Not Completely Stealthy?
by JoyAfter watching as a number of threads descended into chaos from interesting starts, an underlying oddity seems to beg attention from the fisticuffs over word usage that has become so prevalent of late. In the Post-Wedge World the perennial dueling metaphysics hasn't waned one bit, but something new has come to the fore.
We've been mixing it up with a commenter who calls himself "aiguy" to identify with the field of computer science called "Artificial Intelligence." It would appear that he has a problem with ID's use of the word "Intelligent" to describe its focus. Aiguy tells us that we have no definition of intelligence for either AI or ID, but he wants ID to drop the term anyway, perhaps so he can feel better about the use of it in his own discipline of science. Who knows?
If it were just this one critic who was bent by the terminology it would just be a single critic with a single issue about terminology. Instead, aiguy is just the latest in a string of critics who have lodged complaints in recent months about ID's use of the word "Intelligent" and insisted that it be dropped from the lexicon.
It strikes me that with such universal focus on the word - whether the complaint is that it's a metaphysical concept or an ill-defined term - the 'other' word has slipped under the radar into mainstream usage. Is it now okay to speak of biological systems in terms of "Design" so long as "Intelligent" isn't attached?
June 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Nobody demands that ID drop the term intelligence. But, since the term intelligence is central to understanding what ID actually is, an operational definition of the term is warranted. Here are some quotes from one of the main proponents of ID:
Is there a way that ID can be studied without knowing what Dembski means by 'intelligence' or 'intelligent causes'?
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 10:52 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am
"Initiating deliberate, intentional change for some purpose that might benefit the organism". Would that satisfy aiguy? Non materialists will still recognize creativity as intelligent and purposeful. Until the materialists can demonstrate precisely how creativity can originate accidentally, devoid of purpose or intention — until someone comes up with a materialistic alternative to "natural selection" doing something to a series of "random mutations" — it doesn't matter what you call it. It's either accidental and devoid of purpose or it is intelligently, purposefully organized.
Questions about Materialism
http://30135.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — June 10, 2008 @ 11:04 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Bert, the problem is that terms like 'deliberate' or 'intentional' or 'purpose' then need an operational definition.
For example, how do we tell if something was 'intentional'? I know you can give me numerous examples of stuff that everybody recognizes as intentional. But that is not the same as allowing to discern the intentional from the unintentional.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 11:12 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:15 am
hrun:
For the record, I don't care what Dembski means by 'intelligence' or 'intelligent causes'. What it means to me is oppositional to blind, undirected and accidental, thus displaying the operation of a quality of awareness and the organizational ability to design. Yes, that is a quality assigned to consciousness, and consciousness is as ill-defined as intelligence is. Yet there is a huge multi-disciplinary, fully scientific quest ongoing to try and pin it down both operationally and philosophically within the boundaries of legitimate science.
The 'fuzziness' of the terms doesn't bother me very much, as we humans are quite used to fuzzy concepts. Science is quite used to fuzzy concepts too, and has come quite far despite their presence. Thus I as an ID supporter have no particular reason to negate the term from what it is that I support.
Nor, you may notice, do I insist that the field of "Artificial Intelligence" drop the term because it's fuzzy and ill-defined.
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 11:15 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Well, that's why I said previously that it is difficult to have discussions on this blog about the merits of ID or front loading, since it is not thought of as a science here, but rather as a form of prose that may change the POV of the reader. If you find this useful, then so be it. Since to me, these fuzzy concepts don't allow me to understand what is meant by ID, I don't find it useful.
Yes. Yet, whenever one of these 'fuzzy concepts' is central to a theory, it gets an operational definition. For example, if there were a study on what is 'alive' in the introduction of the paper, the criteria used to identify life would be listed. That's the difference between science and non-science.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 11:34 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Darwin's central concept (species), based on a fuzzy and arbitrary definition, which itself is based on a fuzzy and arbitrary word (variety), indistinct and arbitrarily chosen, for mere convenience.
Gee, 150 years later and we still haven't defined "species". I guess all that study of evolution was for naught.
Note to culture warriors - pick your battles well. This one is a huge loser.
Comment by chunkdz — June 10, 2008 @ 11:43 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
hrun:
FAPP, the 'operational' definition of intelligent in design scenarios is purposive, self-organized and systematically adaptive. Since it now appears that significant adaptive evolutionary development is more epigenetic than genetic, is seems quite clear that the system's interaction with the environment plays a strong role (i.e., adaptations are NOT "random wrt fitness") in organized changes in expression - and resulting phenotypic change.
Per the various definitions of what qualifies as 'life', I've always taken issue with the requirement for reproduction. Because according to that definition, any organism that does not reproduce (by circumstance, by inability, or by choice) isn't 'alive'. Perhaps that requirement should be placed entirely within the cellular realm, since cells do reproduce even if the organism to which they belong does not. Of course, the pieces-parts of the cells are also replaced on a constant basis during the processes of life, and those are just raw matter that could as easily be a rock or some seawater that definitely isn't 'alive'. Funny how it's all so fuzzy once you get down to detail, isn't it?
