Bunny and a Book
by MikeGene
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 at 11:58 pm and is filed under Humor, The Rabbit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/bunny-and-a-book/trackback/
May 20th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Hi all -
Bradford has kindly directed me to this thread to continue our interesting discussion regarding what the word "intelligence" might mean in the context of "Intelligent Design Theory" (I was not allowed to continue posting on the previous thread, called "So Then How Did It Happen").
Before I answer the previous posts directly, I think it would be of great benefit to try and agree on some fundamental concepts.
I'll start with a few working definitions that I believe will help us to tease apart our actual positions. These are just definitions, not statements of fact. We can all decide if these definitions are clear enough and otherwise acceptable:
design (noun)
A complex, functional mechanism, like a watch or an eyeball or a flagellum
design (verb)
To cause a design (noun) to exist. The term does not imply anything else about the cause - only that it resulted in the existence of a design (noun)
intelligence (noun)
The ability to design (verb)
(Note this is a very unusual definition, but there are many different definitions of intelligence used in different disciplines. I think this definition is good for ID, but perhaps you'd like to add other attributes commonly associated with intelligence, such as the ability to learn from experience, or solve novel problems).
intelligent (adj)
Exhibiting intelligence
consciousness (noun)
The private, first-person experience of being aware of our thoughts and our environment.
conscious intelligence
The quality of being both conscious and intelligent
OK. Now, here are some propositions that use this terminology, and hopefully we can begin to discuss which of these statements are true or false with better clarity:
1) Both living things (like humans and spiders) and non-living things (like computers) can design things. In other words, humans, spiders, and computers are intelligent.
2) As far as we know, only human beings (and perhaps some other "higher" animals?) are conscious.
3) So, something does not have to be conscious in order to be intelligent (this follows from 1&2).
4) We can tell if something is intelligent or not. We don't need to know the origin of the thing, or how it works, in order to decide if it is intelligent or not. (Note: If you accept my definition of "intelligence" above, then we can tell if something is intelligent or not simply by observing the products of its behavior. Otherwise, if you want to say that intelligence entails learning or novel problem-solving abilities, then you would need to actually observe behaviors in order to see if something was intelligent).
I'll leave it there for the time being, just to see if we can agree on a few terms and these propositions before trying to see what it all means for ID.
Comment by aiguy — May 20, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
This thread is a continuation of a discussion on intelligence and foresight from here.
Comment by Zachriel — May 20, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Thanks, Zach.
Let me add another definition here for a term that has come up:
foresight (noun)
The ability to make a plan - a representation of conditions that do not exist in the world - that can be used to find a solution to a problem without actually implementing trial-and-error in the world.
Comment by aiguy — May 20, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Hey Aguy:
Why not just use the common definitions from the dictionary? If you can choose to define something in an ad hock manner you can win any argument. Didn't we learn anything from George Orwell?
Words have meanings !!!!!!
from here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Design (Noun)
1: a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group b: deliberate purposive planning 2: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down
Note artifacts are not designs but the result of designs
Design (verb)
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE2 a: to conceive and plan out in the mind
Note: the dictionary definition is all about the cause (a plan)
intelligence (noun)1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations
Note: I believe you will find there are not different definitions but only different wordings of the one standard definition
Intelligent (ADj)
having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity
Note this has to do with what one is not what one does
consciousness (noun) the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
Note This is pretty much what you said except it does not needlessly emphasize the subjective nature of consciousness. I have no problem with your definition but it seems to be a way of sneaking in something that you have no right to do.
conscious intelligence
The quality of being both conscious and intelligent
Note this is your definition I have no problem with it as long as we define both consciousness and intelligence correctly
foresight (noun)
an act of looking forward; also : a view forward
note this is much simpler than yours
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 20, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
now to your propositions
1) Agree but in the case of all nonliving intelligent things we know of there are livings things at the begining of the causal chain doing the programming
2) I have no way of knowing for sure anything is conscious except me. I can and do assume other entities are conscious based on a lot of factors.
3) Agree but this flows from the dictionary definitions not from your propositions.
4) Agree but we do need to know the characteristics of a thing to know if it is intelligent.
We might need to know if it has the ability to learn or design using foresight for example
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 20, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Aguy:
That is simply incorrect If you know an artifact required foresight to produce you know it's creator is intelligent per the dictionary definitions .
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 20, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Hi FMM -
Yes, words have meanings, and they have different meanings in different contexts. For example, I might say someone used "force" to make me give them money, but the word "force" in that context doesn't mean exactly the same thing it means in physics!.
So dictionary definitions are quite often unsuitable for scientific or philosophical discussions. In science and philosophy, then, the first order of business is always to clarify a technical vocabulary, so that we can say exactly what we mean when we describe our theories.
Now, let's look at the changes you've proposed…
Design (noun)
I defined this word to mean a complex functional mechanism, like an watch or a flagellum. Using my definition, we can then begin to ask how such a thing comes to exist - in particular, whether or not some conscious mind was involved.
Using your (dictionary) defintion, the answer to those questions is already assumed in the definition. So if we are to use your definition, we need another word for a complex functional machine that does not already carry the connotation of mental cause. So I believe my definition is simpler to work with in this context, but if you'd like we can use a definition more like yours.
