solid this argument by analogy is, substitute another valid predicate:
Comment by steve — June 12, 2008 @ 1:25 am
June 12th, 2008 at 1:49 am
I don't see why any new laws of the universe are required for life. It would be much better to simply find a small peptide which can replicate itself by serving as a template. The rules of chemistry easily allow peptides to form with no special input. It might be something as simple as the right amino acid bath in the presence of polyphosphates and self-assembled phospholipid bilayers. Given how fast life appeared on earth I suspect the answer will turn out to be simpler than we think.
Comment by steve — June 12, 2008 @ 1:49 am
June 12th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I prefaced my remarks by saying:
In other words, if the analogy between constructing computers and constructing living cells is close to identical. If not, then who knows? You might be right. And it's good to see someone not giving up on protein first scenarios! Sydney Fox can use all the help he can get!
Comment by Bilbo — June 12, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
June 12th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
For one, we do not know how known laws lead to life.
Lead us through this. Assume you have a self-replicating peptide. What happens?
Comment by Bradford — June 12, 2008 @ 6:34 pm