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 11:48 am
June 10th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Joy, what does 'purposive' mean?
As I said, that's why in science, these fuzzy concepts get defined when they are being studied. You can certainly make a case that self-reproduction should or should not be part of the definition of life. So when you put forth a study on life, you should let the reader know how life is defined in this specific study.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 11:53 am
June 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
chunkdz:
Oddly, this new tactic of gross double standard seems like a sure-fire winner to the culture warriors, almost as if they simply can't see how obvious it is. Go figure… §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Also interesting to note that Darwin's theory was useful even though his 'definition' of species was fuzzy, arbitrary, indistinct, and chosen for mere convenience. Darwin's overt qualification of the word tells us that he probably knew his definition was inadequate, possibly wrong, and perhaps even misleading in the end (it was - a phenotypical definition is just plain wrong in a myriad of cases). But he had work to do, so he embraced the subjectivity. Fuzzy was good enough.
I find Dembski's 'definition' of intelligence as 'that which outputs CSI' to be just as fuzzy, indistinct, arbitrary, and chosen for mere convenience. It might even be wrong, or misleading in the end.
But to impugn the entire study of ID for not having a more rigorous definition is at best disingenuous, at worst hypocritical culture warrior BS.
Comment by chunkdz — June 10, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
hrun:
No, hrun. We are not going to turn this thread into a pre-school level exercise in defining perfectly well-defined terms. You know what purpose is. You just don't like to see it applied to adaptive evolution. Tough titty.
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I had previously written that definitions were context dependent. Give an example of what is studied and you have some context for a definition. If I had used hrun's exact wording "let the reader know how life is defined in this specific study" one might assume that would have ended in a consensus agreement but don't bet on it.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
So hrun, when you put forth a study, you should let the reader know how purposive is defined in this specific study.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Joy,
Luckily, I have a lot of experience in dealing with alcoholics. The dynamic is shockingly similar.
I do loves me some Joy, though!:smile:
Comment by chunkdz — June 10, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
How is species defined? Selection? Natural? Change over time? The definition mavens could have had a field day. There is more than definitional sufficiency motivating this selective feeding frenzy.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I know. I'm glad you wrote this. But it seems whenever we ask for intelligence defined in any context of ID research we get either nothing, or the term intelligence is replaced by other ill-defined concepts like purpose, intent, choice, … which all in themselves demand a context-dependent operational definition.
How about this: Define Intelligence in ANY context of ID research– your choice.
Yes. Exactly. That's what science should be like.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I know perfectly well examples of purpose. That does not mean that I know what you mean by purpose. But, as I said, it's not biggie. Nobody can force you to define these terms. However, until they are actually defined (just like Bradford recognizes), nobody will be able to do any kind of reasonable science of ID.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
hrun:
Why wasn't I asked this question when I brought up the example of extra-terrestrial signaling?
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hi Joy,
Thank you and curse you for putting up this thread.
(I really need to get back to focusing on work).
In other threads I have been challenged to be "equitable" in my expectations of needing definitions. Like you, I don't care what Dembski says. I don't even care what Aiguy says as long as he is consistent.
I am a simple engineer who tends to try to make complex things simple, not the other way around. To me, the term "intelligence" is basically the ability to learn and adapt. Here is the handy dictionary definition I use…
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
"intelligence." Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 10 Jun. 2008. Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.co...
And it matters little whether you call a specific program AI or not, if a program shows an ability to learn it is technically "intelligent" (little "i"). And if a program produces information, especially in the form of drawings, it is capable of "design" (little "d").
Here is a link to a program that with just a schematic and board dimensions will create a circuit board design by "learning" through trial and error how best to place the components and layout copper tracks (in latest version).
Joy, you and I have discussed this enough that I realize your definition of "intelligence" is a little more ambiguty tolerant than most people. To the point that at one time you agreed earth's biomass itself could be considered intelligent. I'm not sure if we ever specifically got into it, but I suspect you and I share similar views on the ability of animals to be both intelligent and conscious.
So, to continue the line of discussion that I was having with Pez…
I suggest that it is primarily conscious driven purpose is what ID (big "I", big "D") is mostly about.
One of the things that attracted me to Telic Thoughts is the implied insight that it is purpose, not intelligence, that is the fundamental issue at hand.
For what it is worth, this is how this simple engineer sees it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
And yet again a complete evasion. You claim an operational definition is important in a specific context. I ask you for one in the context of ID and I get nothing but another question. And nobody will be surprised by this.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Joy,
I think I might stay on the AIGuy's Computer thread, since whenever I participate on other threads it appears my posts get deleted and I'm banned. But until then I'll respond to what you've said.
Sorry, but you already have it quite wrong. I have no objection to describing the "focus" of something by using the word "intelligence", because "intelligence" is a general descriptive term. What I point out is that it is meaningless when used as an explanation of anything, and this is what ID tries to do.
If you don't understand the point, substitute "athleticism" for "intelligence" and you should see what I mean.