Now, the dictionary definition you propose doesn't really work for ID in general - if you want to call a flagellum a "design", you don't really mean a "purpose" or a "mental project" - you really mean the physical, integrated, functional, physical components working together in the cell. So how about this instead:
Design (noun): "Something that was created by a conscious mind".
OK?
Design (verb)
Likewise, you are suggesting that we incorporate reference to a conscious minds whenever we talk about the creation of complex functional objects. Again, I would like to be able to ask the question of how a complex functional mechanism comes to exist without already assuming that conscious minds are involved. So, again, I think my definitions are more clear and simple, since they do not presuppose the answers to these questions. But I'm willing to use a meaning like the one you propose:
Design (verb): "To create something by means of conscious thought".
OK?
I am quite sure you are mistaken on this point, and that I can find a large number of very different definitions (not just rewordings, but very different meanings) provided on this board, on other ID resources, in academic references from psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and so on.
But I'll accept your definition for now, if you are sure you want to use this particular definition. (I will bet that other ID-friendly folks with want to change it though!).
intelligence (noun): "The ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations"
This differs from most ID usage in that in ID, "intelligent" usually refers to a property that something either has or doesn't - a binary property. You would like to say that the adjective only applies if something has a certain level of "mental capacity", right? Ok, let's go with that then. If something has the ability to learn or understand and deal with new situations, but not to a high or satisfactory degree, then by your definition it is not intelligent, right?
I wasn't "sneaking" anything in, no. Your definition is just fine, though, as long as you realize that we have no way of objectively observing consciousness. I hope we agree that humans are capable of consciousness (when they are not unconscious of course), but that deciding when things other than waking human beings are conscious or not presents a scientific challenge.
I think that the metaphorical "looking" presents a problem here; we really aren't talking about eyesight of course. But if you'd like, we can separate these two concepts:
1) plan (verb) to create a representation of conditions that do not exist in the world that can be used to find a solution to a problem without actually implementing trial-and-error in the world.
2) foresight (noun) the ability to consciously create plans
Can we agree on these changes?
And now the propositions:
You agree that both living and non-living things (like computers) can be intelligent - good. (And yes, all nonliving intelligent things we know of are created by living things).
OK, but what else in our experience do you assume is conscious besides some subset of animals?
Ok. Consciousness and intelligence are distinct, and there is no empirical basis for claiming that anything which is intelligent must be conscious or vice-versa, right?
Agreed. My point was we do not need to know how it came to exist, for example, or if it is physically deterministic.
This means, for example, that if you conclude that the cause of flagella was intelligent, you needn't necessarily be able to answer the question of "who designed the designer?" or "how did the designer design it?". Right?
I think there is some confusion here.
Yes, of course if we use your definitions, once you say an artifact required "foresight" then you have already assumed conscious intelligence was involved. So then the question simply becomes, how do we know when something required "foresight" instead of "planning"
We've already agreed that a computer can be intelligent, and that it can plan, but it has no foresight. And we agree that this remains true whether or not we consider the way the computer works, or the origin of the computer.
So even if we agreed that evolutionary processes would not result in a flagellum, and that planning was required, we would need additional evidence that foresight was required.
Also, since your definition of "intelligence" entails learning and dealing with novel situations, you'll need to explain how ID might be able to support the claim that the cause of complex biological structures was intelligent. If, for example, the only thing that this cause is capable of is creating these life forms, then it would neither have to learn nor deal with novel situations, right?
Comment by aiguy — May 20, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Aguy:
.
It might be a good idea for you to check this thread out. http://telicthoughts.com/favor...
toward the end I said:
the question of knowing something is a question of consciousness not intelligence does a computer know anything when it predicts a chess move I will make based on my past history? Probably not. Does it show foresight? yep
I don't in any way assume consciousness
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 20, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Hey Aguy:
Actually all that's required is to specify which dictionary definition you are using in this case the 1st vs the 3rd
I have no problem with clarifying. what I object to is changing meaning ad hock with no specific agreed upon reason
For example look at your changes to my common dictionary definitions
No, A computer or a wasp can create a design and I don't believe that computers are conscious it's best to stick with the dictionary here.
No, A beaver designs it's dam and I don't believe beavers are conscious it's best to stick with the dictionary here.
That is almost correct. We are dealing with degrees when we are speaking of intelligent the ants from the other thread are intelligent but not to the same degree as the musical genius Sting
Once again why not go with the dictionary?
Plan: to arrange the parts of : DESIGN
2 : to devise or project the realization or achievement of
3 : to have in mind : INTEND
This seems adequate to me
Foresight has nothing to do with consciousness again best to stick with the dictionary here
No you need to give compelling reasons before you change common language I've yet to see any.
God ,Angels, Demons. The jury is still out on my old pickup
There is no empirical basis for claiming you are conscious. That does not mean I don't assume you are and for good reason.
According to the dictionary definition, if it was designed it was designed using foresight so we already know how it was designed by definition. Now do you see why it is important to stick with common definitions when possible?
Not if we concluded it was designed and stuck to the common English definitions of words.
I could define "learn" and "deal with novel situations" for you but I trust you know by now where I'd get that information.
In order for your stament to make sense you would have to explain to me why you would not consider the creating of the bacterial flagellum at a specific point in time using multiple interconnecting pieces a novel situation?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 20, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
FMM -
From this I gather you believe that "knowing" entails consciousness, and so a computer probably doesn't "know" anything. However, you seem to be saying that "foresight" does not entail consciousness, since you say a computer can show foresight. Do I have that right?
