Signatures of Minds
by BradfordI challenged physics professor Olegt to arrange a talk at the university where he teaches by Stephen Meyer who wrote Signature in the Cell; DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. He responded with this comment:
You will recall that my interest to Meyer's book was piqued by the shameless spin on the part of the publisher, who called the book the first, major scientific argument for Intelligent Design by a leading spokesperson within the scientific community. A month and a half later it is quite clear that, apart from details of Meyer's biography, the book contains nothing new. Why would I want to invite him to a university in order to rehash the old story of Paley's watch?
Being the good professor that he no doubt is Olegt inspired me to address this objection. There are some misconceptions about refutations of Paley's watch argument. Paley's watch served as a metaphor for life centuries ago at a time when our understanding of life and our technology was considerably less advanced. Our understanding of life extends to life's basic unit- the cell and its components. Cells are able to replicate themselves and if one chooses a metaphor it ought to be one able to explain this phenomenon. Meyer identifies the cellular property that is required to explain not just cellular replication but an ability to adapt and evolve. Information. He cites complexity and functional specificity as features of the biological information found in DNA and proteins, compares them to computer programs and goes on to make a best explanation inference.
Meyer is not rehashing Paley. He is not simply citing complex technology and claiming that an analogy to cellular complexity allows for a design inference. He is citing a particular feature common to both computers and cells and noting that information is essential to life in that it enables replication with a capacity to adapt. But unlike the interacting pieces of Paley's watch, information need not be presumed to be mechanistic in nature. Indeed information is abstract. It exists as a conceptual idealization before it is expressed physically. That's consistent with the computer analog. It's consistent with the coding you are deciphering on your computer screen as you read this post. I conceptualize the thoughts first and express them via a preordered encoding convention. The actions are intrinsically those of intelligent design. Thoughts directing muscles to intelligibly arrange symbols according to code. One could argue that this is precisely what occurs when codes are encountered. Abstract information is symbolically mapped according to convention to convey specified conceptualizations.
Oh no you don't Bradford. That's not how it went down with the origin of life. That coding you refer to was incidental to chemicals reacting on prebiotic earth. There was no planning or conceptualizing. The cognitive recognition of a code followed its development by an uncomprehending process directed only by laws of chemistry and physics. The abstraction never existed until minds evolved. In theory if we could specify both conditions and substances we could create codes all the time. Get the recipe, put in the ingredients and watch that prebiotic mixer churn out cells.
What came first concepts or codes? Matter or minds? To find out let's play science sez. We don't know how cells came about but that ignorance is called a gap. The only thing allowed into gaps are models preconfigured to follow the incidental and unintentional code formation concept. Don't get your hopes up and think this is a search for truth. Bradley Monton knows better and so do I.
In fairness if we did see symbolic coding systems arising around us in the absence of intelligent input we would rightly expect information systems to arise from biochemical reactions. When we do see the type of systems alluded to by Meyer we find humans or cells in the causal mix. The latter presumed to result from an unspecified series of reactions and the former more indirectly so. Although we know with 100% certainty that intelligent agency does routinely manipulate coding systems the rules favor a presumption for what we never see as opposed to that which we routinely observe.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Still curious as to how Dr. Meyer's academic background (BS in geology, Ph D in history and philosophy of science) results in his only published paper appearing in a taxonomy journal.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 4, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Bradford, what definition of information are you using here?
Comment by Raevmo — August 4, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
@ Bradford,
If I were Stephen Meyer, I would be irritated that you persist in getting the name wrong.
It's MEYER!
Comment by Alan Fox — August 4, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
It's a work in progress but I'm using computerist's idea modified inexactly at this point by some observations made by Karla. While quantifying with precision is challenging I'm presuming we'll accomplish this before life's origin is identified.
Comment by Bradford — August 4, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Let's accept that there is a Gap in human knowledge. So? Does that mean the Theory of Evolution is not scientifically valid? If there's a Gap, can we perhaps try to propose a testable hypothesis?
Comment by Zachriel — August 4, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Absolutely. Long ago, in a puddle, lightning struck the puddle and made molecules then the molecules grew and grew on clay crystal surfboards which they rode into their lipid bubbles where they began multiplying until there were so many of them that their bubbles burst and made two bubbles and that was the first life so then the molecules could make their own bubbles and start making more of them and that was the first cell so they didn't need clay surfboards anymore and pretty soon they made little protein factories and all kinds of cool little machines made out of protein and figured out how to talk to other bubbles and get all organized so that they could make big animals. It's all scientific because it's falsifiable just show how it couldn't happen The end.
Comment by chunkdz — August 4, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Typical ad hominem attack. Attack the man so you can ignore his ideas. Hey Alan, why don't you take your arguments back to AtBC? They celebrate shallow infantile behavior there.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 4, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
This is just what Paley did, calling it "complex form and function" rather than "complexity and functional specificity".
Yes, he is.
Yes, that is what he is doing.
Information? Information is in everything, obviously (disagree? point to something that does not contain information, please). It's not information that Meyer is looking, it is complex form and function – same as Paley.
You are assuming that mental conceptualization is separate from physical expression in the brain, which is not known to be the case; it is your faith-based assumption. And no, I have no faith-based assumptions; I do not claim to know if mental cause is ontologically distinct from physical cause.
You assume minds are immaterial; this is a faith-based assumption on your part. Why doesn't anyone in ID actually do some research and try to answer this question? Why not fund the NDE research that might show OOB experiences are veridical? Why not try to show mental causation can affect physical events by continuing the PEAR studies? Why not try to show our volitional acts do not follow from antecedent physical cause, by continuing (and perhaps contradicting) the studies of Libet, Wegner, and others?
Why not at least admit that the entire project of ID rests squarely on the truth of these unresolved speculations about NDEs and ESP and other paranormal phenomena? Why not admit that if these phenomena are not real, then ID is necessarily false? Why instead do you pretend that these completely unscientific claims about minds and brains are true facts confirmed by our experience?
And if we did see non-physical mental cause act upon physical mechanisms (like in telekenesis) we would believe that it could happen in the context of ID. But we don't.
Comment by aiguy — August 4, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Coded information. Not everything.
It's an idea not a physical mechanism.
I don't have to make a presumption either way. What I can do is note the nature of the phenomenon and the type of evidence for it. I have a thought in mind before I type the physical manifestations of that thought- which are really nothing more than symbols. This is epistemology, not faith.
I'm a dualist who believes in an interaction between thoughts and matter. No need to opt for either or. So why would I divorce volitional acts from physical causes? We do see the mind influence the body. The assumption that it is nothing more than physical interactions is dogma.
Comment by Bradford — August 4, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Bradford,
I'm glad you find my words inspiring.
There was no need to write the response on your own. You could have simply linked to Casey Luskin's FAQ:
That's pretty much along the lines of your response. Unfortunately, "modern-day design theorists" Behe and Dembski have failed to move past Paley's theology and produce a scientific theory of design, try as they might. We were promised that Meyer's book would make a scientific case advancing ID but it doesn't. It's still an argument from analogy. All he has done is change the example of human technology: Paley's mechanical watch no longer excites the imagination, so let's compare a living organism to a more modern device like a computer.
Comment by olegt — August 5, 2009 @ 1:32 am
August 5th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Bradford,
I wouldn't say this is epistemology per se, but it is philosophy of mind. When you say a thought is in your mind before you type, that's true… but if you say the thought is in your mind before the physical manifestations of that thought exist, then you are making a faith-based statement, because for all we know, the thought in your mind may be in fact the physical manifestation of neurons in your brain.
Ok, you are a dualist/interactionist – I applaud your clarity and candor on the matter!
You have opted for dualism. I maintain that we just don't know. (If pressed for my metaphysical assumptions, I will say neutral monism, which just means I don't think multiplying ontological categories is helpful (hence monism) and I don't think we understand the underlying reality of the mental/physical (hence neutral).
I'm confused. You have already staked out your metaphysical position, which is dualism/interactionism. This means you have already decided to divorce volitional acts from physical cause. In your view, thoughts are something that can affect matter/energy, but they are not themselves phenomena of matter/energy.
There is nothing irrational about your position, and it isn't all that unusual (although fewer philosophers profess belief in this type of dualism nowadays, and very few cognitive scientists do). But there is no observation that can substantiate your position; it can't be tested.
Not really – we see our body do things, and we each subjectively experience our own mentality. As the scientific work of Daniel Wegner and others has shown, we can be mistaken about our will – sometimes we think we will some behavior when we don't, and sometimes we do some behaviors without realizing we are willing it. Since we know we can be wrong about how our minds influence our bodies, we know that our subjective experience of will is not incorrigible. In other words, it could be that our experience of will is our conscious mind inferring and explaining behaviors that arise from unconscious mechanisms.
Ok, fine – I'll agree that a belief in physical monism is dogma, but I assume you accept the very same label for your dualist interactionism: dogma.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 3:34 am
August 5th, 2009 at 3:51 am
A correction to something I said:
What I should have said is it hasn't been tested, not that it can't. As I was saying previously, I think paranormal research could be a strong factor in deciding what we should believe about the mind/body relation. A systematic well-funded set of studies and experiments looking for paranormal phenomena might persuade some people one way or the other. If controlled NDE experiments or past-life memory studies yielded clearly positive results, I think it would be good reason to think in terms of dualism.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 3:51 am
August 5th, 2009 at 6:28 am
It's a paradigm. The term faith is ambiguously defined particularly since atheists have begun using it to signify irrational belief. That's not the biblical definition. In any case the choice of an interpretive lens when physical evidence is not directive is crucial. I could equally well point out that the contention that conscious thought is dictated exclusively by antecedent biochemical reactions is presumptive.
Interaction is just that. It is not complete subordination of one influence to another. Sure physical changes in the body can influence the thoughts of a mind. The reverse is also possible. Meditation can produce physiological changes.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 6:28 am
August 5th, 2009 at 6:51 am
I like Casey but had not read his piece before writing mine. But I like mine better anyway.
You missed the point. Nature has shown itself capable of generating complexity and patterns as well. Patterns of codes are derivatives of conscious intelligence because the capacity to associate symbols with that which the symbols represent is an advanced cognitive function. The evidence is right in front of you. You may argue that the mapping between nucleotide patterns and the associative amino acids resulted from an unspecified blind chemical linkage and indeed there is physical mediation of linkages. But some tweaking of the active sites of protein enzymes can alter mappings completely. Chemistry does not rigidly dictate mappings. The physical evidence aganist standard presumptions of how genetic codes arise is worthy of separate posts. Conceptualization precedes the physical manifestation of symbolic mappings. That's a lens of course. But so is the presumption that unspecifiable biochemical pathways do what we never see them do- generate codes in extra-cellular environments. To quote the OP:
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 6:51 am
August 5th, 2009 at 6:58 am
One more thing Olegt. You've criticized Meyer for not presenting his ideas in front of science forums. Opting instead for the popular book promo tour. But then you indicate that you would not want him speaking at your university. Is that not having it both ways- wanting to deny scientific forums while complaining about the speaker not availing himself of them at the same time?
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 6:58 am
August 5th, 2009 at 7:35 am
No it’s not the vast majority of the world have firsthand knowledge of at least one immaterial mind. You say the rest of the world is mistaken in this regard but you have no proof of this. It’s just your faith-based assumption.
But we have been over this
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 5, 2009 @ 7:35 am
August 5th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Bradford,
All agreed then. As a result, no scientific results can be predicated upon the truth of one or the other of these paradigms. Evolutionary theory may or may not account for speciation, but it doesn't depend upon the truth of physicalism in order to make sense. In contrast ID (except for ET-ID, which isn't a good option for ID for reasons we've already discussed) does in fact depend on the truth of dualism or something quite like it.
I understand your viewpoint – it was articulated just like that by Rene Descartes. It is your opinion (and Decartes') that mind is something fundamentally (substantially) different from body (brain); other people have other opinions, and I have no opinion on the matter. When you say "meditation can produce physiological changes", the physicalist interprets it to mean "certain changes in the physiology of the brain can produce other physiological changes in the brain".
And also:
We do not know if there are laws of chemistry which dictate (or more likely constrain) the mappings in ways we don't understand. You always consider only the results expected from the chemistry that we know, and compare it to an intelligent cause we do not know (at least scientifically speaking), ignoring the possibility that there is other chemistry that we haven't figured out yet (this view is sometimes called structuralism).
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 7:44 am
August 5th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Let's accept that there is a Gap in human knowledge. So? Does that mean the Theory of Evolution is not scientifically valid? If there's a Gap, can we perhaps try to propose a testable hypothesis concerning the origin of life?
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2009 @ 7:48 am
August 5th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Dr. Meyer's book is called "Signature in the Cell; DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design", yes? Sounds like molecular biology to me. If I attended a university lecture on a biological topic, I would expect the lecturer to have expertise in biology. Does Dr. Meyer have such expertise, then?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2009 @ 7:55 am
August 5th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I'd phrase it somewhat differently. A paradigm lens will be part of to one's approach to the matter of origins. It's not as if we can dispense with one. Intelligent analysis demands it. So the question becomes which view is appropriate? That cannot be determined based on empirical data. The assumption that coded information systems are conceptual before they are actualized in the physical is consistent with the formation process known to us. What occurs with biochemical/thought interactions is a black box. Choose your lens.
But it does depend on the existence of life. Selection presupposes a viable replicator. That moves the target to an origins level. Even FLE is mostly theorized as front loaded at point of orign even if the evidence for it would be subsequently revealed in the unfolding of evolution.
I've argued that ID rests on a triad. Biological, mind/body (or the phenomenon of consciousness) and cosmology. The last two would bear on the accuracy of your claim. I've been struck by studies claiming that conditions prior to the BB can be surmised based on scientific data. I'm not certain this is so but it would blur the distinction between the natural and the supernatural or perhaps better said our capacity to distinguish the boundary of natural laws. Lots more on this to come.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 8:14 am
August 5th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Alan Fox:
I think his formal educational background is diverse enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know of individuals who actively pursue knowledge long after getting their degrees and others who get their degrees and do only the reading that is necessary to make a living. I'm not judging anyone but do not think you should either. You ought to focus on his ideas and direct your fire at them rather than at Meyer's bonafides.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 8:20 am
August 5th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Zachriel:
Of course not.
Yes.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 8:23 am
August 5th, 2009 at 8:30 am
And that might be … ?
Well, this is something that is testable, starting with the physics of lightning production (as well as the availability of high energy photons). Do complex organic compounds form in natural circumstances? Complex organic compounds have been found in everything from nebula to the atmosphere of Titan. We can simulate these environments and replicate the process, including with plausible primordial conditions.
That's not a valid falsification. The hypothesis has to entail specific predictions that can be directly observed, a failure of the prediction falsifying the hypothesis. Hypothetico-deduction.
If H then P, ~P --> ~HComment by Zachriel — August 5, 2009 @ 8:30 am
August 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
There would be no difference in how a ID scientist and a materialistic scientist performs experiments; the difference would be that they would ask different questions.
http://www.basic.northwestern....
.
I suppose we could quibble about the meaning of ‘intelligence’, and substitute the phrase “capable of making non deterministic, autonomous decisions based upon evaluation of available information“, but for the sake of brevity, let's just call it intelligence.
.
..
Do cells contain an instruction library which anticipates solutions to an infinite number of unforeseeable problems? Or, do they merely contain an intelligence similar to our own and solve each problem as it presents itself? Are cells immensely complex, but rigidly operating chemical machines that derive their operating instructions internally from their genes and externally from chemicals and electrical signals emitted rigidly by other cells? Or, do they make decisions on their own? The laboratory techniques will be the same regardless of which assumptions a scientist works under. The experiments they perform would be very different.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — August 5, 2009 @ 11:54 am
August 5th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Sorry, a line got left out, and it seems I can no longer edit
Comment by Bert — August 5, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Bradford,
You aren't talking about scientific results, facts, or theories at all then, but rather research heuristics. Well, anyone can employ any sort of research heuristic they want to, but when it comes to empirically-based explanations, they must actually be supported by the evidence.
I understand that – my point was that scientific theories are not predicated on particular truths about metaphysical ontologies.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I don't understand platonism or dualism, and this seems like a conflation of the two. What does it mean for an abstraction to exist independent of anything physical? Are immaterial thoughts and abstractions the same thing?