AI has no dependence on the concept of intelligence, as I've explained at great length in the previous thread. Once again: AI does not use "intelligence" as a theoretical concept 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?
You are making one strawman argument after another; it really is pretty silly to suggest anyone wants to drop the term from the lexicon. Can we have a serious discussion here please?
Let's make this simple.
If you are going to offer an explanation for something, you have to tell us what the explanation is, right? If you say that biological complexity is explained by RM&NS, and I don't know what you mean by RM&NS, I get to ask you what you are talking about, until you can tell me what RM&NS means in a way that I can relate to my observations.
Well, ID offers "intelligence" as an explanation for biological complexity, and I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Do you mean "conscious mind" If that is what you mean, that's fine - but you need to say it. Do you mean "free will" Do you mean "algorithmic process?" Do you mean "anything that can learn" or "anything that can plan" or "anything that can create complex form and function"
It really is much easier than you make it out to be. If everybody spends all this time asking what these words are supposed to mean, the obvious solution is to settle on a lexicon of technical definitions, just like all other academic disciplines have.
I claim that the reason you resist this is because once you attempt to say what it is you are actually talking about, it becomes apparent that what you really mean by the term "intelligence" has nothing to do with observable behaviors at all. Instead, as we've seen time and again, IDists actually mean "conscious free will" when they use this term.
My only point, as always, is that if you mean "conscious free will" then simply say "conscious free will". We will no longer ask for clarifications about what you are talking about, and we can begin to argue about the evidence rather than the meaning of our terms.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Substituting athleticism for intelligence is unnecessary as they have proven not to be analogous. Intelligence as an explanation does not fail in the same way or just because athleticism does.
http://telicthoughts.com/bunny...
http://telicthoughts.com/bunny...
http://telicthoughts.com/bunny...
You can see the difference.
Comment by Pez — June 10, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Just out of curiousity's sake, when do we use the word Athleticism when not refering to people (athletes) or specifically trained animals like racehorses or dogs in reference to some type of competition or the preperation for?
We don't use it to define an ants ability to lift much more than it's body weight nor do we consider a cheetah to be athletic because it can run faster than humans. We consider these abilities to be part of the organisms BASELINE abilities.
I offer that Athleticism is not the same and cannot be swapped out for intelligence in this case because in the case of humans it is used in reference to someone who trains and uses mental discipline and volition to bring themselves above the baseline of human ability (or the inability to do so). The same is true of racehorces and dogs except we provide the training and discipline through our own volition for the animals in question.
Just a thought…..
Comment by Kuma — June 10, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Hi Pez,
Thank you for your thoughtful response on the other thread. If there was something you specifically wanted me to respond to, please use this thread Joy started and I will try to respond.
Excuse my stubborn adherence to my self-imposed ban from Bradford's thread but my personal ethics are weird that way.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Pez,
I honestly do not understand how you believe you shown the analogy between intelligence and athleticism to be flawed, but instead of rehashing that, I shall put it to you in a different way (others have found the athleticism analogy quite helpful).
I have something in my laboratory called X. Can you tell me a single observable aspect of X? Of course you cannot, because I haven't told you anything about it yet.
Now I tell you this: X is intelligent. Can you now tell me a single observable aspect of X? No, because unless you qualify what you mean, the term has no meaning in this context.
I know you will insist that X exhibits "purpose" and "intent", but we have no way to observe purpose and intent, and we will not be able to agree on whether X has purpose and intent or not. You must actually tell me explicitly what procedure I can apply that will tell me if X has purpose and intent or not.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Kuma,
What you've shown is that we cannot use either the concept of athleticism OR the concept of intelligence to explain anything. Nobody can distinguish a "volitional" act from a "nonvolitional" act without an operational definition (such as "the subject verbally reports an intention…").
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Just in passing, I'd like to ask: Has anyone ever taken a course in psychology where they discuss the need for operational definitions?
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Artificial fuzziness! Fuzzy design! Better to fully disclose the source of this tension that finds itself calling to conceal in the fog of fuzziness, rather than to reveal like a bright light that penetrates the dark cloud.
Comment by Stephen — June 10, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
If the concept of intelligence is sufficiently clear for use in ID Theory, why do ID Theorists disagree on the meaning of this word so fundamentally that no commonality can even be found?
Some ID enthusiasts here have said "intelligence" necessarily entails consciousness; others have denied that.
Some have said "intelligence" necessarily transcends physical cause, or is even defined by this attribute; others have denied that.
Some have said "intelligence" requires learning or solving novel problems; others have denied that learning is relevant, and that the problems need not be novel.
Again - if anyone believes the concept of "intelligent cause" is useful in the context of ID, can even the ID proponents here agree on what it is supposed to mean, and provide a single consistent description?
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
TP:
I could go all nit-picky on you here and point out the use of the word "or" in this definition, thereby precluding the insistence that a postulated intelligent designer need be "learning" anything by the exercise of creation. But only because in these interminable semantic arguments about definitions, that one's been tossed more than once.