So when ID suggests the cause of life was "intelligent", this does not necessarily mean "conscious", right? It might be an unconscious intelligent process?
Again, your dictionary definition for design (n) was "a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group b: deliberate purposive planning 2: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down". But since you say you do not assume consciousness, then you must be saying that none of these words entail consciousness, right? In other words, you think something can be deliberately purposive, but have no conscious awareness of the fact that they are deliberately purposive, right?
So "knowing" entails consciousness.
"Design" does not entail consciousness.
"Conceiving" and "planning out in the mind" do not entail consciousness either.
"Foresight" entails "looking forward", but it does not entail consciousness.
Do I have that straight? Is there somewhere all of this is written down, or do ID folks just make this up as they go along?
It's important, because "intelligence" is the sole explanatory concept offerred by ID, and so we ought to be able to say generally what "intelligence" is, and to be clear about it. If we mean something that knows what it is doing, consciously reflects on its goals and desires, the way people do, then that is one sort of claim (and something the evidence can't possibly support). And if we don't necessarily mean any of those things, then we need to say what we do mean.
Again, if you are not assuming consciousness, then you need to make clear that concepts like "to have in mind" and "intend" have no connotation of consciousness (which is not, I think, what most people would say).
I think we're seeing exactly the opposite here: While you might believe that words like "intent" and "foresight" and "deliberate planning" do not imply consciousness, others (including others here at TT) would disagree with you. And for some odd reason you've taken the word "know" to imply consciousness! (I would say my word processor knows how to compute line spacing without consciousness). So you see, without a precise technical lexicon, people constantly talk past each other about these issues.
I don't think we need technical definitions for these, unless we find we mean different things.
The cause of the flagellum might be completely physically determined - hard wired - to create the flagellum, without ever having "figured it out" for itself. Thus, it would not be "dealing with" - generating an intelligent response to - this "situation", but rather producing this particular solution "by instinct", the way a spider makes a web. The only way we could tell if the cause was actually intelligent would be by presenting it with other situations that it had not yet encountered to see if it could generate novel responses. This is exactly what ethologists do when studying animal intelligence (or lack of same).
Comment by aiguy — May 20, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 12:06 am
aiguy,
It's not like there's a single ID proposal out there - everyone from Dembski to Behe to even MikeGene, I believe, have pointed out how ID is at this point a collection of points of view, sometimes with proposals, other times with differing definitions.
You often point out that intelligence, consciousness, mind, etc are hard things to pin down - and you seem to agree that it's possible some aspects of them may well defy the physicalist paradigm, or at least require a new understanding of physics.
But even if you accept all that - are you saying they shouldn't bother trying, or even holding an opinion based on the data?
But even those results are debatable. We can say which animals performed similar on a given test, but justifying the interpretation is a whole other ballgame. Should they not even bother trying to determine if there's 'actual intelligence' present? Is the guy who says 'Fish can't feel pain, they don't have a neocortex' justified? What about the guy saying 'Fish can feel pain, look how they react to an irritant'? Are we outside the scientific realm at that point?
All this before mentioning that something can be both 'hardwired / physically predetermined' yet still intelligent. If nothing else, I'm glad ID proponents are calling attention to these questions, difficult and thought-provoking as they are.
Comment by nullasalus — May 21, 2008 @ 12:06 am
May 21st, 2008 at 12:41 am
nullasalus,
I understand. What I fault these authors for is not having different opinions on critical aspects of what might collectively be called ID Theory, but rather for failing to make each of their assumptions and commitments explicit. On the contrary, I think Dembski and Behe go to great lengths to disguise the fact that they are making any sorts of commitments about mind at all.
No, I'm saying that people need to say what they mean. ID generally equivocates on the meaning of this explanatory concept ("intelligence" or "intelligent cause" or "teleology"), and so it isn't possible to evaluate the strength of the evidence for its claims. If ID posits an eternal and immaterial personal being who consciously reflects on His goals and desires as the creator of the universe, then I would say the empirical evidence is pretty weak for that. However, if ID suggests that some process uses memory and learning to devise new complex forms, I'd say the evidence is overwhelmingly strong. (Of course evolution uses memory and learning!)
Well, scientists do not look for actual intelligence in animals, because that would be to reify an instrumental concept. But they do carefully operationalize their definitions, so they can identify any common components of inter-species mental abilities.
Yes.
Actually these are the definitions of Fifth Monarchy Man - not me. In contrast to your views, he makes no assumption of consciousness.
I can't tell if you're joking here. It feels to me that I have for the most part dragged people kicking and screaming into the discussion. Again, it is nice to encounter some understanding and interest in these central issues here at TT, even if a couple of other folks here apparently think the matter is completely irrelevant.
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 12:41 am
May 21st, 2008 at 1:12 am
aiguy,
I understand how you can say that on one level, but on another - intelligent design immediately suggests we have to tackle minds and mental. I don't know about Dembski, but Behe's focused on some mechanistic limitations of evolution - I don't think he'd necessarily get into issues of mind over 'the edge of evolution' anymore than, say, Fodor would have to when he makes his criticisms.
I don't think 'ID' does - it's a loose association, ranging from Behe and Dembski to (I suppose) MikeGene and John Davison, among others.