Somewhere in the universe, a C-14 atom is decaying right now instead of 6000 years from now. That timing constitutes information. How long has that information existed? Did it exist in a mind?
As far as I know, ID proponents are welcome to posit any model they like. What would an ID model consist of, by the way?
Comment by R0b — August 5, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
What is the physical representation of an abstract thought? Don't tell me it is multiple brain cells or signaling pathways. That is as unrevealing and meaningless as an abstraction appears to you.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
And expect different answers. One side would expect a series of chemical reactions to generate biochemicals found in nucleotide metabolism and translation functions. How the needed binding would occur is something noone knows but a biologically functional series of them is expected culminating in a genetic code that enables protein synthesis. An IDist would also expect patterns but not the same ones. If a nucleotide generating pathway developed in prebiotic settings the expectation would be sequences that are random with respect to any coding convention able to map them to amino acids. The points of null results from the mainstream perspective would be the very points at which intelligent input would be required.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Bradford:
I'm asking about abstractions, not about abstract thoughts. Are they the same thing?
Comment by R0b — August 5, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
For the purpose of this discussion- yes.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
You are barking up the wrong tree.
A speaking engagement is a privilege, not a right. Before I invite a speaker to give a talk at a seminar or a colloquium, I make sure that the person can say something that will be of interest to an audience of my colleagues, postdocs, and graduate students. How can I make that judgment before the speaker shows up for his or her talk? Easily: I read their paper in a journal or on a preprint archive or hear about their work at a conference.
By now I have enough information about Meyer's new book to conclude that this is Creationism 3.0. Neither physicists nor astronomers in my department find this kind of argument either interesting or insightful. Why bother?
I should note that this kind of negative judgment is not reserved for creationists or even simply crackpots. There are thousands of respectable scientists who could give a talk at any given university. However, only a small fraction are invited to do so. You can't give a talk unless it interests someone and at this point I do not view Meyer as someone worth inviting.
Again, this does not prevent Meyer from making his case to the scientific community the usual way: through science journals and conferences. Heck, even a popular book can make a difference if it contains an interesting and insightful argument. The problem is that I have seen the argument and it still doesn't make the cut. Sorry.
Comment by olegt — August 5, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Olegt:
Nothing to be sorry about Olegt. We'll continue to witness the same sterile results on origins research because those looking are searching in all the wrong places. But there are much bigger problems in this world.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Bradfor:
Okay, so when you say that "information is abstract," it follows that information does not exist unless someone or something is thinking about it. This doesn't seem a very wise semantic path to take.
Comment by R0b — August 5, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
No Rob. It's pretty clear in the OP that my position is that a capacity for abstract intelligence is the missing causal ingredient in producing the information coding systems we witness. This is not a "did the falling tree make a sound if noone was there to hear it argument." Rather the position is centered on causality.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
It's not easy to make progress in science, Bradford. If IDers think that they can do better than mainstream science on that front, more power to them. We haven't seen much of it, though. And I don't expect it to happen, either. Bill Dembski famously wrote (emphasis mine):
With this kind of flippant attitude, ID won't help make any progress in science—because it's not supposed to. Christian apologetics is all it's good for.
Comment by olegt — August 5, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
No doubt Olegt. But progress will continue to be made in most areas of science. Yet if the rules insist that origins must have occurred according to an insufficient paradigm then searches will be futile. Call that apologetics if you like but it is physical realities that form the basis of the argument.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Yeah, your right, it's not falifiable. Weird because I heard about it in a scientific journal. OK how about this one.
Long ago, the moon was very close and the gravity made lots of uranium go to the beach and the sand became radioactive and made sugars and phosphates and such and molecules and stuff and they all became left handed molecules because a big neutron star was shining polarized light on the beach and then the molecules grew and went into fatty bubbles and started replicating and then they became alive and grew and grew until people came out.
That one's from a science journal too so it must be scientifical right?
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
No, you misrepresented the research, and misstated how falsification works as "show how it couldn't happen". You then proceeded to ignore the explanation.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Darn. I so wanted to get published.
All right, here's one.
Once there was a big underwater volcano that squirted out stuff and made tiny caves made out of metal sulfides which helped to make molecules which became alive, then later they went into bubbles and became cells.
Two science guys made this scientifical hypothesis. It is science.
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
There is an underlying debate going on here between materialists and non-materialists in terms of the mind-body issue, specifically in terms of whether or not mind/intelligence is physical, albeit perhaps very subtle and hard to measure physically.
Although there are problems with the following, it might be a good place to start. Assuming that a human thought is a form of intelligence in operation, can anyone scientifically prove the location of that thought? (We can leave time out of it for now.) In other words, can it be proven to be a discrete physical process somewhere?
Then, if that can be proven, is it also provable that such a process exists as such in the same way that we can discriminate a plant as an individual entity/existens separate from a dog or a lamp post?
Third, can we actually prove that a particular plant is an individual entity given that it depends upon environmental elements without which it could not, even for an instant, exist such as planetary conditions including gravity and atmosphere, sunlight, water, soil and all the rest of it? In other words, where do the boundaries of a particular entity exist if at all?
Similarly, we would have to analyse a thought: can a thought exist independent of other contingent causes and conditions and – especially for materialists – are all such causes and conditions ultimately only physical/material in nature?
Let us take the perception of a human smile (as perceived by humans) as an example.
What is the meaning aka impact of a smile?
Or: is a smile no more than the configuration of lips?
Further: what is the meaning/impact of a joke?
Is it no more than the combination of various chemically derived concepts that contradict each other in a way that produces a certain cognitive short circuit of sorts that results in the perception of something being 'funny' and are all such perceptions/cognitions merely chemical processes that are translated into linguistic/emotional/hormonal responses in what is essentially a chemical-based complex?
But to return to the original suggestion: a materialist should be able to determine a precise place of a thought. It is not enough to say 'the brain', for apart from the fact that memories are clearly stored in organs other than the brain including the intestines, heart and others (as per transplantee experiences and also common sense), the brain is a huge terrain. Where exactly in the brain? Is there one particular spot for each particular thought?
Some might argue that thoughts are not intelligence, merely the alphabet, but if you cannot find a physical location of the thought, how much harder is it to find the precise physical location of that which is behind it and each of several thousand whizzing by every few seconds?
Is it not possible that what we are calling 'intelligence' is actually a field, akin to the 'ether' of old, a field shared by all in the physical plane but filtered in different ways by the various organic structures/nervous systems of various living organisms including plants, animals, humans, ghosts and so forth? Or rather than called it a common field, perhaps more useful to simply say a 'medium' in the sense that water is the medium in which all fishes live. Perhaps 'intelligence' is the ultimate 'medium' in which all organisms live? More importantly, perhaps this medium/intelligence is not a product of these physical mechanisms of such organisms, rather something which is universally shared, to speak, but processed differently. So the way a plant processed the medium is different from how a cat, a wasp or a human processes it? Seems to me that intelligence is usually discussed as something produced by the individual entity. Personally, I suspect this is a fallacious a priori / assumption.
If so or not, surely it would be possible to conduct more investigations about this without getting distracted by various theistic-versus-nontheistic debates, rather actually try to identify what exactly is 'intelligence'?
Comment by ash — August 5, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
ash,
You exaggerate the ability of enteric and cardiac neurons to store memories, but no matter – the location of our memories seem to be in a distributed system of neural structures in our bodies. A thought needn't exist in a single neuron or precise location, any more than the data representing some fact in a computer system needs to be in one single memory location or set of continguous locations (it doesn't).
Bravo!!!! I couldn't agree more with you, ash! You are absolutely, positively right about this!
I have spent a lifetime trying to identify what exactly is "intelligence", and I find it sadly comical that people propose "intelligence" as an explanation for anything without having the slightest idea what sort of thing this thing "intelligence" is in the first place!
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Re: ". .no physician in the history of humanity has ever healed a patient. Only the cells of the patient can heal the patient. Only cells know how to close wounds, understand what to do with insulin and how to destroy pathogens. The best a physician can do, is to move obstacles out of the way of cells (e.g. by surgery), supply materials and weapons to the cells (e.g. drugs and building blocks of life) and leave the fight against disease to the cells."
This is an excellent synopsis of materialism in the medical context. Very well expressed.
It also leaves out any spirit/morale related factors involved with health or recuperation, not to mention any 'spiritual' ramifications involved in the notion of 'health'.
Ultimately, it is a matter of opinion. I suspect there is no way to prove it one way or another. That said, if some people believe that the prime, underlying motivation behind organismic existence is simply survival, then indeed Man is no different from a base animal, Survival of the Fittest rules, and all those boys on Wall St and Washington ripping people off to the tune of billions a day are actually in the moral right since they are following a biochemical evolutionary imperative wherein civilisation, including any moral imperative therein, is simply a superfluous layer of fundamentally dysfunctional, misinterpreted, cognitive froth.
Some people can buy that point of view. Others cannot. I doubt science can 'prove' either side one way or the other.
But if I am right, the fact that it cannot, bolsters the non-materialist side since if everything is based on matter/chemicals alone, this should be provable because at some point they will be able to measure a time-based causation sequence. If any aspect of intelligence can be shown to exist beyond relative, i.e. sequential, time, then the entire mind-body thing has to be re-examined by materialist scientists who also have still to challenge many of the miind-related discoveries of the quantum boys decades ago showing that
a) mind influences particle behaviour
b) particles can respond to stimuli over distance instantaneously, i.e. beyond time (and therefore beyond also place). That being the case, and physicality being by definition something that exists in specific place and time, how can materialists maintain their position viz. the nature of intelligence being no more than cognitively translated chemical processes that only create the illusion of intelligence when in fact everything is just a mindless machine grinding on moment after moment for absolutely no reason whatsoever except ( perhaps and it is not explained how and why) to determine who is 'the fittest'.
Comment by ash — August 5, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Without the slightest idea? All the billions of rubes in the world are clueless and think they have some basis for concluding that dolphins are more intelligent than dafodils. Cats more intelligent than sticks. Humans more intelligent than dogs. Ah but you stupid rubes just don't get the intricate neurobiological explanations for it all. Maybe. Or maybe the rubes just realize that an ability to define intelligence is unrelated to an ability to detect it. I could wax eloquently about neural pathways related to such and such a cognitive function. Nice biological terminology mixed with descriptive phrases. It would not explain a thing about Mary's poetry. But it would make some feel real sciency and secure in their faith that all that amazes rubes will yield to clinical explanations. I gotta see an old Mel Brooks movie now.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
ash,
I agreed with you that before ID can talk usefully about how "intelligent cause" explains biology, they need to decide what they actually mean by "intelligent cause". I disagree, however, with most of the rest of what you are saying…
No, nobody has ever shown that "mind" influences particle behavior, either in QM experiments (like double-slit) or classical experiments (like the PEAR telekenesis studies). You may be referring to some philosophical interpretations of QM – such as those of Henry Stapp; these are untestable conjectures that consciousness is what collapses waveforms. Many quantum philosophers have very different interpretations.
Well, no – that may be your definition of "physicality", but it isn't the definition that is provided by physics. Physics does in fact indicate that non-locality is a feature of the universe, and so that is indeed part of our understanding of "physicality"!
I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but it's clear that what you mean by "materialists" are people who believe in pre-quantum physics. I've never met anyone like that – have you?
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Bradford,
Yes, I would agree that anyone who made statements like this and expected to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion would be a stupid rube, because in scientific studies of intelligence, one needs to provide a clear operational definition of intelligence that tells the reader what metric is being used. If you disagree, please find a scientific study that determines one species is more intelligent than another without specifying the metric employed.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
aiguy: I had no idea that materialists (to use a short hand generalist term) believe that physicality is not based on location.
You said: "Physics does in fact indicate that non-locality is a feature of the universe, and so that is indeed part of our understanding of "physicality"!'
That is news to me. Both welcome and provocative; the latter in the sense that if physicality is not something existing in place and time, what is meant by the term at all? This is not a cynical / snide question.
As to: "I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but it's clear that what you mean by "materialists" are people who believe in pre-quantum physics. I've never met anyone like that – have you?"
My impression is that 99.9% of people I have met believe in 'pre-quantum physics' along roughly the lines I sketched out, admittedly in cliche-ridden terms. But they are cliches because they are so widely held.
I don't understand any 'post-quantum' physicist having a problem with ID or even feeling that there is any substantive difference between Creationism, ID and Darwinianism since ultimately all three are metaphorical narrative explanations without hardly any definitive proof one way or another. In other words, they are philosophical contemplations using examples from the natural world to bolster their view, but little more.
Creationism versus Big Bang: different narrative texturally speaking, but not structurally: out of nothing comes something. Except: in the theistic version there was something first in the form of an intelligence principle, and in the Big Bang version there was absolutely nothing and then somehow matter arose. Either way, it remains a totally unprovable mystery, i.e. a cognitive leap without explanation except – for theists – certain moral imperatives (perhaps).
ID-creationism-Darwin: there is a prime purpose behind life processes that determines their ultimate outcome. Darwinianists posit that there is a motivation to exist in place and time which drives all aspect of observable life. Where that motivation comes from is not analysed (imo the entire argument is essentially circular) but nevertheless assumed to drive the whole machine even though the machine is defined as something that cannot possibly have an extraneous 'intelligent' (aka motivational) impetus behind it.
It goes round and round ad infinitum. But again, structurally speaking, there is almost no difference between the various positions.
Scientifically speaking.
Comment by ash — August 5, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Put another way altogether:
Can 'Science' prove:
a) that yesterday happened/existed/exists?
b) that WW I happened?
c) that even if agreed that a) and b) happened, how can they be definitively defined?
Both a) and b) are situations described by human concept without any substantive existence. Let's keep to 'yesterday' (or even today for that matter), leave aside WW I or Ancient Egypt etc. etc.
Yesterday is relative in the sense that it begins and ends at different times depending on your zone, i.e. location. In fact, for some their today is already somebody else's yesterday.
Leave that aside as silly. There is an overall time, planetary time let us say, over-arching time zones. In other words, there was a moment before the previous one.
Can Science prove that there was a moment before the previous moment?
If Science can prove it, how?
If not, how can it possibly attempt to formulate 'the origin' of anything without finding the causes and conditions directly in the present condition?
if only in the present condition, what evidence here and now is there of
a) evolution
b) Big Bang
c) Intelligence
and so forth.
Comment by ash — August 5, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
ash,
Our fundamental theory of physics (quantum physics) predicted non-local effects. The first explicit mention of them was in the EPR paper, which attempted to show QM was incomplete because if it wasn't, these crazy non-local effects must be happening. John Bell showed that Einstein was wrong, and these non-local effects are actually implicit in the QM mathematics. Since then, these effects have been amply confirmed by experiments (starting in the late 1970's) – when particles are entangled, events that are separated in space-time can be demonstrated to be (statistically) correlated. Therefore, yes, our understanding of physics necessarily includes non-local effects.
As to what is meant by "materialism" or "physical" – I don't find the labels useful at all, but I'd say they ought to refer to what we currently believe is true about the fundamental nature of reality as revealed by scientific investigation. In any event, these arguments against "materialism" are usually aimed at people who no longer exist – those who did not believe that QM accurately described reality.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
aiguy: thanks for educating me further, but to push:
in the post-quantum terms of reference, what is meant by 'physicality' ?
I appreciate what you are saying about the use of the term 'materialism' as being out-dated, but in terms of conceptual structure I find it relevant – perhaps mistakenly so.
My use of the term is (as well as being pejorative I confess!) that which assumes that the nature of reality is essentially only that which is perceivable on the physical plane (by sense perceptions mainly) and everything else is 'cognitively derived froth' aka conceptual belief systems that have nothing to do with that underlying physical reality per se.
Finally, I don't see why any post-quantum person would have the slightest problem with the Creationist viewpoint, at least in terms of its plausibility. Do you, and if so, why – post-quantum scientifically speaking that is !?
Comment by ash — August 5, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
ash,
Philosophers usually talk about "physicalism" or a "physicalist ontology", rather than "physicality". The meaning of that term could be a topic for an entire course in metaphysics.
I think it's a mistake, yes – a lot of confusion arises because people don't define their terms, but still try to divide people into "materialists" and "non-materialists" rather than talking about specific beliefs.