Ah, but this view is specifically entailed by acceptance of Orch-OR or anything that might tend to look a lot like it per the subject of consciousness. Penrose has given only mere philosophical hints as to the fundamental parameter(s) underlying the process of manifestation, but Hameroff's contribution is strictly physical - the correlates of consciousness… the mechanism(s) of its expression. Which, unlike purely philosophical extrapolations, is 100% 'scientific' dealing with entirely physical structures and processes.
If you accept the existence of physical correlates of consciousness - the mechanism(s) - then you also have to accept that the many particular qualities of consciousness are themselves additive. There is a physical threshold of complexity marking the next level of 'emergence' in a multi-level emergent property of the system.
So single cells can display a level of systemic organization that tickles our concept of "intelligent," but they won't display higher level qualities of consciousness we innately recognize at this end of the spectrum. Hameroff (bless his Pagan heart) has elucidated a specific threshold of complexity for when consciousness becomes entirely creative (and occasionally over-excited) in evolution. The theory is better than anything else coming out of the project. The entire biosphere DOES qualify along a continuum by this theory. Surely we must establish that much before we can reasonably speculate about the 'leap' represented in us as human beings.
Only organic life can display conscious driven purpose. Other physical objects do not, are pretty much just matter controlled by some outside force(s). Which, in the end, our organic bodies may be as well. Which makes the purposive display by organic life all the more organizationally impressive.
I call it the "Prime Directive." Live, be fruitful and multiply, enjoy yourself if you can. "To Live" is to experience. Per this theory, anyway…
and to hrun -
purposive, adjective
having, serving, or done with a purpose.
purpose, noun
a. the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
b. a person's sense of resolve or determination.
c. a particular requirement or consideration, typically one that is temporary or restricted in scope or extent.
- verb [trans.] formal
have as one's intention or objective.
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
aiguy:
And again…
What if I were to tell you that for me, and I suspect for other contributors to this blog, the use of "intelligent" in "Intelligent Design" is entirely descriptive of a general idea of the sorts of behaviors (development of structures) life displays in the phenomenon we call "evolution."
IOW, I have no problem with "intelligent" as a general descriptive term. Because that's precisely what it is. It stands in opposition to "Neodarwinian Orthodoxy" and its notorious gene-centric view of evolution. Anacronym-described as RM-NS. Rather than the attempts to adapt physically being entirely happenstance ('random') and selected over time (there's just not enough time to account for it via uniformitarian processes), ID suggests that adaptive evolution is driven by purposeful activity in response to environmental cues. It's creative, some of it's not going to be very good. But some of it will be spectacular, and THERE is where selection plays its strongest role.
You may be stuck in a stereotype, judging by the importance you want to give to what Dembski (or some other metaphysically motivated IDer) says about it. I'm not talking about God/gods. I'm talking about life. Yes, I may personally reserve the judgment about whether or not deities are involved, but that's nobody's business but my own. It's not what I am supporting scientifically about evolution, so isn't an issue to anyone but anti-religious bigots.
As a descriptive term in contrast to the blind watchmaker view of evolution, the word "intelligent" works just fine, thanks. I think we should keep it.
I have never asserted such a thing, free will doesn't have much to do with the mechanisms of consciousness as I am inclined to support, at least until you get all the way to 'higher' mammals. Irrelevant to the use of "intelligent" in Intelligent Design.
Please do not derail this thread to your issues with free will and other such superfluous definitional spats. I will consider it spamming the board so it will grow beyond my ability to participate. I don't look kindly on that.
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Why wasn't I asked this question when I brought up the example of extra-terrestrial signaling?
The ET example I had used ended with earth signal detectors finding a story transmitted through code. The detectors were trained to look for encoded signals. They thought digital rather than analog signals would be a clue. They looked for patterns linked to concrete celestial objects and then, after making those connections, eventually were able to decipher more abstract concepts from signaling they later dubbed the cosmic dictionary. After much study a language was deduced and used to read stories transmitted by the source. There was a search methodology patterned after the expectation of signaling from an intelligent source as opposed to a natural object like a pulsar. The perspective replaced the expectation of regular clock-like pulses, one would expect from a neutron star, with an expectation of irregular signaling. Decryption principles were incorporated into their work. Coding itself was predicted to be a sign of intelligence and deciphering of a code evidence. Use of a code to express ideas, familiar to designer ideas of the human species, was conclusive evidence. Overall was the idea that advanced intelligence would not expected to be confined to one species on one planet in a tiny speck of the universe. If life arose here the expectation was that natural laws would allow it elsewhere.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Hi Joy,
In an attempt to help keep this thread a reasonable length and topical I will simply say "Thank You for your response" and hope everyone agrees that the topic of Free Will is clearly Metaphysical and shouldn't be used as an argument either for or against ID.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Joy,
I don't understand. ID is a description of biological things? Of evolution?
In that case, saying that the cause of life is intelligent says nothing specific. OK, that's fine. You really can't say what ID theory posits, except in the most vague and unscientific terms.