As for eternal and immaterial beings - whole other subject, and one even ID proponents seem not to want to bother getting into. Their focus is typically whether design, full stop, can be detected - and if so, how. They do take it as fundamental that something distinct called 'design' does exist.
I also don't think ID proponents wholesale reject evolution. I'm positive some do - others do not, still others I think do so in name, but accept all the mechanisms. The word has been abused too much, to the point where some people will fight the name alone.
Then we have a problem, and it's not ID. Because there's quite an army of people on both sides of that particular debate who do think it's a scientific issue. Among many others related specifically to design, mind, consciousness, and otherwise.
I'm just pointing out the obvious here. Rehashing.
I'm dead serious. ID, as a school of thought, is promoting a lot of inquiry and discussion about contentious issues - and most importantly, helping to show how contentious said issues truly are, and showing a variety of ways to look at and consider them. I liken it to the internet explosion versus standard journalism; yes, there may be aspects of it I dislike, but I'll take the mess over what preceded it.
Comment by nullasalus — May 21, 2008 @ 1:12 am
May 21st, 2008 at 1:53 am
My two cents, given FMM's definitions it seems like the resulting intelligent designer could very easily be something I would call a natural law. I suspect most people assume a conscious being when they think intelligent design, but we can't even prove other humans are conscious when we have 6 billion of them to study so it seems truly impossible to prove some proposed being we cannot observe is conscious. But removing the attribute of conscious from your definition of intelligent opens up all sorts of possibilities. This seems to include the possibility that evolution, as we understand it today from a purely materialist perspective, might itself qualify as intelligent.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 21, 2008 @ 1:53 am
May 21st, 2008 at 2:01 am
nullasalus,
Dembski equates intelligent cause with libertarian will, but only when pressed; otherwise, he pretends that "you know, intelligence" is a satisfactory definition. If Behe stopped after pointing out mechanistic limitations, I wouldn't have a beef with him; instead, he invokes "intelligent cause" without qualification, leaving us to wonder exactly what mental attributes does he believe are in evidence.
My point here was the range of possible interpretations of "intelligence" in this context is so vast that it could describe an evolutionary processes - or a god.
Sorry, I lost you here. I said yes, we are outside of science when we take a stand on whether or not fish consciously suffer pain. I don't rule out future discoveries that might enable us to support some answer, but I don't think we have evidence now one way or the other.
Well, yes. I suppose that would be easier to see if the people going to see Expelled came out discussing dualist metaphysics and the Chinese Room instead of how Darwinism causes moral decay.
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 2:01 am
May 21st, 2008 at 2:06 am
Todd - Exactly so. Very well said!
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 2:06 am
May 21st, 2008 at 4:39 am
aiguy,
I'm not familiar enough with Dembski re: libertarian will, and I don't think it's necessary for ID as a whole, so I'll pass on that. But if Behe's not being specific about the mental attributes, it may well be because he considers that an avenue to explore rather than a question to pass judgment on. Considering where that question is right now, I don't think there's a qualification out there that would help much - see the fish/pain response.
Or it could describe a god that employs evolutionary processes. And 'God' can be further explored in a number of different directions, under the 'Christian' heading alone. Or it could mean just an intelligent force of undetermined origin; maybe there's a way to identify a pattern without needing a body, however faintly. (And if there's no way? That, too, is just as important to make clear - because frankly, 'design detection' was around before ID. It was just erroneously billed as 'negative', and some people wish for those good ol' days.)
Maybe a lot of things. I don't see much harm in people considering this question for themselves (much less being made aware that there's a question to address), or at least no more harm than is already standard in the discussion.
I know what you yourself say. But honestly, that doesn't seem to be the view most people involved in the argument take. Some groups (Including politically charged ones like the PETA) field scientists talking about how, yes, fish certainly do feel pain, and we must take action. Other groups (Including fly fishing organizations) cite scientists and argue no, they absolutely don't feel pain, and no action is needed. The scientists involved on either side don't seem to think it's outside their field, and they cite what they consider and bill as strong evidence.
I guess where I'm going with this is, one common complaint about ID is that the view and its proponents are somehow damaging science. I've stated how limited I think the case is in either direction - but I don't buy the 'threat to science' line, as if ID (or anti-ID) brings a new twist to the table. Research is abused left and right to prop up everything from grant requests to social/political causes to otherwise, and usually no one cares unless they have an opposing view to what's being said. Nothing new is up with the ID debate - it just has more people involved than flyfishers and vegans.
I haven't seen the film, but my understanding is that link was only one part of the presentation. I think that topic is worth attention, but with greater precision than is typically offered in either direction.
I'm hesitant to comment on Expelled before watching it myself, but I will admit outright my opinion of universities as bastions of open discussion and free thinking is low to say the least. I'd say I hope the effect is a more open (sans repercussion) conversation about these subjects at universities is in the cards, but in my heart I'd rather most of them were choked by an autodidact culture.
Comment by nullasalus — May 21, 2008 @ 4:39 am
May 21st, 2008 at 8:45 am
Aguy:
It is written down in the dictionary
I will grant that most folks think that way. It's because folks haven't thought about it deeply enough.
That is the reason that we give our pets names and pay good money to bury them. My hound dog "intends " to tree a coon when he is on it's trail and he has in mind a treat when he begs at my feet but I don't think he is conscious .
Just because we are often loose with our attributing of consciousness in some situations does not mean we should be.