But obviously a great deal of what scientists believe about reality cannot be perceived by the senses, but only inferred from experimental instrumentation. Physicists believe that "quantum probability waves" are real, because they reliably and precisely explain and predict experimental observations, but nobody has any intuitive idea about what a probability wave "really is" or how we might experience one with our senses!
First, let's talk ID rather than Creationism, and let's agree that the former is the attempt to explain the existence of various features of the world by appeal to "intelligent cause" whereas the latter is adherence to a particular religious dogma.
While I am most definitely post-quantum – and I do not call myself a "materialist" – I think the ID project is entirely misguided. The main problem is just as you pointed out: people are invoking this thing called "intelligence" without the faintest idea of what it is they are referring to. So in order to begin talking about invoking intelligence per se as an explanation for anything (which is never done in scientific circles – and remember I said per se), we need to decide what it is we are talking about, and provide a technical, operationalized definition of this thing called "intelligence".
I argue that what most people mean when they talk about intelligent cause is "conscious, volitional thought". That is clear enough, but what most people don't realize there is that the cognitive sciences have shown our experience of volition is not incorrigible, and we have no good reason to assume that conscious thought is the cause of our behaviors.
Other problems with ID include the fact that our understanding of phenomena that people tend to call intelligent incorporates a critical reliance on precisely that which ID seeks to explain: While ID claims that complex form and function (CSI) invariably arises from "intelligent cause", it fails to note the equally true observation that "intelligent cause" invariably arises from CSI!
Finally, there is simply no evidence for a being (living or not) that consciously designed life.
There's more, but that's a good start on why a post-quantum non-materialist would consider ID to be nonsense, scientifically speaking.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
How about this: Long ago a designer like us, but far more advanced, assembled the first cell from basic molecular components.
This is something that is testable, starting with the physical and chemical properties of molecular compounds and the observable actions of known intelligent designers. Can known intelligent designers manipulate molecular components into functional structures? Yes they can. Thus, we can simulate and replicate the process.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
aiguy:
Oh, I'm sorry. You thought we were going to conclude that a human is more intelligent than a dog without some sort of metric? Nah. Even rubes know better than that. First species able to figure out how to open that can of tuna gets to eat it.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Bradford,
(emphasis added)
Our casual conversation includes all sorts of implicit assumptions that are revealed only when we attempt to be careful about our observations and conclusions. That is why scientists and philosophers are always careful to define their terms and not rely on casual connotations. The fact that IDers refuse to do so simply exposes their lack of interest in clarifying and understanding the issues.
You can spend as long as you'd like searching for one single solitary scientific paper that attempts to explain one single observation by saying "intelligence" was the cause, and you will fail. Only ID, in its misguided and confused rhetoric, makes this fundamental error.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
(Well, I sense we are straying from the thread, though why I thread can't stray – or perhaps we should say 'evolve' – is moot, especially on this blog!)
With that caveat:
Re: "I argue that what most people mean when they talk about intelligent cause is "conscious, volitional thought". That is clear enough, but what most people don't realize there is that the cognitive sciences have shown our experience of volition is not incorrigible, and we have no good reason to assume that conscious thought is the cause of our behaviors."
I find that a very bad definition, as supposedly you do as well. But you don't posit what you think it is. I have done so (above) in terms of the 'medium' metaphor, as incomplete as it was. But if you are right that most people interpret intelligence as 'conscious, volitional thought', does that mean that plants are not intelligent according to them? I find that totally wrong if this is the case. It seems terminology is very vague all over the place here.
Re: "But obviously a great deal of what scientists believe about reality cannot be perceived by the senses, but only inferred from experimental instrumentation. Physicists believe that "quantum probability waves" are real, because they reliably and precisely explain and predict experimental observations, but nobody has any intuitive idea about what a probability wave "really is" or how we might experience one with our senses!"
First, I hope you appreciate I am not entertained by or trying to indulge in 'gotcha' type repartee. Merely exploring. My views on all this are not fixed – at least in scientific or religious terms, although perhaps intuitionally/personally speaking.
I fail to see the difference between perceiving something from 'experimental instrumentation' and direct sensory perception, although I do understand it. Machines can measure ultraviolet which our eyes cannot, for example. But still: all such machines are physical contraptions built in the realm of the senses and extrapolate data back to them. That they can hear decibels that we cannot, for example, is a minor detail structurally speaking.
I don't feel that you have answered what 'physicality' means in the context of non-locality. My understanding of this – from reading about quantum stuff decades ago and never since then unfortunately – is that most notions of physicality (which I often refer to under the term materialistic view) are simply over-simplifications, aka quaint, notions which, under the sub-atomic microscope, have been revealed, even on the physical/visible/material level, to be quantifiably (pun intended) erroneous. Now what exactly we are left with when physicality is revealed as little more than a hallucination is another question. But that is what I took from the quantum crowd when skimming through it as someone not trained at all in the field.
Again, and again not being argumentative for the sake of it, how can anyone
a) say they are not a materialist
b) insist that all is physical and
c) affirm that physicality includes non-locality
and have a,b & c all hang together?
Finally, I'd like to harp on a little about Creationism. Leaving aside issues such as certain sections in a certain text that describe certain specific dates and timelines for certain events – and I know for many this is very important but I pass over – do you (or anyone here of course) find any substantive, intellectually structural difference between Big Bang and Genesis? ( In the sense that first there was nothing, then there was something all of a sudden and ignoring the narrative speculation as to how or why the shift from one to the other occurred and whether or not it is a still ongoing process.)
I don't. Am I missing something?
Comment by ash — August 5, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
What metric should ID use in order for you to take it seriously?
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
A prediction needs to be specific, distinguishing and entailed. Your prediction is none of those things. Yes designers can create functional structures. Life has functional structures. But that doesn't show that there are no other processes that can create functional structures. There's nothing falsifiable about your predictions. All you're doing is putting an ID sheen on known facts.
Maybe you can call it a proof of principle, i.e. a designer *could* have done it. Or maybe something else did.
So let's look at your hypothesis more closely. Long ago a designer like us, but far more advanced, assembled the first cell from basic molecular components. Now what is *entailed* in that claim? What specific prediction can you deduce from the claim (meaning a necessary consequence of the proposition) that if falsified will negate the hypothesis?
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Daniel, as you can see, it doesn't take much to make Zachriel become irrational.
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
re: "can known intelligent designers manipulate molecular components into functional structures? Yes they can. Thus, we can simulate and replicate the process."
Do 'known designers' such as ourselves now have the ability to create molecules from nothing, that is the question, not whether or not we can take things already existent and recombine them. i.e. we can cook up an omelette but can we make an egg?
Comment by ash — August 5, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
That exposes another weakness of the argument. We don't have to be able to recreate an event to investigate it. Otherwise, we couldn't investigate stars or plate tectonics (or atoms before atom smashers).
Consider a similar claim, Colonel Mustard – with the candlestick – in the Conservatory. In a criminal investigation, we collect clues in order to place the perpetrator in the room (opportunity) with the murder weapon (method). More generally, we attempt to establish motive based on characteristics of the alleged culprit. We point to a link of causation between the actor, the act and the result. The validity of our conclusion depends on the strength of these links.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
How about James Shapiro:
Who are the Multiple Designers
Sentient bacterial intelligence as the source of genetic engineeriing!!!!
Or how about the journal of Chaos Soliton's and Fractals.
Albert Voie's paper. Voie is a Biologist and AI scientist.
See:
Another pro-ID paper passes peer review
Or how about the oldest biology journal on the planet, Revista. ID is mentioned as a cause by the author John Davison.
I'd say your hypothesis was refuted, at least technically speaking.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 5, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
The genetic code, protein function, amino acid properties and cellular structures enable one to devise a relatively challenging test based on these concepts alone for a people of average intellect. You could probably devise an effective IQ test based around cellular constructs.
Developing a metric is not as challenging as dealing with irrational fears about dreaded boogeymen like ID movements and culture wars. I have the opportunity to write entries about topics of my choosing and since I enjoy doing that my motives are obvious. But what is it that motivates a PhD to devote a great deal of time refuting those he considers to be rubes anyway? If I actually felt a movement was comprised of clueless hicks I would find something better to do with my tme.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Yet we all know that intelligence was the cause behind the sentences you just wrote.
Interesting ain't it?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
ash,
There's nothing wrong with defining "intelligence" as "conscious thought", since we can all agree we experience conscious thought.
This is not a matter of discovery – there is no right or wrong answer. I simply point out that ID needs to settle on some specific, unambiguous definition for "intelligence", because ID attempts to use this concept as an explanation. There are all sorts of definitions one might choose that would be unambiguous.
Sometimes intelligence is defined as what some particular IQ test, such as the Stanford-Binet test, measures. Or, it could be defined as the ability to learn and solve novel problems of some particular type (such as spatial relations problems, linguistic problems, logic problems, etc, or some specific combination thereof), whether or not conscious thought is involved. Or it could be these abilities in conjunction with conscious thought. Or it could be defined as the ability to adapt and survive in some particular environment…. Any of these definitions would be fine, as would lots of others. But without some specific definition, nobody has any idea what anyone else is talking about.
I believe it is better to speak about specific beliefs rather than try to label our positions. I already explained why physicists believe in non-locality.
chunkdz,
As I just explained to ash – any metric that can be reliably agreed upon by independent reseachers would be just fine. Simply propose ANY criterion (or criteria) that can be applied to any arbitrary thing – from a dog to a stick to a dolphin to a planet – such that any reasonable researcher could agree whether or not the thing met the stated criterion or not.
Bradford,
The problem here is that you are attempting to define "intelligence" as "that which can build living cells". In that way, whatever it turns out to be that caused living cells to exist earns the label "intelligent" simply because of the way you have defined it, even if the cause is actually a deterministic, unconscious, unlearning, mindless natural process. So, if you simply define "intelligence" as "that which creates CSI" or "that which creates living organisms" or "that which explains what it is we want to explain" then your theory is 100% vacuous – it says absolutely nothing at all. It would be like vacuously defining gravity as "that which makes things fall to Earth" rather than coming up with a meaningful definition (like Newton's or Einstein's or even Aristotle's).
In that case, I would suggest that someone go ahead and do so!
I by no means intended to say that all ID enthusiasts were clueless hicks or rubes – these were terms you introduced, not me. I find you and many others here interesting and smart folks. I think the issues involved in ID are not simple to explain, and cut to the heart of my primary intellectual interest, which is the mind/body problem.
Daniel,
Sorry, Daniel, but you haven't been paying attention. Read what I wrote to ash and chunkdz here in this very post, and see where you went wrong.
Sal,
I don't know what your point is here, but the last few times I've engaged you in these threads you simply ignore whatever arguments you have no answer to and go on as if they're never been raised. Sorry, but I don't enjoy discussing in that mode.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
But in operational practice, in the industry of information, there is a conceptual decoupling. Whether that decoupling is real or illusory, it is an accepted way to understand the world, and it is operationally effective. Without such a decoupling, one gets utterly bizarre and unworkable views of the industry, i.e. if we did not decouple software from hardware, we'd be in major rut.
Let us, for the sake of argument, say that intelligence is nothing more than a particular set of boundary conditions isomorphic to software. Then one can put forth arguments that intelligence created life without respect to the exact nature of the hardware which hosted this intelligence.
AI software can in principle be run on various hardware architectures. I see no reason to say that maybe the physical universe as a whole could be the host of such software. That is akin to Hoyle's pro-ID notion of an Intelligent Universe. I don't personally subscribe to such a pantheistic notion of ID, but there is one ID proponent here a TT, Steve Peterman who is a monist and would probably accept the notion of an Intelligent Universe, that perhaps all reality is collectively intelligent.
Most ID proponents are dualists, but not all. I fall into the Dualist camp. But I don't think we have to settle the Dualist/Monist arguments to reasonably say, "this physical artifact looks like a machine, ergo it looks like an intelligence created it".
Factories are examples of distributed intelligence and multiple designers (both with real and artificial intelligence) inputting at each stage. One could say the universe could have been collectively that sort of intelligence.
The problem here is that the univese, as observed today, is clearly not evidencing processes that would suggest it is still (if ever) capable of creating life. Hence, the OOL community has had 60 years of spectacular failure. If the universe is intelligent, it is not giving much active evidence to that effect.
Whether the giant quantum computer known as "the universe" or God created life is not the focus of ID proper. ID merely says something looks designed by the standards of engineering. Whether you have issues about the ultimate cause is another story.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 5, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
My point was that your claim was wrong.
I don't ascent to the misrepresentations you make of what I say. Sorry if you mistinterpret that as "ignoring arguments I have no answer for."
It's not my policy to defend arguments attributed to me which I don't make. You've done that several times, and I think I've been rather tolerant and reserved about calling you on your tactics. I let it go in the last thread, but I might be inclined not to be so nice in the future.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 5, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
So, "Long ago, in a puddle, lightning struck the puddle and made molecules" is specific, distinguishing and entailed but "Long ago a designer like us, but far more advanced, assembled the first cell from basic molecular components" is not? Hmm….
Yes lightning can create molecular structures. Life has molecular structures. But that doesn't show that there are no other processes that can create molecular structures.
There's nothing falsifiable about the lightning hypothesis. All you're doing is putting a materialist sheen on known facts.
Maybe you can call it a proof of principle, i.e. lightning *could* have done it. Or maybe something else did.
If it is indeed true, then we'd expect to find many, many, many (not just a few but many) systems, structures, attributes, characteristics and design elements and principles that are shared by known human designs and biological life.
Gasp… we do!!!
Never fear Zachriel, it will always be true that something else could have done it. That's your out.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
As far as the design of life goes, molecules do not have to be made from nothing. They only need to be organized effectively. This is something that known intelligences do.
Now, if you're talking about the creation of the universe… that's a different story.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
OK.
Yet we all still know what intelligence does. We still know that these sentences are the product of intelligent design. That's because WE are "intelligence". What we do is "intelligent design". We all know what we're talking about here. It's no great mystery. Why play dumb?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
What metric should ID use?
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Intelligence involves logic, reason, creativity, problem solving, ingenuity, coordination, awareness, knowledge, and a whole host of other things; many that defy description or categorization. It's not something that's easily defined, nor does it need to be; we all know what it is and we all use it on a daily basis.
Why the hangup with "rigorous definitions" when everyone already knows what it is? Do we ask you guys to define "evolution" every time you use the word?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Daniel:
Pardon the intrusion. I would agree with you if scientists said, "The cause of biological complexity is 'evolution'" and left it at that. Instead, they fill volume after volume with models and data that contribute to an understanding of what biological evolution entails. I don't see ID proponents fleshing out "intelligence" in a similar manner. Some leading ID proponents even see intelligence as irreducible, meaning that it can't be fleshed out.
I don't think that "we all know what it is." For some, intelligence is, by definition, immaterial in a dualistic sense. For others it is not. Some would say that some computers qualify as intelligent, while others would say they do not. Bradford jokingly suggests the ability to open a tuna can quickly as a measure of intelligence, giving elephants an IQ of 200+.
Most importantly, some people would ascribe some if not all of the characteristics that you listed above to evolutionary processes, thus making Darwinian evolution itself intelligent. Note Salvador's comment above regarding the possibility of the universe itself exhibiting intelligence.
We may individually feel that we know what intelligence and pornography are, but we don't know how trustworthy that feeling is until we start hashing out the issues. That's why having someone who has been-there-done-that, like aiguy, is helpful. (Intelligence, not pornography.)
Comment by R0b — August 5, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Sal,
Ok, but in that case, the word "intelligence" would be given a meaning quite divorced from its informal usage, since most people associate intelligence with the ability to think.
I don't understand how a set of boundary conditions can create life – that doesn't make sense.
If we write code in some language for which there are compilers or interpreters for different architectures, then the code can be made to run on different architectures, yes.
I don't think I understand what this means either.
I don't think so – I think when Hoyle talked about intelligence, he didn't mean "a set of boundary conditions". Instead, he meant something that had conscious thoughts.
And now you use the word "pantheistic", which again does not mean "a set of boundary conditions". It seems you are mixing up all sorts of different meanings here.
What does Stever Peterman mean by "intelligence"?