I'm going from what people here at TT say, actually.
Why wouldn't you say evolutionary processes are intelligent? (please don't quote Dawkins if you don't want me to quote Dembski!) It seems to me that evolution learns and solves problems, and that seems generally intelligent to me.
Bradford has. Mike Gene has. This is my point - there is simply no agreement even among IDers, even among contributors on this one forum.
Others here disagree…
Others here disagree.
Sounds like you already want to ban me for discussing the meaning of intelligence, which I believe is the topic of this thread
Anyway, until you IDers even here at TT can come up with some consistent meaning for this explanation you're talking about, everyone will continue to talk in circles and continue to talk past each other AND your critics.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I note that so far, nobody has addressed any of the points I've made.
1) Is anyone familiar with operational definitions for mentalistic terms that are used in the scientific study of human intelligence (i.e. psychology)? Can you say why you think ID has no need of this type of methodology?
2) Can anyone answer my question regarding what the label "intelligent" adds to our understanding of the observable properties of an undefined entity?
3) Since IDers disagree so fundamentally about the meaning of ID's explanation, can anyone here say what is common to all of the different "versions" of ID, even here at TT? Kornbelt believes an unconscious, algorithmic process is intelligent. Bradford believes that intelligent processes must be conscious and not be the result of physical necessity. Joy thinks there is no specific meaning at all to the term in the context of ID. And so on.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
To be completely accurate I would impute intelligence to the signaling example I previously used even though the transmitting mechanism would be a machine and the information transmitted with some ET computer system. It becomes a matter of reasonable inferences about the source of the computer program. I can also assume free will without specifying this in a research paper. Operational definitions are one thing. Metaphysical specifications another.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Bradford,
There are lots of problems with your "decoding a story" thought experiment. I'll just point out one: When we decoded the story, we would infer that something with the same sort of language facilities that humans have was responsible. Great - scientists know the mechanisms that generate these abilities reside in Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the human brain, and so if we follow the evidence where it leads, we will make a strong induction that similar complex physical mechanisms are possessed by whatever is sending this encoded story. Bingo - a very strong inference for biological creatures like human beings! Probably not what you were after, but SETI astrobiologists would be deliriously happy!
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Bradford,
What do you mean by "intelligence" in this context? How about one final definition so I don't have to keep asking?
I couldn't have said it better myself. Without operational definitions, ID is nothing but metaphysical speculation.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
TP:
Oh, come on, TP! You know I'll mix it up with you if you're willing. But I most certainly agree that the question of free will isn't applicable to the term "intelligent" in Intelligent Design, any more than it is in "Artificial Intelligence." That's a red herring (or maybe just a sardine).
I can follow to a certain point, and then my system just quits. I could get all the way to the 400+ end of the Memory Hole last night, sometimes I can't get past 120 or so. I don't know why… maybe the gods of internet just hate me.
Free Will is a concept entirely restricted to the top end of the evolutionary chain of complexity. It's (like 'mind') undemonstrable in the lab, cannot be examined by microscope or "Will-Meter." Thus it resides firmly in the realm of still-mataphysical concepts and does not apply to the subject of intelligent design in evolution of life. It's a product (effect), not a cause (until we invented 'science').
The issue in ID, far as I've been able to tell, is whether the evolution of life displays purposive design. The incoming evidence of massive front-loading and non-random development tends to indicate that there is something more than random going on, and since we are the ones looking into it, we can define it as "intelligent" if we want to. Everything else is the politics of getting everybody to agree.
Which is why the current critics' choice of picking on that particular term is so intriguing to me. As if biology is now entirely poised to accept that evolution is "design" and "designed" (even if just by life itself, gods need not be involved), but still object to "intelligent" for its previous linkage to divine purpose…
At which point we could argue endlessly about what "divine" might mean. Semantic nit-picking can go on forever. It's a distraction, not a point.
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
You don't have to do anything. Just read the prior post on how intelligence would be detected in a specific example of ET signaling. But you are going to keep asking because that is the operational shtick.
Operational definitions are one thing. Metaphysical specifications another.
And the operational definition need not include the metaphysical speculations about free will you use to derail these discussions.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So you and Bradford are diametrically opposed on this issue. Can you see why we critics might have a hard time understanding how to argue with the idea of ID? Nobody can say what the common idea behind ID is - they can only repeat these purposefully ambiguous words "intelligence" and "design", and then say completely contradictory things about them when asked.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Human like intelligence is what I would have expected. I'm not after anything else in that circumstance because that is the most reasonable expectation. The point is there is no intrinsic barrier to detecting intelligence and we assume the biological similarities. There is no means of establishing it through observation.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Bradford,
The only thing we detect by observation is the coded message. Anything else you'd like to say is an inference. If you want to infer the sender could do other things humans do, you can - you can infer they might be able to interact, learn, and solve novel problems, for example, rather than inferring the story they sent is the only thing they are capable of sending. That would be a reasonable inference. Another reasonable inference from the same evidence would be that they have human-like brains. So this example isn't really very useful in the context of ID.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
aiguy:
Probably not, but that's what happens with scientific theories and hypothesis. Among other things, the ones with the most logically consistent premises (including defintitions of terms and interpretation of data) based on observations will eventually ride to the top. Controversy is healthy — in fact necessary — within science. Science thrives on it.