Since the attributing of consciousness is a subjective philosophical thing that is to be expected is it not.
The term know was in response to the comment from hrun
I believed he was using it in the sense of (being aware) of what would happen in the future to know in this sense implies consciousness IMHO. But you are using it in a different sense (know how) this is equivocation and can be addressed by going to the dictionary and pointing out which definition you are using
If that is the case it's the cause of the cause that's intelligent. The thing that did the hard wiring
That is exactly what we have done. Remember secondary causes must have causes. If we found say a bacterial flagellum natural law we would have to ask ourselves is its cause intelligent and based on the fact that it caused a bacterial flagellum natural law for this particular novel situation and other laws in others we would have to say yes.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 8:45 am
May 21st, 2008 at 8:49 am
Todd
Only if a natural law has the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations. laws can't be intellegent by definition
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 8:49 am
May 21st, 2008 at 9:53 am
CJYman *defines* "intelligence in terms of foresight and foresight in terms of awareness (or consciousness) of future targets that do not yet exist."
Then intelligence does not require foresight. Induction is a type of learning. It uses incremental memory, not foresight.
Then foresight does not require consciousness. Computers can use foresight, manipulating models and making decisions.
Most mammals are considered conscious, however, only primates, cetaceans and pachyderms have been shown to be self-conscious.
Comment by Zachriel — May 21, 2008 @ 9:53 am
May 21st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Hey Zach:
I would disagree but this only emphasizes the subjective philosophical nature of consciousness. We would agree on the definition of intelligence and that's what is important for the subject of ID is it not?
Inductive reasoning requires us to assume that nature will continue to be uniform (foresight)
We agree here
Your argument is with Aguy not me he said only humans are considered conscious I assumed he was talking about something like self-consciousness but since determining consciousness is a subjective philosophical thing I ran with it
I only know for sure that I'm conscious.
We can all be right because like Aguy says there is no way to know empirically.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 10:26 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:07 am
It's more than just a difference concerning terminology. CJYman builds a long, circular argument on this definition.
No assumptions are required for mechanical induction. In this respect, it is no different than computer modeling.
Comment by Zachriel — May 21, 2008 @ 11:07 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:23 am
How do chess programs beat world champions?
That may have some relevance to the issues of foresight and consciousness.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 21, 2008 @ 11:23 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:32 am
nullasalus,
And again: Rather than saying "I've shown it's not evolution, and I don't know what might be responsible - let's explore", he instead says "I think intelligent agency is the answer". He, like Dembski (and FMM here and 99% of ID folks I've talked to), assumes that "intelligent agency" is a perfectly meaningful term that we all understand because, well, we are intelligent agents for example. But of course a sample of one does not define a class, and offering "intelligent agency" as a hypothesis is really a Rorshach Inkblot of an answer, where each ID enthusiast gets to imagine whatever they'd like to believe about it and pretend that that is what the evidence supports.
Or it could describe evolution alone, which learns and remembers and so is "intelligent" too (even though it is nothing but a blind natural process).
So, again, this "mysterious answer" strategy supports everything from an evolutionary algorithms to God Almighty - which is another way of saying it supports no concrete answer at all.
We've been here: My problem is with folks like Ben Stein, and with everyone at the DI who tries to claim scientific support for just one of these answers in order to make science consonant with Christian Theology.
I think they're wrong. A human being with frontal lobe damage can experience pain without emotional affect… and we think we can scientifically describe what a fish on a hook feels?
Not yet they're not, but they're trying pretty hard to mess up high school classes by "protecting the right" of science teachers to start teaching all sorts of nonsense.
To this and comments re: Expelled: Multiple wrongs do not make a right.
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 11:32 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
FMM:
No, I'm afraid it isn't, because as I've shown dictionaries do not say which of these words are actually supposed to imply human-like conscious awareness and which do not, nor do dictionaries spell out the empirically accessible properties that these definitions are based on. Just because the dictionary defines "soul" or "God" or "magic" does not mean these concepts are suitable as scientific explanations.
Yes, you're right: people do not think about these issues very carefully. That is the reason ID "theorists" need to spell out exactly what they believe the evidence supports, instead of using ambiguous terms and letting everybody read into the "theory" whatever they'd like to believe. That is the problem.
We strongly disagree: I absolutely believe my dogs are conscious. I have absolutely no idea how we might ever settle our disagreement scientifically, however. And so again, how can anyone argue that "ID Theory" might be able to decide the matter for "The Cause of Life" when we can't even settle the matter for our dogs?
Correct: To the extent that "ID Theory" is supposed to be serious science, it should NOT be loose with this attribution, and let its proponents interpret it however they'd like to.
And since ID leaves the meaning of it's central explanatory concept ambiguous in this regard, I say ID is nothing but a "subjective philosophical thing".
Nope, sorry - dictionaries don't say if knowing implies consciousness. Scientists actually do have to pin down single, operationalized definitions for their terms (if they want to get published, anyway).
Unless that cause is hard wired too, of course. And what about that cause? What caused that one?
We can play this game as long as you'd care to. You can posit a conscious final cause, and I can posit an unconscious final cause, or we can posit no final cause at all, and we'll just be running through the same old philosophical arguments that people have used for millenia. ID brings nothing new to this.
No, nobody can subject the Intelligent Designer to experiments to see what He would do in novel circumstances.
Processes operating strictly in accordance with "natural law" can be intelligent. Evolutionary processes are an example.