Unless you say what you mean by "an intelligence", then you have said absolutely nothing. You have made a completely vacuous, uninterpretable claim.
And if you actually are using your own definition – that intelligence is "nothing more than a particular set of boundary conditions" – then it makes no sense to say intelligence created life, because boundary conditions don't do anything!
Daniel -
No, we don't. If you knew what intelligence does (and what it does not do) then you could tell us. But you can't tell us.
Are you saying that all natural language sentences (like these) are produced by intelligence, and that all intelligent things can produce sentences in natural language? That would be a concrete claim, but I don't think you actually mean that.
What do you mean? That we can generate and understand sentences in human languages? That we are conscious beings? That we can learn from experience? That we have memories? All of this? What?
Why not, once and for all, provide one specific definition of what "intelligence" in the context of ID is supposed to mean?
In that case, I don't believe any sort of case for intelligent design can be made at all. How, for example, might you support the claim that the cause of life was "aware"? How do you know it could solve novel problems, considering we have no opportunity to observe in novel situations? No, if this is your definition of "intelligence", then ID's hypothesis is completely unwarranted by the available evidence.
"You guys"? I'm not advocating "evolution" here, but yes, the explanatory concepts of evolutionary theory are quite rigorously defined. If you can't define "intelligence", then you can't use it to explain things scientifically, period. Now you just got through defining it – there was nothing wrong with that defintion at all! Let's stick with that one, and agree that we have no reason to think that whatever was responsible for creating life meets all of those criteria.
Comment by aiguy — August 5, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Lnoy na telilninget reosuc anc tdresdunna ihst.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2009 @ 12:43 am
August 6th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Bradford, that last word is a little ambiguous. BTW, is a computerized anagram solver intelligent?
Comment by R0b — August 6, 2009 @ 12:50 am
August 6th, 2009 at 7:27 am
That is correct. It could have been an invisible pink unicorn. The difference is that we can show that there is a high likelihood of the posited cause, high energy particles such as lightning, u/v and cosmic rays, being available and capable of generating the posited effect.
Now, compare to the equivalent ID claim. You haven't shown the availability of the posited mechanism. No perp, no opportunity, no modus operandi. Consider a similar claim, Colonel Mustard – with the candlestick – in the Conservatory.
Comment by Zachriel — August 6, 2009 @ 7:27 am
August 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am
There is no high likelihood that high energy sources are implicated in the origin of life. It's the materialist pink unicorn.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2009 @ 9:41 am
August 6th, 2009 at 9:47 am
[...] Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. « Signatures of Minds [...]
Pingback by Rigorous Definitions - Telic Thoughts — August 6, 2009 @ 9:47 am
August 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
We're not discussing a test for abiogenesis, but a much more modest hypothesis concerning the plausibility of a "long ago" natural origin of complex organic compounds.
And that might be … ?
Comment by Zachriel — August 6, 2009 @ 9:58 am
August 6th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I've repeatedly stated that genomic integrity testing should entail minimal genomes with suboptimal enzyme function. The range at which cells are no longer viable is the point at which intelligent input is required.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2009 @ 10:07 am
August 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
And I have repeatedly raised the objection that reducing extant organisms may not provide an accurate picture of extinct life. Theropods are not just reduced birds.
Consider a functional system A that acquires a helper B. Through functional polarization, they evolve such that A becomes dependent on B. If we now remove B, the system fails. That doesn't demonstrate that B had to be added by an intelligence.
Comment by Zachriel — August 6, 2009 @ 10:14 am
August 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
As your fellow critics would say- bad analogy Zach.
Unless it is to become dogma that cellular viability is beyond question then exploring this is a legitimate issue.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2009 @ 10:28 am
August 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Exploring the issue is fine. But not answering the objection in order to draw faulty conclusions is not.
Comment by Zachriel — August 6, 2009 @ 10:46 am
August 6th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Aiguy: thanks for the interchange. This thread is getting old as the new one is out following from some of the discussion here, but I can't resist:
"since most people associate intelligence with the ability to think.."
I doubt that bacteria are assumed to be able to 'think' in the way the term is usually used, but of course they do in the sense that they respond to their environment and adjust behaviour accordingly. Perhaps it is fair to say that there are different types and levels of intelligence which is why a hard and fast definition is elusive.
However, disregarding any confusions about 'conscious thought' being a sine qua non of any type of 'intelligence' another theme that pops up in this and similar discussions is the notion that if intelligence is in evidence it might be regarded as the cause of something and moreover have a discrete existence separate from the organism/process in question. In psychological terms this is akin to assuming that no intelligence exists except as an 'ego', i.e. as an independent agent.
From that assumption the debate about whether intelligence causes the physical organism or vice versa is indeed an endless chicken-egg polemic.
However, I would suggest that intelligence is not an individually produced thing, rather a universal field. Individual experience, such as we enjoy, might be no more than on ongoing relationship between the creation of a physical entity inhabiting seeming place and time with particularity and this non-local, universal field, or space principle along with how that particular 'organism' accesses or filters this 'intelligence field'.
This is why it can't be measured exactly in terms of actual location, size or duration. And yet it IS.
In buddhist terminology from the abhidharma (science) branch any entity with intelligence/awareness is defined as a 'sentient being', so microbes have always been included in the list whereas rocks and elemental particles do not qualify (though they are assumed to come after sentient being-ness not before). There are five levels of individuated intelligence in this system:
1. Form – basic physical shape and location
2. Feeling – basic sense perception involved with navigating through territory in place and time, up down, hot cold, edible inedible etc.
3. Perception: developing more nuance in terms of discriminating between desirable and undesirable places, things to eat, ways of manifesting etc. Discrimination about favorable and unfavorable to the organism, basically and the basis for emotion.
4. Concept: here once Nr.3 is working well the organism has the ability to remember various categories of good, bad, hot, cold etc. and label them as such so that perception can now be channeled through memory and received notions of what is desired.
5. Consciousness: built on the preceding (as is each of course), consciousness can thread various strands of concept together (from which we get language and conscious, verbalised thought for example). From there, faculties like logic and forethought can emerge, as evidenced not only by humans but many different animals including insects (though my suspicion is that the insect realm is mainly in 3 and 4 and their 5 is some sort of group communication principle that directs the entire herd of them somehow. Higher animals do not think verbally but they do clearly think even to the point of military and other type strategic forethought activities).
Anyway. So that's a very simplified old version of the definition of intelligence/awareness/sentience from a couple of millenia ago but still widely acknowledged today in Asia.
Comment by ash — August 6, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
ash,
Which is why using "intelligence" as a scientific explanation is so very wrongheaded. Does anyone really think we have good reason to believe that the "Intelligent Designer" responds to it's "environment" and "adjusts His (its) behavior accordingingly?". No, there is no reason to think that of course.
We have no reason to believe this either, until someone can produce good evidence of a disembodied mind.
Yes, ash, people have been pondering philosophy of mind for millenia. Unfortunately, not only does ID bring nothing new to the discussion, but apparently most IDists haven't bothered to even study the questions!
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Aiguy, since you work with intelligence every day, can you tell us what metric you use? How do you measure the intelligence of one system vs. another system? Perhaps ID could use the same metric.
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Really? How can you falsify the claim that 4 billion years ago lightning struck a puddle?
Karl, are you listening?
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
chunkdz,
AI researchers try to build computer systems that can do things that people do, such as recognize faces, read books and answer questions, drive cars, prove theorems, design circuits, compose music, and so on.
We call this work "artificial intelligence" because when people do these sorts of things, we usually refer to it as "intelligent". However, we have absolutely no criterion for gauging whether or not any of these tasks is "actually intelligent" or not! There is no metric to "measure the intelligence" of any of our systems. There is no meaning in asking if a system that recognizes faces is more or less intelligent than a system that drives a car.
We in AI have no interest in what the word "intelligence" means, because it just makes no difference to us. Unlike people in ID, we would never try to explain anything by saying "intelligence was the cause" – that would just be a big joke. If somebody says "I don't think driving a car is intelligent" I would shrug and say "Who cares what you call it? I am building a system that can drive a car, and that is what it does, and whether or not you choose to label this 'intelligent' or not makes no difference to anybody".
We could never explain the output of a system by reference to intelligence. Imagine I build a program that designs a new type of electronic circuit. Excited customers ask me "How does it work?" and I say "Well, it uses intelligence!". Everybody would laugh, and then somebody would say, "Ok, seriously – how does it work?", and then I would explain it. Simply saying "intelligence is the cause of the circuit designs" is a completely stupid and empty thing to say, and that is why everybody would laugh.
The same is true in ID. Saying "intelligence is the cause of life" says absolutely nothing about what the cause of life is! It is a completely stupid and empty thing to say. The only reason that smart people like yourself don't realize this is because when you say "intelligence", you actually have a rich connotation associated with this word in your head. In other words, you have an intuitive idea of what you are talking about, and this intuition comes from your own experience of your own conscious mind.
The problem is in order to use the concept of "intelligence" as an explanation, you need to actually say what aspects of mentality you are talking about. Consciousness would be one aspect, but if that is what ID means when it says "intelligence", it should be explicit about it. Alternatively, ID might want to identify other aspects of mental function that it is talking about when it uses the term "intelligence". There is no right or wrong way to define the word, but if ID is going to be taken seriously as a scientific explanation, there must be some definition offerred!
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
[...] it will be fascinating and entertaining. See below the fold for the first two comments, and enjoy. chunkdz:Aiguy, since you work with intelligence every day, can you tell us what metric you use? How do you [...]
Pingback by I’m Keeping My Eye on This Debate | Evolution Engineered — August 6, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Who would ride in a car driven by a system that was not sufficiently intelligent? Clearly some are more intelligent than others.
And wouldn't you consider a Turing test to be a "metric to measure intelligence"?
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
chunkdz,
Sorry, but you really haven't seen the point yet. Nobody would want to ride in a car that was driven by a system that couldn't drive a car safely, that's certain. But the point I am making is that it doesn't make any difference whether or not we say that "driving a car safely" should or should not be labelled as "intelligent". The label adds no information. Either the system can drive or it can't, and whether or not you decide to call it "intelligent" just makes no difference.
If you decide to define the word "intelligence" as "the ability to pass a Turing test", then that's just fine. You then have a perfectly meaningful definition for the word, and a metric that independent researchers can agree upon. However, this particular definition of "intelligence" would not suit the purposes of ID very well at all – I hope you can see why.
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
And you really need to stop this mischaracterization. The argument goes more like "CSI is only known to exist as a result of intelligent design". Feel free to argue all day about definitions and meanings and such, but you should really stop mischaracterizing ID and then calling it stupid.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled master class on Artificial Intelligence.
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
chunkdz,
Let's be clear here:
1) I'm not calling any person stupid of course – I even offerred an explanation for how smart people like yourself, Bradford, and others here might make this mistake about using the word "intelligence" as an explanatory concept.
2) It is, however, a completely vacuous explanation of anything. Explaining how a computer manages to drive a car by saying "Well, it's because it is intelligent!" is absolutely, positively comically stupid. Imagine I wondered how a cheetah manages to run so fast, and the explanation I was given was "The cheetah can run fast because it is athletic!. This too would be a perfectly ridiculous thing to say, because it provides exactly no information!
3) I am not mischaracterizing ID. ID offers one, single explanation for the cause of life, and that is "intelligence" (or "intelligent cause" or "intelligent design" or "design" or "telic cause" or "an intelligent designer"). CSI is part of the way ID attempts to support this conclusion, not part of the proposed explanation.
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
No, it's not as black and white as "Either the system can drive or it can't". There is a whole spectrum in between "can't drive" and "can drive as well as Mario Andretti". Those DARPA vehicles may be able to drive, but I'll be damned if I'll strap my kids into the backseat.
If intelligence is an overarching measure of specific traits such as planning, learning from mistakes, problem solving, etc., then we should be able to quantify the level of intelligence that a particular system has. Some systems will be better at some of these than others.
I'm not asking for a universal unit of measure for intelligence, aiguy. I'm asking you how you determine if your products are up to snuff. Intelligence DOES mean something, even though you seem determined to pretend it is meaningless. If you design an automobile driving system that is as intelligent as Mario Andretti at his peak, and I put out an automobile driving system that is intelligent as Lindsey Lohan at her worst, then who do you think will sell more systems?
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
chunkdz,
I agree of course. But this has nothing to do with any definition of "intelligence". You might want to define "intelligence" in terms of car-driving ability, but I think that wouldn't be a very useful definition to anyone, including ID enthusiasts.
Absolutely. Measures of human intelligence do just that, and the result is standardized intelligence (IQ) tests. Some psychologists actually define "intelligence" as "what [some particular standardized IQ test] measures". Again, I trust you can see this is not an appropriate definition in the context of ID.
If I built a car-driving program, the test would be "Can the system drive the car along this particular route without crashing?". If I built a system that designed new circuits, the metric would be "Does the circuit work?" or "Is this a novel design"?
Notice that the concept of "intelligence" doesn't come into play at all.
The word can mean all sorts of things. I'm not pretending anything. I'm just asking in the context of ID how would you like to define the word?
I don't care how intelligent a driver is – I care how well they drive cars.
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Nobody said you did.
Nobody suggested such a thing.
Nobody that I know does.
Yup. We know that intelligent designers make CSI. Very hard to define or measure, but we know it is there. This makes it difficult to define and measure, not "absolutely positively comically stupid".
I'm not asking you to welcome ID with open arms. I'm asking you to stop mischaracterizing it. And critical thinking demands it.
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Sure it does. I could design a car that can drive a route without crashing, but if it had no way to solve the problem of an elk crossing the road then it would be less intelligent than your improved version that knows how to solve the elk problem. Since problem solving is a parameter of intelligence then we are beginning to see a crude metric forming.
In the end, you could either say "we have designed a driving system with superior problem solving ability, superior planning ability, and improved ability to learn from it's own mistakes". Or you could just say it is more intelligent.
But since you want to avoid the word intelligent, maybe you can just tell me how you measure a system's problem solving ability, or a particular system's ability to learn from it's own mistakes" or to "correct it's errors".
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
chunkdz,
Huh? ID says that "certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause". You've never heard that before? (I can find that quote in dozens of books, websites, forums, etc)
What do you mean by "intelligent designers"?
Are you talking about measuring CSI, or measuring intelligence, or both? Obviously, in order to evaluate the truth of the statement "intelligent designers make CSI", you need to be able to identify what is and is not an "intelligent designer", by some means other than whether or not they can create CSI. So, please just say how I can consider any particular thing (being, system, entity, whatever) and decide if it is an intelligent agent or not. That's all you need to do.
Again, I honestly don't believe I've mischaracterized anything at all.
Well, no – read it again. I answered your question, and told you just how I would judge if AI systems are "up to snuff", and made no reference to "intelligence" at all.
Yes! Very good! I would say you are saying that novel problem solving should be a critical component of what we agree to call "intelligence". Would you agree to define "intelligence" such that just because a system can solve on particular set of problems doesn't necessarily mean it is intelligent – instead, it needs to be able to solve problems that it has never before encountered? So, to test to see if that system was "intelligent" by that definition, we would need to present the system with a problem it had never encountered before, right?
You could say that, and people might (or might not) know that you meant "flexible", or "able to solve problems it hadn't before encountered". If you needed to be careful, however (as in scientific work) you'd want to make your statement quite specific.
No, I don't need to avoid the word. I simply ask that you provide a specific meaning in the context of ID.
First, are you now saying that all intelligent systems necessarily must have the ability to learn from their mistakes? As always, I would happily agree that this (or anything else) should be included in our definition of "intelligence" in the context of ID. We simply have to agree on what the definition is, whatever it is.
We have no such general definiton in AI, of course. First, not all AI systems learn – only some of them do. Second, what they learn can be so different (the meanings of words? not to drive over a cliff?) that no meaningful operationalized metric for learning can be applied to both. (There are metrics for particular training methods in machine learning, for example, but these can't be directly related to tasks that computer systems do like language understanding or driving).
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
aiguy: I think your description of intelligence above is very logical but also
a) anthro-centred
b) lacks heart, which is an aspect of intelligence.
This is exemplified in your paragraph: "AI researchers try to build computer systems that can do things that people do, such as recognize faces, read books and answer questions, drive cars, prove theorems, design circuits, compose music, and so on."