Now, back to what you stated earlier:
So, you are saying that there *is* a specific behavior which indicates what we would title "intelligence." You are explicitly stating that there is a specific style of behavior that qualifies as "intelligent." If so, then please define that type of behavior. You will notice that you can only define that behavior in terms of the effects it produces. I do know that consistently better than chance targeting is one aspect. In continuing to define what we understand as "intelligent behavior," you will begin to see correlations with specific patterns (such as CSI) and with abilities such as foresight which routinely arrive at those patterns and which is a necessary condition for certain patterns as I have previously discussed with you. This is why "foresight" (which I have previously shown *does* exist and which *is* a condition in specific cases) is one aspect and partial definition of "intelligence."
Artificial intelligence can produce the same patterns as true intelligence without the foresight. But, that is only because the foresight is provided in the creation of the AI. In fact, COI Theorems suggest that the amount of information (as a measure of improbability) which an AI program will output will be no more than the information (as a measure of improbability) inputted. IOW, will the AI system output more information using the rules of inference than the improbability associated with the configuration necessary to discover rules of inference? Which brings us to the question: "will an AI program, by chance, organize itself absent previous "˜true' intelligence?" "Will any program discover the rules of inference if not purposefully (ooooh "¦ the dreaded "p" word) programmed to do so. And even more so: "is it possible to generate 'true' intelligence (foresight and its application) absent 'true' intelligence." Once fully formulated, I do believe that a Law of Conservation of Information will provide some clarification to these questions.
Now, we can get back to the science of ID.
Yes, foresight, does help to explain certain patterns, even if foresight itself can not *yet* be explained. Just as "gravity," as a law, can explain certain phenomenon even though no one yet knows what exactly is gravity.
The only hypothesis? Yes, one hypothesis is that intelligence is a necessary condition in the generation of certain patterns. The other hypothesis is that "intelligence" is detectable.
I agree.
Yes! Definitely! ID theory is at the least attempting to present a more formal definition of intelligence and a method for its detection. However, the field of artificial intelligence is not.
Comment by CJYman — June 10, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
This is why I think you are a dishonest debater. I've repeatedly indicated that a mechanism not having free will can be relevant to evidence for intelligence and intelligent design. Free will is superfluous to research and papers need not include references to the topic.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Including the biological nature of the beings themselves. Yet the messages are critical to the inferences made. Messages can convey evidence for advanced intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
So you have Bradford's version of ID, Joy's version, MikeGene's version, Nullasalus's version, Dembski's, Behe's, etc.
Surprise, everyone has some differing views on the subject. There are different "camps" even in well established and entrenched disciplines and sciences. What's really the point of all this whining of yours?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 10, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Hi Aiguy,
I may not be anybody, but …
http://telicthoughts.com/bunny...
http://telicthoughts.com/bunny...
http://telicthoughts.com/bunny...
etc,
Quoting me:
Comment by Pez — June 10, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
CJYMan,
Until ID presents one coherent description of what it is attempting to infer, there is no theory and there is no hypothesis.
I am saying the exact opposite. AI does not try to say anything of the sort. If you consider that chess-playing is an example of intelligence, fine - you can try to make a computer play chess. If you think chess-playing isn't an example of "real" intelligence (whatever that is supposed to mean) - nobody cares.
Nobody can define this class of behaviors in any useful way, which is why nobody in AI ever pretends to.
We can't define this class of behaviors at all, and we don't try to, because it makes no difference.
Kineseologists study athleticism, but there is no formal definition of that term. Why isn't that a problem? Because kineseologists never try to explain anything on account of kineseology. It doesn't mean anything to say that a cheetah is or isn't athletic; say whatever you want about it, and it makes no difference.
Better than chance? Then gravity is intelligent.
"That which can create CSI" is your definition? Then ID says that CSI is created by that which can create CSI, which isn't helpful.
Does foresight entail consciousness? If so, say it. If not, then processes which have no conscious awareness, no free will, and operate according to nothing but pure physical causality can be shown to have foresight. So ID does can not distinguish intelligence from other natural processes by means of "foresight".
Why do you say AI systems have no foresight? Is it because you really mean conscious foresight? If so, then say it.
This is nonsense. AI programs demonstrably learn and interact with their environments, changing their behaviors and adapting, and solving novel problems. You can't show that this is not true any more than you can show human beings are incapable of doing these things.
What is the difference between "true" intelligence and "fake" (or "false") intelligence? Can you say which experiment will distinguish these two types of intelligence?
I'm not asking anybody to explain foresight. Gravity is characterized by its effects in testable ways; I can tell you exactly what gravity will do in a given experimental situation. You can say nothing about what intelligence will do in any situation at all. Not one, single, solitary thing, in any situation you can think of.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Bradford,
Stop that. You have contradicted yourself many times already, as others here have repeatedly pointed out.