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 11:33 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
kornbelt,
Deep Blue beats human chess champions because it is really good at thinking about chess.
Saying Deep Blue doesn't think about chess is like saying airplanes don't fly because they don't flap their wings
-Drew McDermott
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 11:34 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am
Right. While there are conscious agents in the causal chain, Deep Blue itself is (presumedly) unconscious, and yet has "goals", "plans", "foresight", and "experience" that leads to a "designed" outcome in the face of an uncertain "environment." All without consciousness.
I think the hangup about consciousness with regards to any proximate designer of earth life is a needless diversion and should be jettisoned.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 21, 2008 @ 11:46 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Kornbelt,
We agree. We are making progress!
Now, what does it mean to have a "deliberate intent" if this intent is not conscious?
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 11:57 am
May 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
In the case of Deep Blue, "intent" is its goal of capturing the opponent's king. "Intent" and "goal" seem to me to be synonyms in this case.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 21, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
It's not we who is making progress it's you. We IDers (as far as I can tell) were here from the get go.
Who cares? Deliberate intent has not been brought up in this discussion and was not defined at the outset. Does deep blue have deliberate intent? Does it matter? Does a beaver have deliberate intent? does it matter? how would you know?
Why do you insist here on deveining into things that we can't know empirically? We can know if something is intelligent empirically. Most folks believe we can know if something designed empirically. Why is that not enough for you?
We can talk about conciousness all day but it's not nessary for ID. Get over it
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Aguy:
you operate strictly in accordance with "natural law" and you are intellegent so this is a given
please explain how RM/NS can learn or show foresight.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Deliberate intent? you be the judge"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
FMM,
First of all, as nullasalus points out often, "IDers" as a group do not agree on very much, so even if you happen to think consciousness is not an important part of "ID Theory", others (like nullasalus) disagree with you. If you happen to agree with me that these sort of mental attributes can't be inferred from the evidence, then that is great - we agree. But there are plenty of "IDers" (including the leading ID authors, like Dembski) who argue that a human-like mind is exactly the conclusion that ID supports.
(Added in edit:) And secondly, once one removes the intuitive notions of folk psychology from the "intelligent cause" of ID, it is not clear to most people what remains. So now that we know we agree that consciousness and free will have nothing to do with it, we need to be precise about what does have to do with it.
Again, many IDers would strongly disagree with this statement (they even define intelligence as "not by law or chance" or even as "counterflow: that which nature would not otherwise do"). It really is difficult for me to argue about ID when every IDers thinks such radically different things. If you happen to agree with me on certain points, just realize that in that case I am arguing against others who disagree with both of us.
RM&NS is a learning process, because adaptations that increase reproductive success are preserved in the gene pool. RM&NS does not exhibit "foresight" if we look at its inner workings (which is what we do). However, it may be that all foresight is achieved by some generate-and-test process. Deep Blue's foresight is achieved this way, and maybe human brains do something similar. In other words, maybe all foresight is accomplished by random variation and selection. In that case, one could view the entire evolutionary process as implementing "foresight" (but we get to see the intermediate tests rather than just the products of the search).
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Please provide documentation that Dembski believes that a designer must be conscious I goggled around but found no such thing.
It might also be helpful to provide a link where nullasalus says that consciousness is required for intelligent design.
Just because something is in accordance with natural law does not mean it is reducible to natural law this is what we IDers are getting at with comments like that.
Why do you feel the need to argue at all? Can't we all just get along?
All IDers agree that the question of whether we can infer design empirically is interesting. Most of us think that there are aspects in nature that are best explained as being the result of design. That's about the extent of our agreement.
If you want to argue about something else feel free but realize you are not arguing with ID when you do so.
How does this prove intelegence? All it says is that each generation will be more fit than the last. RM/NS does not learn anything it is the same coming out as it was going in
It might be that the evolutionary process is "implementing" foresight for another entity (maybe the universe) but it does not exhibit foresight and therefore is not intelligent.
I gotta get back to work
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
FMM,
From this very thread:
Again, if you think IDers do not believe the evidence supports a conscious designer with free will, then that's great - we are all in agreement. I'm not going to look up references for you to find quotes to the contrary.
Well no. Just look at Dembski's "Explanatory Filter" to see why you're mistaken here.
Which is completely ambiguous, since many (I think most) IDers believe that to "infer design" means to "infer a conscious being was responsible for some artifact".
And you agree on nothing because you disagree about what "the result of design" means.
What I argue is that unless you make explicit what these terms like "result of design" is supposed to mean, then there is no "ID Theory" at all.
You asked me to explain why RM&NS was capable of learning. Learning is what it does.
Huh? Each generation is different, incorporating the lessons learned in the last generation. Evolution learns from the environment which traits are most fit. Its goal is to produce more fit organisms.
And I think it is exhibiting foresight, just like Deep Blue does.
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Humans seem to exhibit creativity, which is beyond generate and test. Or is it? Did Deep Blue have creativity? (Kasparov claimed to have detected it, which made him accuse IBM of human intervention during the game.) What is creativity? That might be the most difficult word to define. When I write music, my goal is something pleasing to my "aesthetics" while also being "unique" in "certain respects."