Sure, a computer can recognise a smile, but it cannot recognise the feeling it evokes, let alone the limitless nuances of feeling, all of which are a function of 'intelligence'. Perhaps we should say 'sentience' instead of intelligence.
As to your repeated statements that nobody is offering a definition, I have done so in the following post on 'Rigorous Definitions'. In that definition, you will see that I do not posit a 'Designer' and yet nothing I do posit contradicts either Darwinian or ID theory as far as I can tell. Am curious what you make of it as an AI person.
Finally, I think the point about heart is important. Similarly one could add in 'gut'. Not only have synaptic and other processes been evidenced in both areas by modern scientists, but also clearly there are many levels of intelligence, including somatic. Nevertheless, far too often people only discuss the cerebral/intellectual variety. For example you are complaining that there is not a definition but at the same time it seems to be that you have a very narrow notion of the overall area and are not willing to entertain broader, more layered definitions beyond the cerebral alone. If this is unfair or inaccurate, apologies.
I would say, for example, that intellectual / logical intelligence is simply one style or offshoot of sentient intelligence and by no means a core characteristic. And within that overall domain, 'heart' and 'gut' intelligence in humans is definitely paramount, even though it is not something that is accessible via the logical circuits.
No AI machine will ever be able to differentiate between Sally's smile in high school on a Friday night to her boyfriend, and Sally's smile next morning at breakfast whilst answering questions as to what she was up to so late last night with said boyfriend! And even if it can on some level, it won't by any means be able to differentiate the different reactions to each smile, i.e. reaction from boyfriend in the back seat, versus reaction from Mother at the kitchen table!
Comment by ash — August 6, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Doesn't it give you pause when you realize that will all the effort going into ID, you are the first one to think of asking an expert to help define "intelligence". I would have expected ID theorists far more mainstream than you to ask experts in intelligence far more mainstream than aiguy. In fact, I would expect to see this happening all the time as a fundamental part of the ID effort. Don't you ask yourself why is it only happening this late, and way out here in this small corner of the ID world?
Comment by don provan — August 6, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Yes. Like I said, "difficult to define" does not necessarily translate to "laughably stupid". And attributing the design of certain features to an intelligent cause does not translate to "intelligence did it".
You know what? I believe you.
That's what you are helping me to define.
Actually, when you include the requirement "drive without crashing", you did, because this encompasses the parameters of intelligence.
I'd say this looks promising.
Well, that's the nature of heuristic algorithms, isn't it? You can't work through every set of outcomes, so at some point we have to decide statistically what is "good enough". My question to you is how do you measure what is good enough?
That's what we're working on, here.
Then for now, let's define it by three parameters.
Novel Problem Solving
Planning
Learning
Then maybe we need different metrics for each parameter, or different metrics for each thing the system has to learn. And so on. Don't throw in the towel just because the problem seems overwhelming at first.
Do you think there's a way to measure the above three parameters for a given machine? [ie: is there a way to say empirically that one machine is a better problem solver than another?]
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Chunkdz,
Sorry, but I actually meant that exactly the same. ID offers "intelligent cause" as an explanation for life (or other features of the world).
Hey, thanks!!!
According to some (as yet unstated) definition of "intelligence" that you have in your head, perhaps so.
Great! One more time, to be perfectly clear: Let's agree that "novel problem solving" is a necessary criterion for something to be called "intelligent". This means that in order to determine if something is intelligent, we need to be able to present it with a problem that we have reason to believe it has never previously encountered. Otherwise, even if it could solve the problem, it may be simply as a result of it's hard-wired form and function, and not as a result of adaptive, flexible cognitive skills. Can we agree on this?
Not really – "heuristic algorithms" refer to algorithms designed to solve problems without a known tractable solution, not one that can solve types of problems it hasn't encountered before.
It depends on what the system is doing, and how good you want it to be at that, I suppose.
Excellent! Is that your final answer?
Ok. I've been working at it for 30 years… how much longer would you like me to try?
What is important here, I think, is a definition that we can agree on that will tell us if something is intelligent at all. After all, ID doesn't say how intelligent the Intelligent Cause is supposed to be – ID's claim is simply that the cause is intelligent at all, right?
ash,
First you suggest my definition of intelligence is anthro-centered (anthropomorphic)? Remember, I am not offering a definition of my own – I'm asking ID proponents to say what it is they mean. But then, you suggest that I include "heart" in this definition, as though that isn't anthro-centered?
Well, which is it then? "Sentience"? "Intelligence?"
Ash, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard this… These are empirical claims. If you believe what you say, you need to have a prinicpled reason for saying it (i.e. making inferences from empirical facts) or you need to have demonstrated it directly. And by the way, many of these "no computer could ever…" claims have been disproven over the years.
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
aiguy, I appreciate your efforts and I have learned a lot from them, and please continue, but by Jove isn't it obvious to you that IDists never feel the need to define "intelligent" because they really mean God (the omnipotent omniscient maximally intelligent supreme being) when they talk about the intelligent cause that's supposedly the best explanation for complex stuff? They want sciency sounding pseudo-theories to back up their beliefs so they can feel more rational, and possibly undermine the publication education system.
Comment by Raevmo — August 6, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Aiguy: I knew I was invoking the response about anthro-centred (morphic if you prefer but not the same meaning exactly) and then heart. But this is a blog and I leaped from one thought to the other. To explain further:
a) if you are going to describe intelligence in anthropomorphic terms, you cannot only isolate 'cerebral' type functions
b) given a) which IS anthropomorphic, the description lacks 'heart' which is clearly an aspect of human intelligence, not to mention gut (which according to some scientists – not to mention yogis from the 5th century BC and earlier or samurai/martial arts experts who train in 'hara' development, etc. etc. – has greater synaptic activity than the cerebral cortex.
My point here is that intelligence keeps being discussed as a something whereas in fact it is a relationship or interchange between non-local (absolute if you will) 'elements' within the nature of 'reality' and local/physical beings. So individuated organisms/beings access this non-local (infinite) resource in different ways similar to how a radio or TV accesses different transmissions by changing its settings. The radio does not 'create' that which it receives and then processes as jazz, rock or talk. Some organisms configure themselves to ONLY receive talk and not jazz and for them jazz simply does not – and cannot – exist because they cannot tune to those frequencies. But the point of the analogy is: perhaps it is a fallacy to assume that because a radio is blaring out music that it on its own, in isolation as an independent thingamibob, is 'creating' the intelligent behavior in this case manifesting as the sound of jazz.
In terms of 'sentience' versus 'intelligence' it's not really an either-or choice. Both are just words. But if you insist that a word must be posited, and given that the same word has different meanings to many especially in this real, then, backed into a corner, I offer: 'sentient intelligence!'
Comment by ash — August 6, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Yeah, but this may depend on how we measure "problem solving". Is it about the number of problems that it can solve, or the complexity of the problem solved? If one system can solve problem A but another cannot, does that make the first one more intelligent?
Doesn't the former encompass the latter?
I want to be able to put my kids in your artificially intelligent car and have them be safe. There must be a way to measure how intelligent the car is when it comes to:
planning
problem solving
and learning
Many cars exhibit these features already. How do we know if one car is better than others at doing these tasks?
No, that's why I said "for now".
Ummm, you said that you have no interest in the meaning of the word intelligence. After 30 years of disinterest I was hoping I might be able to spark some interest in you.
I'm more interested in a metric for determining levels of intelligence. An "IQ" for ID.
Here's my question again.
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
re: " Ash: No AI machine will ever be able to…
Aiguy: Ash, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard this… These are empirical claims. If you believe what you say, you need to have a prinicpled reason for saying it (i.e. making inferences from empirical facts) or you need to have demonstrated it directly. "
Fair enough. I fold. But in respectful repartee I can also retort: if you are an AI expert, then show me an example of an AI machine able to perceive the 'nuancical' differences between boyfriend Harry's and Mother Mary's reaction to those two different (hypothetical) smiles?
I am sure a machine could discern a difference by various means. But not in terms of the 'heart' quality referenced above as being part of 'sentient intelligence'.
I rest my unprovable case!
PS. The fact that it is unprovable lies (pun intended) at the 'heart' of this ongoing debate/polemic.
Although one can logically infer that, for humans and animals at least, the heart is an organ around which certain aspects of intelligence muster and function, experientially speaking such functions/effects cannot be defined fully in only logical/cerebral terms. Hence my use of the smile analogy.
One simply cannot – as a male – describe the experiential effect of a smile – from an attractive female – in only logical terms.
Similarly, logic cannot define/describe how a martial artist, using the hara, anticipates and/or counters various thrusts and blows using sensory and perhaps other means whereby to perceive and react. Describe them, yes, logically speaking, but not qualitatively.
Qualitative analysis and awareness is a prime function of intelligence, even in animals, but is not something that AI will be able to replicate since it is lodged in territorially based viscera and other organs involved in a real-time dynamic 'being-ness' exercise that logic alone cannot discern.
Comment by ash — August 6, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Raevmo,
I think that only a few people (Dembski is one) actually know that they are being disingenuous. Most people just have never thought about the mind/body problem, and they are confused. I have spent a lifetime disabusing people of inconsistent and unscientific ideas about mentality in the context of computer thought; this is just more of the same in a more ideologically charged context.
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Chunkdz,
Again, I don't think you'll get far trying to quantify how much problem solving some arbitrary system is capable of, because problems are of such disparate types. The same issues of course arise in human psychology – one can be very smart about math and stupid about English (although there is this concept of general intelligence, known as g, which attempts to capture the fact that different cognitive abilities in human beings are seen to have covariance, presumably due to fundamental aspects of neurology).
Not really, no. (There is some confusion regarding how you decide if one problem is the same as, or different from, another problem, but hopefully we won't get bogged down there). For example I might want to write a program that will solve the travelling salesman problem. That is all my system is going to be able to do – it won't be able to solve any other kind of graph problems, or math problems, or read a book, or drive a car, just solve travelling salesman problems and nothing else. Since this problem is NP-complete, I can't code it with an algorithm that is known to complete in reasonable time, so instead I would use heuristic algorithms.
Please don't!
Fair enough.
No, I'm still uninterested in how anybody chooses to define some word or other. I'm interested in what computers can and can't do.
Ok, good luck.
I don't see any utility in this at all – it would be an exercise in uniformative labelling. What I'm interested in doing is showing that for any definition of "intelligence" you choose, you will find that one of two things turns out to be true:
1) Your definition of intelligence doesn't doesn't capture what we experience as human thought
OR
2) Using your definition of intelligence, we find there is no reason to believe that the cause of life meets that definition
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Re: "1) Your definition of intelligence doesn't doesn't capture what we experience as human thought
OR
2) Using your definition of intelligence, we find there is no reason to believe that the cause of life meets that definition.."
Please read my threefold logic definition in the Rigorous thread and see how it plays in terms of your above criteria. I think I have addressed both concerns although I never thought of them as such.
Comment by ash — August 6, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
ash –
I don't see a "threefold logic definition" there, but the question here is not about "logic" – it is about "intelligence" in the context of ID theory.
Please fill in this blank: The way we can test any arbitrary thing (system, being, entity, etc) to see if it is intelligent or not is to __________________.
Just fill in the blank, that's all.
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
For fun in response:
'use our intelligence in observing its properties to discern the nature of the intelligence observed'. In other words, there is qualitative analysis which is probably not what you are looking for in terms of a nailable-downable logical definition. Practically speaking, though, it sort of somewhat works.
Re the 3fold logic. It is not a long thread. I did a quick definition and an hour later – or whatever – a longer one and there it is along the lines of Essence, Nature and Function of Intelligence.
You have been in AI for 30 years. I have been in the business of contemplating and translating stuff from a totally different culture and tradition into modern language, mainly simply for myself. For me trying to discuss these things with people like yourself who are well grounded in your own discipline is both a challenge and a pleasure. I am not saying I have all the answers or even what I say is definitive or 'right', but also it is the product of several decades of gestation even though science – and evolution – per se, is not my field.
Comment by ash — August 6, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Try.
Maybe we can come up with some benchmark problems, and see which machines can solve them.
I can work with that. But I'll need more of an answer than:
Some machines can solve problems better than others. How can we quantify this property?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We're talking about cars that drive themselves. Some are better at this, some are worse. How do we quantify this?
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
chunkdz,
Ok, I'll try: The way we measure which machine is the most intelligent is to measure how many problems it can solve on a standard IQ test like the Stanford-Binet. OK?
You are asking me a question that I believe has no useful answer. You could only quantify it in ways that would tell you nothing about AI, but only something about how you've chosen to set up your metrics.
You can develop any metrics for you want, even for just one particular domain. DARPA is interested in automated driving systems that can stay on poorly-maintained unlit dirt roads even at night; GM is interested in systems that can keep safe distance in heavy freeway traffic. Let's say I develop two systems, one that can only the first and one that can do only the second. Which would you say is more intelligent (and why would anyone care what the verdict was)?
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
If a peptide 100 sequences in length is hypothesized to have been conserved as far back as the transition from a prebiotic to a cellular environment and one allows for 20 AAs for each residue then a value for the total number of random possibilities (1/20^100) could be calculated and compared to an actual functional sequence. The functional sequences (there would be more than one because some substitutions would not degrade function) would have a probability value. The product of it and the trp number yield an actualization value (av)- the numerical measure of intelligent input required. The input would vary inversely to the av. The smaller the av value the greater the input.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
No, let's stick to the car example.
That's ok. I'm not interested in AI, and I'm not interested in completely seperating the observation from the observer.
We know that some cars are better at solving problems. How do you measure this?
That's a tough question. But an easier observation might be that a car that could solve BOTH problems would be more intelligent than either of your examples.
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Bradford,
If you would like to measure intelligence in terms of comparing actual polypeptides to the probabilities you compute by considering all possible sequences, that is fine. In that case, two things are true:
1) Since your definition says nothing about the method by which these sequences are ordered, any process which orders the AAs qualifies as "intelligent" per your definition. Thus, you must stop arguing with evolutionary biologists about whether or not "intelligence" was involved, since by your definition they would say evolutionary processes are "intelligent", even though they operate without foresight or consciousness.
2) Even if evolutionary biologists are wrong, and evolutionary processes could not account for the functional sequences we observe, ID would make no claims at all about what could account for it. Since your definition of intelligence says nothing about thinking, planning, learning, awareness, thought, foresight, memory, purpose, or any other aspect of mentality that we experience, even if your theory as accepted as 100% correct it would tell us absolutely nothing – not one single thing – about what was responsible.
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
chunkdz,
OK.
I've already given you my best, most truthful answer: You can measure this however you want to, and I see no way to imagine that one way is any more correct than any other way.
If you chose to think of intelligence that way, then you'd be right. If I wanted to create the most intelligent thing of all, then, I would think of all the problems I knew how to solve and put the solutions into a single system – that way my system could solve the biggest number of problems. Still, somebody else who was interested in a single problem that wasn't among those my system could address would disagree, and think my system wasn't so intelligent after all, and a system that could solve the problem they were interested in would be much more intelligent. You could argue about it with them, but I don't see how either of you could be declared right or wrong.
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Ok, we're making some headway. But this is only part of the equation. There is also "planning", which I think might be relatively easy to quantify. And "learning". Can we quantify a machines ability to learn?
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Parents and their environments are clearly a sufficient set of boundary conditions to create life. This has been empirically verified. The complexity of the boundary conditions is at least as complex as the embryo, if not more (factories are usually more complex than the artifacts they produce).
We also have test tube babies and a variety transgenic organisms or organism created in a variety of ways.
Clearly there exist physical boundary conditions in operation to day that creates life.
For the first life, I don't know what those boundary conditions would have been, but with the monist type assumption of a purely physical reality, that's what it would have had to have been. We can presume it was not the same boundary conditions of parents creating offspring.
Could it be the universe was a life creating factory and now it is not in a state where it is obvious that the universe was the intelligent designer? Logically speaking, from a purely materialist standpoint, it is hypothetically possible. Thus, in his view, the universe was born with the ability to create life at least once.
In such case the physical universe is the intelligent designer.
I personally don't subscribe to this because, again, there is nothing in our understanding of the physical universe that suggests it is inherently capable of creating life.
Werner Lowenstein in Touchstone of Life has the view that the information of life originated from the initial conditions of the Big Bang.