You have said that intelligence necessarily is NOT the result of physical necessity. Do you, or do you not, believe this to be true?
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
KB,
The point is that if IDers can't make sense of their own theory, nobody else will be able to either. Whine about that.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
aiguy:
It's a description of how biological things evolve adaptively to their environment, including cooperative ecosystem.
You demand a specificity that doesn't exist. There is no single "Theory of Intelligent Design," there are ideas that people are exploring. Can you tell me why that should be verboten in 'science' or philosophy, or why it can never be allowed past the materialist roadblock?
You yourself gave the definition as a "descriptive term" appealing to something vague and fuzzy that we DO intuit about certain actions/activities. I see no difference of application of that term in Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Design.
As for OOL, I believe the cause of life is beyond the discussion of whether or not the evolution of life is a manifestation of intelligent design. That's for another thread (maybe you should try one of the bunny threads). I'm sure you'd get lots of participants.
We're all just trying to express in English what it is we believe about life and evolution. You're of course going to get less-than specifics, and a good amount of ambiguity and some overlap and some holes. Our limitations, the most stimulating aspect of trying to communicate ideas. We love it, or we wouldn't be here.
I think our focus is on different systems and/or phenomena. I don't think the processes are intelligent. I think they are artifacts of intelligent design originating at a higher organizational level. Creative solutions to environmental challenges, self-organized by the organism (the being which organizes and puts systems to good use). "Organism" (yet another definitional ambiguity) being the emergent whole of systematic parts. This is where we get the consciousness overlap.
Sort of a "top-down" view, as opposed to a "bottom-up" view.
Perhaps you are right. In which case science will do what it's always done - follow the evidence - and end up with something that looks a lot like EAM. Culture warriors on both 'sides' will fade away. That's okay with me, too.
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Joy,
This is what intelligence is? No problem with that certainly.
I have said hundreds and hundreds of time - I absolutely love speculations about mind in nature. Philosophy is where all of the most interesting topics are discussed. Nobody needs to operationalize anything.
If people would simply stop equivocating on the meaning of terms, and stop equivocating on the epistemological status of ID (science vs. philosophy), I would not be a "critic" here but rather a participant.
That is because you have not read what I've written. ID offers "inteligence" as an explanatory construct. AI does no such thing.
And me too. I think what you said here makes perfect sense, thanks.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I wouldn't necessarily say it is the only hypothesis, it is the central one. There are corollaries of that hypothesis — such interpretations of No Free Lunch and Conservation of Information are subject to investigation. Also related are the topics of genetic entropy and possibly steganogrphy.
OOL research in principle can falsify a major corollary implicit in ID literature, namely, approximate Turing machines of life cannot arise spontaneously.
I seriously doubt however OOL will succeed (unless they redefine and equivocate their goals).
The corollaries of ID are falsifiable, imho, and thus via way of contrapositive logic, the central claim of ID is falsifiable…
As far as I know, in the Popperian sense, a claim does not need to be ultimately provable in order to be falsifiable. If it is falsifiable, then it can fall in the domain of science.
That also means, a definition of Intelligence may not be needed, for research to proceed so long as it can be shown the attempts at falsification of the corollaries can falsify the central hypothesis.
In either case, the question don't appear to be going away. For the sake of argument, one can call ID crank philosophy, but it is apparent, the central question of ID hasn't been snuffed out…
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hi Aiguy,
This metaphysical speculation is not the finding of science. Correlation, not generation, is the finding.
Now that you've been called out again trying to use neuroscience in support of your metaphysic you may respond at me with bold font and exclamation points to say that the issue is not settled scientifically and that is what you were claiming your ownself.
You've already said, by the way, that inferring human-like mind does not necessarily entail inferring humans or human brains. I would say such speculation would go beyond the evidence.
Comment by Pez — June 10, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Sal,
As Joy and others here have pointed out, there is no single thing called "ID" as either philosophy OR science. Virtually everyone who talks about it means something different. ID is neither a scientific theory nor a philosophical position. It is completely ambiguous collection of ideas that people have which have not yet been catalogued or described with any rigor or consistency.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I believe the no free will argument applied to organisms, as opposed to technology, is BS. A result directed by a mind can be distinguished from one induced by rain, wind, gravity…
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Pez,
We infer causation from constant correlation, like all scientific findings. I could say the same to you: If you believe language generation is caused by intelligence, how can you show this is true? All you can show is that language generation is correlated with intelligence, not that it is caused by it. (Unless of course you make the fatal error of saying language generation requires intelligence by definition
)
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Neither was there a very specific idea as to what change over time meant in 1860, 1870, 1880. The concept evolved.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Bradford,
That was a simple question, to which you gave an incoherent answer. You have said that intelligence necessarily is NOT the result of physical necessity. Do you, or do you not, believe this to be true?