At any rate, in the case of the origin of earth life, I think the issue of creativity can be sidelined. The proximate issue isn't how the designer and its goals and abilities came to be, but what minimum requirements the designer must have. The proximate designer need not be creative at all. It need only have a goal (created by itself, or assigned to it by another agent), algorithms and data sufficient to find solutions to achieve it goal given the environment.
One difference is, Deep Blue came to the game with a vast arsenal of "front loading." What did the "agent" of evolution, whether that be the laws of nature or something more complex, come to the "game" with? This is the question, isn't it.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 21, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
kornbelt,
We do know that generate-and-test can result in creativity, because we build systems using generate-and-test algorithms that produce novel solutions to problems. Deep Blue is an example of this. (Kasparov claimed to have detected "intelligence", but as we've seen these dictionary-defined mentalistic terms are all too vague for discussions like these). Some people (like Penrose) think human cognition has other methods besides gen-and-test to come up with novel solutions, but none of these ideas are very well developed yet.
Everything is always "front-loaded" by the nature of whatever exists. What you really mean by front-loading, I think, is that the generator is somehow constrained, so the tester has fewer candidates to test. But natural law constrains everything that happens, in evolutionary processes and everything else. There may be other constraints that we don't understand (this is what people like Stuart Kauffman think, and I think he's right).
Yes indeed - I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here. But we need to either drop these connotation-laden words like "agent" from the discussion or give them precise definitions!
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
aiguy,
Behe has said it may well be natural mechanisms that were front-loaded - he believes in common descent, certainly evolution (though he also seems to question certain explanations for generating useful mutations.) You say '99% of the ID folks you talk to' butcher agency - my response is that 99% of the ID critics I talk to butcher agency and evolution. They know 'mutation + stuff dies or reproduces' and that's it. They don't know neutral drift, epigenetics, some think the very thought of punctuated equilibrium is a creationist conspiracy, and so on - and few critics seem to care about that. And, in the exact mirror, many believe that 'evolution shows there is no intelligence and that's what the evidence supports'.
I think the only assumption is that 'intelligent agency' is meaningful enough to be a point at which people start exploring. Just as it was meaningful enough to completely discard before they started taking the angle they did.
I don't think, especially if it is 'God Almighty', that a concrete answer can be given besides on the scale of evolution or cosmology. Interestingly enough, neither do ID proponents in the mainstream; most of the time I see them insisting that the designer can't be identified nor does it need to be, so what's lacking here is a concrete answer to a question they're not engaging directly anyway.
Again, I have no problem with that question not providing a definite answer. I think the recognition of the question's difficulty and nature would be a drastic improvement over the recent past.
First, there are plenty of people who try to claim scientific support for just one answer in order to make science consonant not with agnosticism, but atheism.
Second, I wouldn't deny that a whole lot of the motivation behind ID was in response to that sort of game (Though frankly, I think there are jews, buddhists, muslims, even deists and others who are attracted to ID at this point, at least in the broad range.) But if critics are motivated against ID first and foremost because they don't like the attempts to make or view science compatible with faith - then this isn't really about science anyway. I'm not going to swallow a line of 'well, they just think science should remain pure of political influences and not be used to back up metaphysics'.
Third - ID does have the advantage of approaching a less aggressive question, and investigating ways to identify artifacts made by beings even vaguely analogous to humans. Sure, it's less of a focus due to the political and theological fights, but that doesn't bother me - the potential there is intriguing, to me at least.
You think they're wrong, sure. I think they're wrong. It's possible that many scientists, if pressed, would say they're getting outside of science. Yet it happens - and the excess is nothing new, nor is it limited in scope. Asking why this happens is a question that could lead to some interesting revelations.
And I agree. The problem is, what's the absolute 'right' way to handle ID? Pretend science was completely objective, lacking distortion and politicizing and misunderstanding, until ID came along? That can't be it, because that's nonsense. We can argue that ID is different because many of the proponents are motivated by metaphysics, perhaps? But so are many of ID's critics. Should we highlight the problems of defining and discovering agency/intelligence? Alright, but that leaves us with gaping questions and a natural urge to at least square inclinations with the data anyway.
I've offered up one of my own ways out - recognize the complexities (and validity) of the issue being raised, yet also the limitations of science to definitely rule on the answer. And I think this path has been examined, and rejected, because it's believed that there's vastly more to gain socially/politically by pretending otherwise.
And, just saw this.
Or we need to explore what the varieties of 'agent' may well cover, and recognize the variety involved. 'Evolution' is connotation-laden and lacking a precise definition, but there's no reason to drop that word.
Comment by nullasalus — May 21, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
nullasalus,
I think there are significant differences between the butchering of evolutionary ideas and the offering of "agency" as a scientific explanation. There certainly are well defined scientific evolutionary hypotheses, and those hypotheses are well-understood, and are declared to be false (or inadequate) by IDers and others (like me). In contrast, there is no well-defined scientific hypothesis of "agency" that can even be evaluated against the evidence; we don't know what the evidence is supposed to show.
I'm always in favor of people realizing that clarity and certainty are rarely understated.
All of science is always consonant with both theism and atheism.
Sorry but that really is my line. It's about not co-opting science to support things that science can't support, no matter what it is. Dawkins co-opts science to hawk atheism; I complain. Dembski does it for theism; I complain about that too.
If you subtract the anthropomorphic intuitions, there is nothing remaining of this analogy. That is what I think this thread will show. In contrast to your views, FMM here denies that IDers even try to demonstrate conscious intent, and believes this "vague analogy" has nothing to do with consciousness or volition. Once those are taken out of the discussion, it becomes difficult to imagine any meaningful criteria to distinguish intelligent from unintelligent processes.