But this is like saying at one point in time, all the right atoms were in the right location, correct velocity, and state, and then life magically arises. That is at least plausible in principle, like all the air in a room ending up in one corner for a brief moment. It is not formally impossible, just highly unlikely (an understatement). Statistical mechanics tends to prevent such things from happening, but they are not formally impossible.
If an improbable thing happens (which is not formally impossible), it is still rather indistinguishable from a miracle.
Living matter provides the sufficient physical boundary conditions for life. We do not see this in non-living matter (as was the hope of the spontaneous generationists and OOL researchers). The only way non-living matter has been known to be put into a sufficient boundary condition is to be assimilated into a living organism!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 6, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
August 6th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
chunkdz,
You may think we're making headway, but you've ignored the other part of this part of the equation. Imagine I have one system that can solve an infinite number of problems, but each problem is very simple (say, adding two numbers). I have another system that can solve only one problem, but that problem is "prove the Goldbach conjecture". Do you really think the first system is "more intelligent" in some meaningful sense?
And I think you can now see how the issue of how to count problems is going to bite you eventually – does "adding two numbers" count as one problem, or as an infinite number of different problems? Worse than that, it turns out that saying what a problem is, and what counts as solving it, is problematic as well. Does a river solve the problem of finding a path to the sea?
Well, then I suggest you proceed to "quantify planning"!
Not in any meaningful way I can think of… how about you?
You seem to be dragging this out a bit, and not making actual progress toward making any point. Can you perhaps try to summarize where you think you're going with all of these questions?
Sal,
WHAT? Human beings require intelligence to reproduce? Now you've totally lost me.
What do you mean by "intelligent designer"? Maybe you can just provide a single definition?
What is "magic"?
Unless magic made it happen, I suppose. Can you rule out magic?
Is a miracle the same as magic? If not, how are they different?
Comment by aiguy — August 6, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Any machine that could prove Goldbach's conjecture would also have to be able to add integers, which would mean that the Goldbach machine would be able to solve all of the problems of the first machine, as well as the computational problem of identifying primes etc.
We should avoid the temptation to assign "weight" to a given problem. Although solving Goldbach's conjecture would be momentous to us, it would be just another problem solved in the world of machines.
Yes it does. Chalk up one solved problem for the river. But since we are looking for a quotient, the river must also be able to demonstrate
planning
and learning
in order to have a positive intelligence value.
Well, let's look at the car example. The input command is "drive me from Corpus Christi to St. Louis". In order to plan a route, the car must possess a database of GPS coordinates, road plans, traffic patterns, highway closures and detours, etc. If the car only had plans for Texas, then we could consider that car less intelligent than another car (all other things being equal) which had plans for the entire country.
Would it be fair to measure "planning" by the size of the accessible database for trip planning? This value would constantly increase dependent upon the metric for "learning".
Let's see. Certainly some machines learn better than others. Let's say the car hits a pothole on the morning commute. A car that could learn this pothole's location and avoid it the next time could be considered more intelligent than a car that lacked this capability.
So how to quantify?
Would we be looking at "learning" in the context of some reinforcement algorithm? Can we then rate the respective power of algorithms based on optimal return? This is really where I need your expertise.
Comment by chunkdz — August 7, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Engineering has no standards for determining whether or not something looks designed. Engineering doesn't do that.
Comment by Freelurker — August 7, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
"Engineering has no standards for determining whether or not something looks designed. Engineering doesn't do that."
LOL Huh?! I mean, What?!
Engineering has far more exacting tests than what "looks designed."
What "looks designed" is a problem for IDers and their critics, who generally don't know much about design, other than what does/not "look designed" to them.
Comment by Rock — August 7, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Design Pattern Detection Using Similarity Scoring, IEEE
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
chunkdz,
OK. We can talk about mentality in two ways – behavioral and functional. You have opted to define intelligence functionally, so that intelligent systems necessarily employ planning and learning. Thus, other systems that might achieve the same output by different means would not be intelligent. So, in your scheme, rivers do solve problems, but aren't intelligent because they do not plan.
I think this is very good, and clear – you avoid the circularities that often arise in ID (as when people explain CSI by intelligence, then define intelligence as the ability to generate CSI).
So let's talk about planning and learning, your (provisional) criteria for intelligence. As for learning, if we generalize the concept so that it applies to any arbitrary system, learning can be characterized as "actionable memory" (persistently modified physical states that can influence future behaviors). Evolutionary processes (either biological RM&NS or genetic algorithms) are systems that learn, for example. In fact, it might be difficult to argue that even the river is not capable of learning; once it finds the path to the sea, persistent physical state (a deepening of the riverbed) occurs which influences how it carries water.
So I would say of your three criteria, it is really "planning", and not problem solving or learning, that distinguishes what you characterize as intelligent from countless familiar physical systems. We are all familiar with the claim, for example, that evolutionary processes do not have foresight and cannot plan – they instead employ "blind" or "random" methods, where fortuitous changes happen by chance alone, and then are fixed by selection.
But now I want you to consider this: Recently Bradford brought up Nobel prize-winning neuroscientist Gerald Edelman, who believes that the way our brains work (by which he means the way our intelligence works) is via just these sorts of evolutionary processes. Crudely stated, in this view, inside our brains are mechanisms that unconsciously generate all sorts of candidate thoughts at random, and other mechanisms test these variations for fitness. So, when I sit there figuring out how to, say, build a watch, what is actually happening is in my unconscious mind countless possibilities are being generated and discarded, failing to meet some criterion that has been set by other mechanisms interacting with the environment. Finally, when some candidate passes muster, I become conscious of the result, and it seems to me that I have simply "used my foresight" to arrive at the answer.
You might argue that this is simply conjecture, and for all we know this isn't at all how our planning works. Instead, it could be that immaterial minds interact with our brains, and these minds are somehow capable of zeroing in on viable solutions in non-mechanistic (or non-algorithmic) ways. I agree – we do not know. Certainly AI systems generate novel plans this way, using genetic algorithms (GAs). My point, however, is that the ability to plan does not necessarily distinguish what happens when people design solutions to problems vs. when natural processes (such as evolution) does it.
Let me say this a different way: At some level, all of AI (and all cognitive functions in general) can be seen as "generate-and-test" algorithms of one form or another. Some systems may have very simple generators, where the candidates are constrained very little (i.e. "random variations"), and rely on the test function to select workable solutions. Other systems may constrain candidates more tightly via some mechanism that derives candidates from environmental information, and require less filtering by the test function. But this should be seen as a spectrum, rather than a dichotomy; there is not a specific, qualitative aspect that distinguishes an AI system that has "foresight" from a system that does not.
And we should also agree that systems with foresight (i.e. that use stored information or information from the environment to constrain generated candidates) cannot be distinguished behaviorally from systems without foresight (i.e. that use random generators), except in certain situations – those which involve putting the system in a novel context.
Maybe, but this actually seems a bit wrong… there is some distinction between the reasoning and data you're missing. The ability to plan, that you are saying distinguishes intelligent systems, is independent of the data available, so while adding more data certainly allows the system to solve more problems or solve them more optimally, it doesn't indicate any difference in reasoning (i.e. planning) ability.
Again, my point here was that these criteria are completely domain-specific, and so aren't useful when comparing a system that learns how to play checkers with a system that learns how to translate French to English.
Machine learning is a broad subdiscipline, and it has found many useful applications. There are a number of different induction algorithms, each with particular strengths and weaknesses, and appropriate for different types of problems.
Anyway, you continue to pursue some way to rank-order systems by their ability to learn, plan, and solve problems; I think your effort there is quite misguided. I continue to try and make the point that in the context of ID theory, the type of "intelligence" that may actually be warranted by the evidence has virtually nothing in common with the conscious mentality that we humans subjectively experience.
Comment by aiguy — August 7, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
A link to download the paper Sal cites is at the bottom of the page here.
I'm not an expert, but it looks like it has to do with using "design detection" to understand and catalog the programming methods used in a large software project. It posits an improved method for finding (within a particular software project) patterns that are already described an existing catalog of design patterns. Thus it seems to have nothing to do with with distinguishing design from non-design.
Comment by congregate — August 7, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Sal has another example up his sleeve, congregate.
Genetic-ID
They apparently employ Dembski's explanatory filter!!!
Comment by Alan Fox — August 7, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
When you get right down to it, I'm not averse to calling a river intelligent, if we are able to really get an accurate asessment of it's IQ. But right now I'd be content just to get a fairly low resolution brute force formula to work with.
I like how you characterized learning as "actionable memory". I think we can pretty well measure the "memory" part of that. Do you think there is a way to measure "actionable"?
If this can be demonstrated it would answer some questions. Right now the ID IQ may be my most viable option.
I'd be reluctant to divorce planning from the other criteria when defining intelligence. I feel that all three often feed off of each other, in a way.
This is why I think the planning database is a key factor. If our car comes to an unplanned police roadblock, it will have to resort to an alternate route from it's database. But if it forced into an area for which it has no map it will resort to random search or some other blind search algorithm. Both may get you where you want to go, but a robust planning database is currency in the intelligence bank, and should rightly yield a higher IQ.
Unless we make it a function of time. If our car needs a detour, the car with the robust planning database will get us there faster than a car doing a blind search. Should we add a time variable to our planning metric? I had hoped we could avoid this by appealing to a metric for optimal return.
I don't know about this. A machine that can plan more optimally should rightly be considered a better planner, and therefore more intelligent. Shouldn't optimality be a key metric here?
Perhaps the discrete unit should be "problem". This is general to all domains. No weighted index given to what we would consider a big problem (ie: beat Gary Kasparov) or a small one (ie: perform an opening move)
Can these algorithms be measured for optimal return?
Maybe. I do appreciate your indulgence in something that you consider misguided. And I thank you for lending your expertise.
So a crude outline so far:
Problem solving = An unweighted raw integer representing the actual number of discrete problems that a machine is able to solve.
Planning = A measure of the accessible planning database. (Do we need a metric for ability to process the database? Why?)
Learning = Sensory input and actionable memory = A measure of total sensory input, acquired memory, (and some metric for "actionability"?)
Comment by chunkdz — August 7, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Are you saying recognizing a design to you is not a sufficient condition to detect a design.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Sal:
Discriminating between design A and design B is not quite the same as discriminating between design and non-design. So no, it is not sufficient at all. Maybe necessary.
Comment by Raevmo — August 7, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
chunkdz,
OK, I think this is progress. You seem to be amenable to the notion that there is no fundamental, qualitative demarcation between intelligent and non-intelligent things in the world. That is certainly my view, but it seems to fundamentally be at odds with ID.
Nothing occurs to me, no.
Right. I think we should agree that no matter how simple a generate-and-test system might be, given enough time, any given output may arise. Now, people often make the mistake of trying to see how improbable some particular biological structure might be, as though it was the target of some sort of search. Since we have no reason to think that any particular biological feature was targetted by anything, we can't really judge how improbable anything is a priori. But even so, if we agree that biological features took millions of years to develop (even in the Cambrian "explosion"), it would seem to preclude the sort of "ah-hah!" intelligence that many IDers seem to envision (that which does not proceed by any mechanism, but which comes somehow all at once).
Experiments reveal that in human cognition, insights that we experience as "flashes of insight" actually are the result of longer unconscious processing. For example, asked to match objects presented in different rotations, the time it takes for someone to answer varies directly with the number of degrees the item has been rotated… as though some mechanism in the brain is actually processing the rotation by degree. Subjects are unaware of this however, and experience only the resulting solution… in a flash of "insight".
I honestly don't know. Again, I don't really understand the idea of this metric you are trying to develop.
Look at our attempts to provide an overall metric to compare the intelligence of human beings with each other. The concept of a single metric (g) is highly controversial, and relies on an arbitrary averaging of scores on particular tests of cognitive function – tests which cannot be administered to any other sort of thing except a human being. So despite centuries of work, we have no metric at all which can be used to compare the cognitive function of arbitrary systems; we also have no single metric we can use to compare one animal against another, and even the metrics that some have adopted to measure the intelligence of one human being against another are plagued with controversy and problems of intepretation. We are not going to solve these problems in this thread.
In that case, an adder circuit is among the most intelligent things in the universe, since it is capable of solving an infinite number of different problems.
Any measurement of the efficiency of induction algorithms is domain-specific.
This marble in my desk can solve the problem of finding the path of least action down any of an infinite variety of complex sets of inclined planes it is placed upon. This marble is…. brilliant!
and so on.
Comment by aiguy — August 7, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Here is a thread at UD, Raevmo. Just glance at the first comment.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 7, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
From 2006? Bwahaha. Some people never learn.
Comment by Raevmo — August 7, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Rock,
I think that you and I agree; IDists don't do what engineers do, and engineers don't do what IDists do.
Sal,
You are blatantly equivocating between the way the term "design" is used in engineering and the way it is used in ID. This should be obvious to anyone who understands both engineering and ID. The people who use the pattern detection methods you refer to already know that the software was developed purposefully.
Comment by Freelurker — August 7, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Hardly.
DaveScot closed the thread down on May 2. Bill Dembski overruled him, and I was encouraged by Bill to re-open the discussion on May 11.
It was DaveScot who did not understand, not me. Why else do you think Bill over-ruled Dave?
See:
Genetict ID (revisited)
Who do you think over-ruled DaveScot? Not Moi…:
mrgreen:
DaveScot was in error.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
More word games. "Detecting a design" (i.e., detecting a pattern) is not what IDists do; they "detect design" (i.e., detect purposefullness)
Comment by Freelurker — August 7, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
freelurker:
And you know that DNA software was developed unintentionally.
Or maybe it's just a gap. For sure it is not design. 
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
This, to my simple brain, is the heart of the matter. ID is not positing 'abstract intelligence' as the cause of life, it posits a a sentient being like us as that cause.
"Artificial intelligence" is called that because it is based on "what people do". This is the same logic we use. The designer of life used methods and principles similar to "what people do" and therefore can be classified as "intelligent" by the same metric that AI can.
People take materials and organize them into functional systems. People engineer things. The designer did the same thing.
Now I don't know why so many ID proponents try to hide the fact that it's based on God. For me, the cornerstone premise of ID theory is that God exists and made life. All evidence is interpreted based on that premise. If ID is positing some 'non-being' or abstract 'intelligence' as a cause, then it will find itself in the quagmire you have illustrated. If however ID comes out of the closet and embraces the fact that we're talking about God–or at least a sentient being–then many of these problems are resolved.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 7, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Bradford,
I am making a simple point, and you are not addressing it.
Sal claimed that engineering criteria are used to detect design (in the ID sense.) I am pointing out that engineers don't have any such criteria, because we don't detect design (in the ID sense.) His rebuttal was based on an equivocation between the way "design" is used in engineering (meaning "pattern" or "to produce a pattern") and the way it is used in ID (meaning "purposefullness," "intention," or "goal-seeking."
Comment by Freelurker — August 7, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Sal,
Do you agree with Dembski and Marks that ID is an engineering science?
If so, can you tell a "war story" wherein engineers, as an important part of an engineering project, studied patterns in nature to determine if they were caused by an intelligent agent?
Comment by Freelurker — August 7, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Freelurker,
What section of Dembski's Design Inference required the reverse engineering of purporse in order to classify an artifact as designed?
I seem to recall, pattern matching was a more appropriate methodology.
Not just any pattern. How about patterns that are analogous to engineered artifacts like :
1. computers
2. software
3. language processors
4. motors
5. logic gates
6. feed-back control mechanisms
7. distributed network communication architectures
8. navigation systems
9. sensors
The very things laid out in Mike Gene's Design Matrix.
Case #1:
Knowing that software is already designed is a sufficient but not necessary condition to establish that it is designed.
Case #2:
Knowing that a bit stream conforms to a particular engineering design patter is a sufficient but not necessary condition to establish something is designed.
When one does have Case #1 in hand, Case #2 can be reverted to. Recognition of a design is sufficient to establish it is designed. When you find a cell phone out on the field, the question is not whether cell phones are designed (they are), but whether in fact the artifact is indeed a cell phone. If one determines it is a cell phone, then it is designed. You have recognized that the artifact conforms to a independent , non-postdictive pattern.