If there is someday a theory of what "intelligence" is, then there someday may be a theory of how it might have been involved in the origin of life. I would love it. But there is no such thing at the present time, and that is what I've been trying to tell you.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
It is not incoherent. You just need to use your intelligence.:mrgreen: A mind directed outcome is not physical necessity. That paradigm is the creature of physical determism.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Bradford,
Ok, then. I would like to focus on your version of ID, because I think you are the most forthcoming about what you are actually talking about, and what you are talking about is what I believe most ID enthusiasts are talking about. (Joy was forthcoming too, but she does not necessarily share your views about what is implied by the "intelligence" in ID. That's fine).
So let's get this perfectly straight just one more time. In your view, if some action is caused deterministically by some antecedent physical cause, then that action is by definition not an intelligent action. Is that correct?
Likewise, if something results from a "random" cause (say, a random quantum event) then that is not an example of intelligent cause either.
Likewise, no combination of deterministic and random causes can result in an intelligent behavior, by definition.
Is this the way you'd like to characterize intelligence? If not, can you tell me how you would like to characterize it?
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Hi Aiguy,
I don't have to enlist neuroscience to support my metaphysical position in order to point out that you have done it once again.
Even though you keep repeating, for hundreds of times, that it cannot be so used.
Comment by Pez — June 10, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Pez,
I will not argue metaphysics here. My point to Bradford was that if you'd like to start making inferences about what is at the other end of a SETI signal, the inferences to physical attributes are just as valid - no more, no less - than inferences to "mental" attributes.
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
What you pointed out is not true.
Language is a means of conveying meaning and information via a code. This entails purpose and this purpose can be inferred.
Inferring purpose does not require inferring any physical attributes.
Only metaphysics requires that you attach them, or worse, that you make them prerequisites.
Comment by Pez — June 10, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Pez,
I don't know what you mean by purpose. I might say the purpose of the moon is to block out the Sun's light during eclipses. Is that the same sense of "purpose" you are using here?
Read what I said: if you'd like to start making inferences about what is at the other end of a SETI signal, the inferences to physical attributes are just as valid - no more, no less - than inferences to "mental" attributes.
I'm not talking about what inferences are required for "purpose" (however you mean that). I'm saying that if you want to start making inferences about the "mental" properties of the SETI senders, then by the exact same evidence and reasoning, the inferrences to physical properties are just as valid. So we infer an intelligent biological organism is sending the signals, which isn't REALLY what ID wants to infer after all… is it?
Comment by aiguy — June 10, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
aiguy:
Here we have a philosophical position being real-time fleshed into an arguably 'scientific' investigation. To my mind, the postulates of ID require some 'science' that purely philosophical discussions can safely ignore. We *are* looking for operationalization.
[sigh!] Aiguy, you and I have 'known' each other for years. Literally. You don't know how glad I'd be if you'd drop your nervous concern about the metaphysics and go ahead and contribute what you have to contribute. I suspect it would be at least very thought-provoking, if not entirely supportive.
Whenever a critic descends into the labyrinth of definitional semantics it's a sure sign that the discussion's going nowhere fast. I've said as honestly as I know how that your definitions and mine aren't all that oppositional. Fuzzy terms are fuzzy terms, that's what we always start with when developing full-fledged conceptual theory. In any realm of intellectual endeavor. Your insistence on this descent in several threads indicates to me you're either a die-hard culture warrior (but since you've never been an identifiable Swamp denizen, that seems wrong to me) or you've something useful to contribute but can't get past the stereotype prejudices of the culture war itself.
I'm here to tell you that the culture war is just a diversion, both fringe camps are going to get left out in the cold when science moves on. As it is doing right now, paying no attention to spontaneous eruptions of fire in the wings. Evolutionary biology really needs a new narrative, because things just aren't as simple as they've been portraying for 150 years. Unfortunately, they've cut off an entire avenue of useful approach for no good reason other than it sounds a little like religion. Tough titty. I'd also be here to tell you there's a reason human beings have a spiritual impulse, so that so much of our explanations of the world revolve around such magical speculations.
Thanks to you for noticing, aiguy. Can you now participate fully without scripted distractions? I'd sure love you to!
Comment by Joy — June 10, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
But you're the one whining first that we all cannot agree on definitions. The bottom line is, whether you like it or not, you do have to deal with individuals and their individual views. What's the purpose of whining about something that is so obvious and realistic, and probably unchangeable?
Any consensus will develop naturally. Until then you have to deal with individual views. Whining won't help it along. It just makes you look like a whiner and/or culture warrior here just to stir the pot.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 10, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Joy,
Fine. And yes, I know this entails exploring the new ideas regarding how Orch-OR etc. might play, and (hopefully) you know I am an enthusiastic proponent of exploring those ideas.
Thank you very much. I shall make this my goal.
Of course they're not. I can't point to a single factual statement that we disagree about, and that has always been the case. Sad, really.
As always, I reaffirm my anti-die-hard-culture warrior status thus:
* I am not a materialist
* I believe something fundamental is missi