Correct. ID is just made it a lot worse.
Yes, this is exactly what we must do. Our "natural urges" are sated by philosophy, religion, and our every day musings, just like always.
It has not been rejected by me - I am 100% in favor of your method. Recognize the complexities of the questions, and recognize the limitations of science, and respect those limitations!
Sorry, I disagree: No theoretical constructs that are advanced as explanations in evolutionary theory are difficult to relate to our shared empirical experience. Mutations and differential reproduction and drift and epigenetic information… all of these have unproblematic, concrete meaning. We just don't happen to think these things fully account for life, but that is a different problem.
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
aiguy,
But we can explore it. We can take certain things to be express assumptions, and then have a look at the data, and see where we go - even while admitting that we're running with assumptions. Is it scientific? Personally, I don't think so. Yet it's still valid and worth the ink. And it was happening (crudely, flippantly) before ID arrived on the scene; they just added more voices.
I don't want to get into questions of motives. I'll just say again that this abuse was rife in 'science' well in advance of ID, even without YEC being involved. I'm willing to bet that there's a PETA member out there who thinks all this ID talk is nonsense, and the real abuse of science is from guys like James D Rose.
My third point was related to questions of smaller design, like literally finding an artifact on (say) another planet, or exploring ways to more positively identify specifically human-like intention.
More than that, I don't think anything is necessarily wrong with 'anthropomorphic intuitions' so long as they're qualified. I've read FMM's comments in other threads, and think they're interesting - if he's saying an agent can truly be an agent, but doesn't necessarily have to be conscious as humans know it, that's just one more avenue to explore.
I disagree. I think ID's just the yin that's finally balancing out a whole lot of yang. So to speak.
That's fine, it's a great ideal. I'd love for it to happen. But can you really name any time when science wasn't filled with all kinds of fights and controversies like this, and it wasn't because the topic was so conventionally dull and low-stakes anyway?
That's not to say it shouldn't be pursued.
And if you were representative of the majority of people interested in this fight, there'd be no fight for me. Unfortunately, it's not the case, and the result means a convoluted discussion. I'd be interested in seeing a scientific heavyweight waltz out and denounce all sides, ID proponent and no-ID proponent. I think Ken Miller was moving in that direction, but apparently Myers spooked him out of it.
But I'm not talking about the constructs within the theory, but the word itself. If it were just 'change over time' that would be one thing, but it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, not all of them necessarily ignorant.
Comment by nullasalus — May 21, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
OK, I'll tentatively buy that definition of creativity: novel solutions to a goal.
Assuming a mechanistic sort of reality at the bottom of the ontological pond, I would agree that there is always an implicit order at any state of the system that entirely predicts any future state. But is it safe to assume that? Is this something that can be sidelined?
I would say that things that add to the Front Loading Factor (FLF) would be specificity of the goal, more and faster algorithms to generate and test for a solution, information about previous attempts at the goal. More of these things in a given closed system means more front loading, by my definition.
By "agent" I meant simply "goal seeker" or "problem solver." I have no problem dropping that word from the thread.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 21, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Aguy:
.
Quote:
All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
End quote Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.5
It's impossible to argue with you Darwinists you believe such radically different things
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Ah, but is aiguy a Darwinist?
Comment by Alan Fox — May 21, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
aiguy (to fmm):
Um, did you skip the discussion on the Limiting the Designer thread, where Allen MacNeill said:
and…
I realize you were asked by fmm specifically about "RM/NS," but since mutation isn't random nor the most important source of variation, and selection isn't the only important factor in preservation and proliferation of geno/phenotypes, I don't see how you can dismiss things like foresight with an appeal to RM/NS.
Comment by Joy — May 21, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
It really doesn't matter except for my little joke
What matters is that in order for anyone to take his opinion seriously he needs to
1) show that Dawkins (and the vast majority of scientists) are mistaken scientifically
or
2) Show that Dawkins' (and the vast majority of scientists) opinions here are not scientific
Either way he will need to be making the same kinds of arguments that ID does and facing the same kind of opposition. From now on when ever he presents arguments for his opinion I will ask what sort of papers he has published and point out that he has yet to present a distinguishing testable prediction.
Once he has done all that we can finally get down to our disagreements about the nature of intelegence.
Welcome to our side Aguy. Good luck
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Random refers to random with respect to fitness, which is generally well-supported.
Evolutionary processes are a type of learning, certainly by induction. That genomes can store information for later use can be considered a type of "foresight". Aiguy repeatedly used scare quotes and included an explanation of what he meant, as in this statement.
The usual concept of foresight is that we in some way model the future. We then make changes to the model *before* we implement our solution. Evolution implements and tests at every step. Evolution rewards the prepared, so we can imagine a type of "foresight", for instance, genomes that keep spare parts around that have been useful in the past, or developmental patterns that allow for rapid adaptation. But this is stretching the definition somewhat.
In any case, evolution does learn by induction, and that makes it intelligent. Intelligent Design equivocates on the term "intelligent".
Comment by Zachriel — May 21, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Keep in mind that CJYman is using different defintions.
By target, you seem to mean an unrealized goal. Computers can find paths to unrealized goals. Indeed, they are quite adept at desig