So, if you find an artifact that contains the following technologies:
1. computers
2. software
3. language processors
4. motors
5. logic gates
6. feed-back control mechanisms
7. distributed network communication architectures
8. navigation systems
9. sensors
What you conclude. That it conforms at least in appearance to designed artifacts. Whether an intelligence was responsible for the artifact is another story, but as Bill Said:
and
So formally speaking design detection does not involve determining the purpose or even presuming an intelligence is the root cause, it is materially the same as the process of design recognition.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Engineering is Intelligent Design.
"ID" in the sense of origins is the hypothesis that objects looking engineered are intelligently engineered.
SETI.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Sal-
Yes.
Are you claiming that in either of your examples, the design seekers are relying on some generic quality shared by "designed items", as opposed to relying on their knowledge of what specific existing designs look like?
Comment by congregate — August 7, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
So if you saw an artifact that looked like a watch out in the field somewhere, and you examine it and recognize it as a watch, are you saying that your recognition of the artifact as a watch is not a design detection? Are you saying then that you are not recognizing the physical artifact as a designed artifact?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Sal,
Yes, I understand that you, Dembski, and MikeGene all make analogies between objects in nature and human-engineered objects, and thereby infer that the objects in nature were designed.
My beef is with your apparent position that this act of inference is an engineering activity (i.e., something for which engineering has established criteria.)
There is an irony, if not hypocrisy, in IDist engineers calling upon science to infer that things in nature are engineered, when engineers doing engineering don't either infer that things in nature are engineered.
Comment by Freelurker — August 7, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The act of design inference is a human activity, engineering formalizes it, it is called "reverse engineering".
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
It doesn't matter to me. I just want to measure the intelligence of a robot car.
Hmm. So how can you tell if one machine is a better learner than another?
Can't we give the machine a test and see how it learns?
These guys think their robot car learning algorithm is better than previous algorithms.
http://roboticsproceedings.org...
What do they know that we don't?
I've heard every anti ID argument many times over, aiguy, so rehashing the old arguments is not something I want to spend time on.
Now, would a better metric be 'overall optimality' of the algorithm, or 'efficiency over time'? Or both??
That's fine. But you keep bringing up humans who are very complicated machines. Can we stick to the car example?
I'm well aware that we are not going to solve the controversy on this thread. But maybe if we try, we can come up with something useful – even if only minimally. Yes, IQ tests are flawed. But they do have some use, no?
Don't give up yet.
Well, if it had an infinite number of bits perhaps.
That's fine. How is this efficiency measured? We can use the example of our robot car.
Can the marble plan it's route in advance? Can it learn from it's mistakes and correct them next time? If the answer is no to either question it has an IQ of zero.
Comment by chunkdz — August 7, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
That, of course, does not answer the question I asked. Here's a direct quote of Dembski and Marks from their paper LIfe's Conservation Law:
Do you agree that ID belongs to the engineering sciences?
Because ID uses the word "engineered," that does not make ID an engineering activity (or an engineering science).
There is no doubt that engineering is done in support of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, but calling SETI itself an engineering project is really lame.
Comment by Freelurker — August 7, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
August 7th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Again with the equivocation on "design." No, reverse engineering does not include inferring design in the ID sense (the complement of chance and regularity.)
Reverse engineering, as the name implies, runs the engineering process backwards. Normal engineering first produces a requirements statement, then produces a design (a pattern/model), and then produces a product. Reverse engineering starts with a finished product, then produces a design that can lead to a product that is similar to the first. I can imagine that reverse engineering could also lead to an understanding of the requirements for the original product.
ID, of course, does none of the above. One of the biggest weaknesses of ID is that it does not do anything like reverse engineering. IDists actually dispute the need for ID to produce their own models of the objects or processes in nature. Neither will they get into the question of what requirements these objects might be fulfilling.
In both normal engineering and in reverse engineering, engineers produce models. They identify parts and tell how the parts work together. Like the scientists do, when we engineers produce models of objects and processes in nature, we call this simply modeling, not reverse engineering, because it is ultimately unknown whether or not nature was engineered.
Engineers and scientists are fellow modelers. IDists have opted out.
Comment by Freelurker — August 7, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
August 8th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Daniel,
Bravo! I love your candor and clarity. Yes, I believe that 99% of people who profess to believe in "ID" are talking about exactly that – a sentient (conscious) being, like a human being, except not a living organism.
You've made two mistakes here, actually. First, there is no reason at all to believe that whatever was the cause of life used "methods and principles" similar to what people do. In fact, AI systems positively do not use methods and principles similar to what people do! It is demonstrable by means of experiment that human beings use very different methods and principles than our computer systems do when playing chess, designing circuits, and so on.
Evolutionary processes do this as well.
I think it's because they want to pretend their religious beliefs are scientific.
Got it. It's called "religion". Cool!
Right! Once you try to pretend God is scientific, and you can only claim what empirical evidence warrants, you end up with a big old quagmire.
Yes. All of the problems can be resolved instantly – just come out of the closet, call it "religion" instead of "science", and we're all clear!
Chunkdz,
You'd have to make up a new test for every kind of machine. There isn't even a single test that measures how all people learn, since different people learn different things in different ways at different levels.
They don't know anything I don't know
Ask how well their car learns French.
And I've heard every naive attempt to reify intelligence, chunkdz. Perhaps I'm done here as well.
You are asking questions that have no right or wrong answer, so you might was well just answer them yourself.
I'm actually trying to have a discussion that has some chance of making a substantive point about ID. I don't see that happening with talking about how to measure the intelligence of a robotic car.
IQ tests are completely, utterly, 100% useless for any other context than testing human beings. So they are irrelevant to our discussion, which is about the intelligence of arbitrary systems.
You can measure the efficiency any way to choose to measure it. There is no right or wrong way.
You suggested that problem solving could be represented by the number of discrete problems solved. I pointed out that a marble could solve an infinite number of problems. The fact that it doesn't plan or learn is not relevant to that, since you were talking about your definition of problem solving, not intelligence.
My point is that your attempts to quantify things like learning and problem solving in a general way is utterly futile, as is your intent to build up some meaningful measure of intelligence that can be applied to arbitrary systems. Again, if we can't even do this for human beings, much less living things in general, why do you imagine you are going to be able to do this for arbitrary systems?
Comment by aiguy — August 8, 2009 @ 1:08 am
August 8th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Raevmo:
Sal has raised Genetic-ID as an example of ID at work before that at ARN. In the linked thread there are references to earlier threads that seem to be now lost.
Sal tends to conveniently forget previous objections to his assertions when re-presenting them in other fora.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 8, 2009 @ 4:41 am
August 8th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Looking at the Genetic-ID thread made me think about whether cognitive behaviour can be modeled as building up very simple processes of pattern matching. E. coli bacilli maintain themselves in the local optimum for nutrient supply by a very simple strategy. Sample and compare nutrient level to previous sample, if increasing, continue swimming, if decreasing, tumble and move in randomly selected direction, repeat. One sensory input and two responses achieve keeping the bacillus in a prime location.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 8, 2009 @ 4:59 am
August 9th, 2009 at 9:18 am
But isn't the goal of AI to more closely mimic human intelligence?
Do you have an example of an "evolutionary process" doing this? I'm talking about taking "materials" (i.e. non-functional building blocks) and organizing them into functional systems. AFAIK, evolutionary processes only modify existing, already functioning systems.
So investigating the productions of a sentient being is religion but investigating the productions of nature is science?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 9, 2009 @ 9:18 am
August 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Daniel,
AI is a broad discipline, and different research programs study different things. One motivation for AI is to implement neurologically plausible theoretical models of human cognition in computer systems to study them; another is to achieve human-level competence in various skills using whatever means works.
I'm not here to defend the notion that evolutionary biology can fully account for what claims to explain. My point, rather, is to say that if evolutionary processes organizes materials into functional systems, then these random-variation-and-test systems would have to be called "intelligent" by this standard. So, the question should not be "is the cause of biological complexity intelligent?" – it should instead be "what is the cause of biological complexity?".
No. You can attempt to investigate anything you choose scientifically, of course. "Sentience" and other phenomena that can only be experienced subjectively present particular challenges to scientific inquiry, but operationalized definitions do allow us to study even cognitive phenomena scientifically. Unless you provide an operationalized definition of "Intelligent Designer", however, you can't claim there is scientific reason to believe in any such thing.
Comment by aiguy — August 9, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
August 9th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
aiguy:
(emphasis mine)Sorry for the off-topic comment but could you point me to some of this music composed by AI and how it does the composing? I'm sure I could just google it but I figure, as an expert, you can direct me to the good stuff. Also, is there a site you would recommend for keeping up with developments in AI (for the layman)?
PS,
Although I mostly just lurk, you're contributions here(info, tone, clarity and patience) are much appreciated… and exceedingly rare. And I say that as one of those Christian, (fence-sitting)psuedo-creationist types. Thanks.
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — August 9, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
August 9th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Sal:
I'm saying that recognizing a known design, whether it be (1) a signature pattern in the otherwise natural DNA of a genetically modified organism, (2) a particular pattern of software coding within a larger program, or (3) a human-produced artifact in a field, is different in kind from the sort of design detection that ID depends upon.
Comment by congregate — August 9, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Yeah, Alan Fox is a little slow. He obviously doesn't comprehend that his spinning of the facts was just refuted.
No comment on the May 11, 2006 post eh Alan Fox? Are you going to maintain the May 2, 2006 post at UD was the final word on the matter.
Look again. DaveScot was overruled. He was wrong, not me.
Really, like the objection you made which was demonstratably wrong.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 10, 2009 @ 1:44 am
August 10th, 2009 at 2:03 am
What you are saying is not consistent with the claims of the ID community. Part of ID theory, as laid out by Dembski, is recognizing known designs.
Is not a computer running software a known design, independent of whether the computer is made of silicon, germanium, vacuuum tubes, DNA or other biotic material. That is a known design. The cell is like known design because it looks and behave like a nano-molecular computer (ala Hubert Yockey, father of bio-informatics).
When you see a cell phone out in the field, do you have to know the designers involved in order to conclude it is indeed a cell phone?
You do not have to assert an intelligence was involved in the manufacture, in order to say a physical artifact conforms to a known architecture.
If we happen upon a sonar system, we conclude it is a sonar system, do we not? It conforms to the design of a sonar system. It doesn't matter whether man made it or God made it, it is still a sonar system.
The question of intelligent orgins is a separate question. But I don't see why classifying something as conforming to a particular known architecture should be so problematic. Isn't that what engineers working in system biology are doing any way?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 10, 2009 @ 2:03 am
August 10th, 2009 at 4:46 am
The simple fact is Genetic-ID do not use the explanatory filter in their work. They check for GMO material in samples submitted to them by using chromatography (the same technique used in forensic "fingerprinting" of DNA at crime scenes) by matching wild-type against known GMO sequences.
You say Genetic-ID use the EF when you know full well they don't. What is the difference between that and lying?
Repeating an untruth doesn't alter the facts, Sal.
I credit Dave Springer with some integrity. Being overruled by Dembski doesn't make you wrong.
Fact one:
Genetic-ID don't use the EF.
Fact two:
No one has ever managed to demonstrate any scientific utility in the EF. (Dembski himself abandoned it then resurrected it for the very good reason that his critics "crowed" about the EF's demise.)
Comment by Alan Fox — August 10, 2009 @ 4:46 am
August 10th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Me: To the extent that the ID community engages in the recognition of known designs, its activities are unremarkable, though also unuseful, as far as I can tell.
And Sal, what is your answer to this question I asked above:
Are you claiming that in either of your examples [gmo identification and software pattern identification], the design seekers are relying on some generic quality shared by "designed items", as opposed to relying on their knowledge of what specific existing designs look like?
Comment by congregate — August 10, 2009 @ 10:55 am
August 10th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Dembski himself abandoned it then resurrected it for the very good reason that his critics "crowed" about the EF's demise.– Comment by Alan Fox — August 10, 2009 @ 4:46 am
You didn’t fall for that, did you Alan Fox? I bet Dembski hurt himself laughing. Dembski’s “critics” falling all over each in the rush to leap into his trap. What a bunch of nincompoops. How could they have been so stupid?! (I recall that Felsenstein, over at the Panda’s cave, didn’t fall for it.) It really is not so unreasonable to expect that the critic understand even the first thing about what he is criticizing.
But I still don’t think its either useful or even necessary. Because natural scientists already have design detectors. (E.g., the methods used in “Genetic-ID.”) IDers don’t use the EF—they don’t have to. Every example of design proffered by IDers has previously been identified as a design by natural and applied scientists. It hasn’t been used to identify any new designs. Has it?
These discussions are really never about "design detection," but about What? or Who? did the designing. Am I wrong about that?
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2009 @ 11:17 am
August 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Hi Rob R.
I actually don't know anyone in AI who works on music composition (and the more fundamental problem of musical understanding), but the AAAI site ( http://www.aaai.org ) is a good place to look for what's happening in general.
Here's the page on AI and music there: http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/p...
Very nice of you to say, thanks!
Dembski has a famous quote about AI:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembsk...
I was always glad to see that Dembski admits the notion of AI is incompatible with his theology, and he, Michael Egnor and other ID proponents do often write against the possibility of AI and against physicalist theories of mind in general. Still, most people don't realize that ID rests on a set of (dualist) metaphysical assumptions that are broadly incompatible with the modern cognitive sciences. There's nothing at all wrong or irrational about dualism, but Meyer, Dembski et al are very disingenuous when they imply dualism is confirmed by our experience.
In general, if (like Dembski and presumably yourself) my beliefs required that algorithmic machines couldn't replicate human thought, I would be comforted by the current state of AI research. There is no shortage of failed attempts to approach human competence in any number of areas, including music understanding and composition. On the other hand, it took a very long time for humans to manage heavier-than-air flight, so I wouldn't count AI out just yet.
Comment by aiguy — August 10, 2009 @ 11:37 am
August 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Congregate:
1. gmo identification : relies on knowledge of specific existing design
2. sowftware patterns: generic quality
With reference to designs touted by design community:
1. computer architecture : generic quality
2. "convergences": generic quality
3. "lock and key, irreducible complexity such as in protein protein binding stites": generic quality
4. sonar (submarines, bats, whales): generic quality
5. coding and decoding systems: generic quality
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 10, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Rock:
Well, Dembski is famous for "Street Theatre", so I was surprised when he "abandoned" the EF and not surprised when he performed another volte-face.
Me, neither!
It certainly hasn't!
Well, the important issue for me is not who or what but whether there is any designing by an intelligent designer going on and whether any scientific approach could investigate the idea.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 10, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
From Sal's thread Genetic-ID revisited
Allen MacNeill weighs in.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 10, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
aiguy:
Like a lot of people I've followed your posts here and in other I.D. forums for the past few years. One continual theme of yours is that there hasn't been the sort of progress in A.I. that has been hoped for. You certainly speak as one educated enough to be aware of what is going on in this field. In fact it wouldn't be surprising if you had connection to say, classified projects conducted by the military or something. And I have always wondered if in fact there isn't a track of classified research that the public will never hear about but that people like you might be well aware of. And I have wondered if in fact the government might have made gargantuan astonishing advances in AI and cognitive research and if that is the sort of thing they might make a calculated effort to continue to keep secret, perhaps for example through a well orchestrated campaign of disinformation, with well-educated well-spoken people like yourself acting as chief operatives. So by all means have a good laugh at all this if baseless, but how do we know you aren't in fact perpetrating disinformation about the state of advancement in AI research.
(Actually I hit preview on this not having decided to post it, but it was posted anyway.)
Comment by JT — August 10, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Hi JT,
I will tell you that your suspicions are baseless, but I'm a bit hard pressed to imagine how I might convince you of that. I don't have clearance to work on classified military programs, but I don't believe that there are any for basic AI research. There are of course plenty of classified projects using and adapting existing technologies to build weapons and other military systems, but the basic research is carried out at universities and (to a lesser extent) corporate research labs. The U.S. government funding agencies (primarily DARPA) is the main sponsor of this research.
Recently DARPA published a request for proposals for a very fundamental and ambitious AI study which will attempt to derive a theory of intelligence (we have none at the moment of course) from principles of thermodynamics:
http://www.darpa.mil/DSO/solic...
If your ideas about a conspiracy to hide AI advances were true, these sorts of projects would be ruses to cover-up the "astonishing advances" you think may have already taken place. And all of the top researchers at the best universities around the world would either be wallowing in ignorance compared to these secret goverment folks (where did they come from?), or they would be in on the conspiracy and spending their entire careers pretending to be stupid about AI.
So as much as I wish that somebody, somewhere had solved the problems we face in AI, I'm afraid the chances of that are nil. But if the Physical Intelligence Project results in a new theory of how intelligence can be reduced to the principles of thermodynamics (don't hold your breath please), we will certainly have a lot to talk about on this forum!
Comment by aiguy — August 10, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Sal- I disgree. I think what the design seekers rely upon is not a generic quality of designed items, but something else.
In the case of software patterns, I don't understand how the presence of generic signs of design can be used to distinguish one human-written pattern from another. How does that work?
Comment by congregate — August 10, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Ya don’t have to hold your breath… I referred to this line of research many years ago @ARN. Nice to see DARPA (my old employer) picking up on it.
http://ni.cs.tu-berlin.de/lehr...
What do you make of this stuff, Salvador T. Cordova? IDers?
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
"Puddle logic," isn't it? Sure it is. Just puddle logic.
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Rock, The DARPA BAA is not in the same line of research as the work you refer to. The Physical Intelligence project seeks a general theory of intelligence derived from thermodynamics, while your citation deals with adapting statistical mechanics for a particular BP technique. And obviously BP has not proven to be a model for general cognition.
So no, there is not a general theory of intelligence, so if you're holding your breath for that, I'm afraid you'll have to keep waiting.
Comment by aiguy — August 10, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
It seems then that AI compares something that we haven't decided is intelligent (computer programs) to something that we know is intelligent (humans), with humans being the baseline. Is that right?
You made the statement that evolutionary process "do" organize materials into functional systems, now you're saying "if they do". Which is it?
And the question is not "is the cause of biological complexity intelligent?", the question would be "did someone engineer life?".
Of course I think ID should be asking the question "if we work from the premise that life was engineered, what does the design of life teach us about the engineer and about engineering?" It seems silly to me that a branch of science that assumes a designer should spend it's time trying to show evidence of a designer. Life IS the evidence!!!
So if we found amazing technology on Mars – unlike anything on earth but obviously not the product of nature – we could not assume an "intelligent designer" unless we first defined the term? Seems a bit foolish to me.
Oh and BTW, if we were to make such a finding on Mars, research would not focus on whether or not it was designed, but rather on learning more about the designers!
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 10, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Daniel,
No, this is completely confused I'm afraid. I have said this so many times in so many ways, I just don't know if I can make it any clearer. So I'll use bold font, to see if that will help
Unless you provide an operationalized definition of the word "intelligent", it doesn't mean anything to ask of something is intelligent or not. So, whether or not something is "intelligent" is not a matter of fact. It can never be discovered by examination, testing, experiment, inference, or reason. When somebody calls something "intelligent", it isn't possible to say if they are right or wrong.
So to find out if a computer system is intelligent or not, there is nothing to do except decide what you choose to mean when you utter the word "intelligent". That's it – there is nothing more to it. And in the end, nobody really cares what you or anybody else thinks about calling things intelligent or not.
If you don't understand what I'm saying here, please read it again, or ask me a question. Unless you understand this point, you won't understand anything that I am trying to say here.
For the sake of argument, I will say "if they do".
I do not understand the difference between these two questions. To me, they mean the same thing.
How could you assume something was created by an "intelligent designer" until you first decide what that term means? How would you react if I claimed that something was created by a "gunderplitzen". Wouldn't you want to know what a "gunderplitzen" was before you decided if I was right or wrong?
And if we found "technology" on Mars, I assume we would think a complex living organism was responsible, because in our experience, only complex living organisms (human beings) create technology.
Comment by aiguy — August 10, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Sal:
What engineers are doing in systems biology is to help build models of biological entities and processes. Whereas engineers are capable of inventing new architectures, clearly they can model previously unknown architectures, such as in biomimetics.
Comment by Freelurker — August 10, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
August 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Because the "Most High God" may not be the proximate cause. The "Transcendent Above Spacetime Most High" may have created intermediates within spacetime that went on to design us (less sophisticated) earthlings. The designs on earth need not reflect some "absolute intelligence." It may "only" be some Super Smart Human-Like Thingies. And if you assume that some kind of beings (with goals and foresight) did in fact design life on earth, then it seems pretty obvious to me that the designs are not from an "Transcendent Above Spacetime Most High" (but I'm open to other views.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 10, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 11:39 am
"Rock, The DARPA BAA is not in the same line of research as the work you refer to…"
Their model is not obviously "evolutionary." Simple enough to solve.
"And obviously BP has not proven to be a model for general cognition."
No, BP is a particular technique addressing the general problem of inference. Yedidia et al do that in the very first sentence of report. (Did I cite the right report?)
"So no, there is not a general theory of intelligence, so if you're holding your breath for that, I'm afraid you'll have to keep waiting."
Comment by aiguy — August 10, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
I’m not holding my breath, because there is and always has been a general theory of intelligence (Or is it a specific theory of general intelligence?): Inference. The ability to derive reliable causal inferences (in support of decisions and actions) from uncertain or partial observations is the basis of just about every discipline in and model of artificial intelligence.
If you have a more general model I will listen.
“Intelligence is very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do."
http://www.aei.org/docLib/2006...
Reasoning, planning, problem-solving, abstraction, learning, “catching on,” “making sense,” and “figuring out,” etc. all depend upon making correct inferences.
Comment by Rock — August 11, 2009 @ 11:39 am
August 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
So, by that standard, humans cannot be considered intelligent and the entire branch of science called "Artificial Intelligence" has absolutely no scientific basis.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 11, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Rock,
First, not all AI is based on inference (cf connectionism). Second, nobody believes that inference is tantamount to all reasoning; you can't explain how inference implements pattern matching for example (if you say I recognize a face because I "infer" it from visual data, you really are saying nothing at all). Third, in many situations, "inference" serves as a name for what we don't understand. You can say that we perform "abductive inferences" in every day situations, but we don't understand how we do it. We have no general method for computing these inferences, and no psychological model for how humans do it.
Again, you can say this but it doesn't constitute a theory of intelligence. You could say all of these things depend on "cognition", or "mentality", or "thought", or "brainpower" – but none of these comprise a theory that explains anything at all. Saying intelligence depends on reasoning is as tautologically empty as saying reasoning depends on intelligence.
Comment by aiguy — August 11, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Daniel,
You still don't understand. You can consider anything you'd like to be intelligent – it is purely a matter of definition. Why is this so hard to understand?
You don't understand. AI is not a scientific theory – it is a subdiscipline of computer science where we work on particular types of problems. Nothing we do in AI depends on the definition of intelligence – we couldn't care less what the word "intelligence" means" because we don't use the word to explain anything.
Comment by aiguy — August 11, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Then offer your own theory.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
You may not use the word to explain anything but people in all different cultures use the word every day to explain occurences. They do it because humans and animals possess an important ability allowing them to do things otherwise not possible.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Bradford,
Wish I could – I'd be very famous. It isn't even known if there is a theory of intelligence. There might be, but maybe it is just a word for what particular types of things do.
Yes. Like "love". We don't have a theory of that either.
No, you are making the mistake of reifying intelligence. Intelligence is not a thing inside of people that does stuff. Rather, it is the word we use to describe what people can do.
Comment by aiguy — August 11, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
How do you know that intelligence is not a property of biological organisms which is causally connected to what they do?
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
That's ok. I just want a test to see how THIS machine [robot car] learns.
This is kind of a non-answer too. Clearly, they think their car learns better than other cars. Why can't you tell me why instead of smugly claiming to be more knowledgable than they are?
Perhaps. But intelligence is not something that needs to be reified by Chunkdz or anybody else. It exists, even if it is difficult to define. However, I would appreciate your help with some of the questions I've asked.
I just wanted your opinion on the best measure for the effectiveness of a learning algorithm in a robot car.
It appears you've already come to a conclusion about the substance of ID. But I don't see why that should mean that you don't have to answer a question about robot cars.
I'll put it another way. If your boss told you to rate the efficiency of the above mentioned robot car learning algorithm, how would you choose to measure it?
This is useful. I think it would be wise to include a boundary condition that PS = a finite number. Any parameter could be made infinite simply by proposing an infinite set of spatial orientations. (ie: avoiding a pothole = 1 problem solved, avoiding potholes in an infinite number of locations on the road = infinite problems solved.) We can justifiably eliminate any variable that automatically receives an infinite value.
I disagree. Intelligence is real, it exists, it is often easily recognizable, and difficult to define. I do not accept your premise that this is a futile exercise. After all, it took mankind a very long time to achieve heavier-than-air flight, so I wouldn't count me out yet.
Humans are the most complex machines we know of, so I'm not surprised that they are difficult to pin down. Robot cars are much simpler and they generally don't whine or complain when you ask them to perform simple tasks.
Listen, we know that some robot cars are more intelligent than others. I think this difference can be quantified by three basic parameters. Are you willing to help?
Comment by chunkdz — August 11, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Bradford,
Intelligence is not typically characterized as substance, force, or any type of causal thing at all. It is just a loose description of a set of abilities. Of course you can choose to characterize that way; you might mean res cogitans, the substance that Descartes believed animated our brains by interactions via the pineal gland. In that case intelligence would be reified as a cause of our behavior. But there is no evidence that res cogitans exists.
Chunkdz,
I don't mean to be smug, sorry, and they are certainly more knowledgeable than me at building robot cars (something I've never done). It's just that there is no connection I can see between specific metrics for robot car operation and ID.
I don't know this any better than you. Maybe how quickly it figures out not to drive into boulders or trees?
I would ask my boss what he was interested in knowing, because otherwise just picking some metric would be of no use to anybody.
Intelligence is analogous to "athleticism"; intelligence is a label for abilities we usually think of as mental, and athleticism is a label for abilities we usually think of as physical. Do you think we can explain how cheetahs manage to run fast by saying "They can run fast because they are athletic!" Hopefully you find that a perfectly ridiculous and vacuous explanation. The same is true of intelligence: To say that biological complexity exists because of intelligence is perfectly ridiculous and vacuous.
I've helped all I can. It is exactly as futile as trying to quantify athleticism. Depending on how you define it, a ping-pong player may be a better athlete than an NFL linebacker, or the reverse. It says nothing about what people can do in these sports at all, and it explains nothing – it is simply an exercise in concocting definitions.
Comment by aiguy — August 11, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
aiguy:
The point is one need not determine biological physical parameters connected with expressions of intelligence in advance of utilizing the concept. Clearly there is a biological property we have labled as intelligence which lends itself to descriptive capabilities.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I'm not asking you to see the connection. I'd really just like it if you would share your expertise, not your philosophy.
The researchers determined it a little differently. They measured the number of pixels which the robot car correctly inferred to be the road. Pixels are a bit vague as a metric, however, so I would propose something a little more universal.
The above mentioned researchers were able to quantify their results and conclude that their car's algorithm was superior to others. That's really all I'm after.
There are components to athleticism just as there are components to intelligence.
Like I've said over and over – humans are the most complicated machines on the planet so why don't we stick to the simpler example I've offered – robot cars?
Since I have never made the assertion that biological complexity exists because of intelligence I have to assume that you are arguing with some preconceived stereotype in your mind. I'm just asking how we can know that one machine learns better than another.
Comment by chunkdz — August 11, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
aiguy:
I guess that statement doesn't rule out you had clearance to work on classified military programs in the past, or that you have current security clearance to work on some other type of classified program (other than military). Nor does it rule out that you are in fact now or have been in the past actually working on top secret programs of some type (though not currently for the military).
Just sayin'.
Comment by JT — August 11, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Re: The ongoing discussion on a definition of intelligence involving aiguy, et. al.
There is the Dembskian notion of intelligence,wherein it is conceived of as something distinct from chance or law, and such a concept of intelligence is in fact meaningless.
I think some people might be interpreting aiguy to say that intelligence is a meaningless concept in general or that any definition of intelligence one derived would be arbitary and utilitarian and without any global applicability at all. I'm not sure if he's saying that.
I'm not sure if he's saying for example that if you had some snail with tremendous acuity at detecting some specific chemical for example, and humans had only a marginal ability to detect it, that a metric of intelligence based solely on detection of this chemical would be as valid as any other metric, and on the basis of that metric, we could say that the snail was vastly more intelligent than the human. Clearly, that would be ridiculous.
To me intelligence is properly measured by how complex (or equivalently how detailed or how large) an entity's model of the external world is. Or equivalently how complex its behavior is. This is tied to the complexity of its sensory organs and the amount of internal memory for storing previous experience. Maybe this should be obvious. We could also talk about the size of the smallest program or description necessary to accurately characterize an entity. The larger such a description, the smarter the entity is. I think that the concept of consciousness should be left out of the discussion altogether. I think that 'consciousness' is nothing more than a label we give to our subjective experience of being a human. Clearly consciousness is not necessary to perform complex tasks. I do agree with aiguy that there is no reason we couldn't talk about the intelligence quite literally of various kinds of physical processes (be it rivers, volcanoes, or what have you).
But to return to the concept of intelligence in a particular human for example, some of it is acquired and some of it is innate (physically). Someone could have the opportunity for many different world experiences and learning, being conversant with many different types of people based on all this learning. His understanding, his internal model of the world is very complex. Some people may never venture more than 10 miles from the small town they were born in. This all has to do with acquired intelligence. OTOH, someone can have physical innate abilities, pertaining to how their nervous system or sensory organs function. So I don't think the concept of intelligence is meaningless at all, unless one conceives of it as some mysterious fundamental force distinct from chance or law.
The other mistake that I.Dists make I think, is to not treat God as infinite and directly equatable to reality. Such a description would not be applicable to man.
Comment by JT — August 11, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
JT,
That's all correct. Or, I could just be completely lying and am really the mastermind of super-top-secret AI projects, and planning for my super-robots to take over the world in a few days.
Except I'm not.
We disagree, JT. I think this is actually perfectly meaningful – it is a philosophical position. Dembski is a substance dualist, a libertarian (in the metaphysical sense). So I think there's meaning to that position, it is simply impossible to demonstrate empirically, and for all we know, it is completely false.
I think "intelligence" has a loose, informal meaning, like "athleticism". People are typically intuitively dualists, and so usually they implicitly connect "intelligence" with "conscious thought".
Scientifically, there is some meaning to the general notion of human intelligence provided by g, which is a weighted average of particular tests of human cognitive function. The concept is given meaning by the observation that there is a co-variance of the scores on these tests.
Other than that, yes, "intelligence" is arbitrary and utilitarian and without any global applicability at all.
Yes, it would be ridiculous to try compare the mental function of such different sorts of creatures. And yes, it would be easy to design all sorts of tests that people could pass and snails would fail.
You've packed a lot of assumptions into this equivalence. You are a representationalist, and you believe that our behavior is determined by our representations. OK.
There are all sorts of physiological metrics we could bring to bear on our notion of intelligence, but obviously this would not suit ID at all. After all, it wouldn't do for ID to posit a Designer of brains who Himself had a great big brain, right?
Another major assumption that is usually rejected by IDers – that our behavior can be modelled algorithmically.
If that is the case then ID needs to be explit that it does NOT claim that a conscious being is suggested by the evidence.
Comment by aiguy — August 11, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
aiguy:
This reminds me of the show Cops. The first thing the dealer asks the undercover guy is "Are you a cop?". A Supreme Court case has said if the answer is "No" the perp can't be prosecuted. So the reply from the undercover guy is always, "Do I look like a cop?" [i.e. no explicit denial.]
If I were to continue to parse your replies with great care I could observe that all you're denying above is that A) your completely lying and B)that you're the mastemind of a project involving super-robots with a plan to take over the world in a few days.
That's ok. You don't have to disavow having a security clearance. As I said to begin with, it stands to reason you do.
So then you are saying evidently that no meaningful comparison of intelligence between snails and humans can be made. I would disagree with that.
Well, as I think you've said, other physical processes are intelligent too. I think the oceans know something about the position of the moon for example. (And to quote a Psalm – "the sun knows the place of its setting…")
Comment by JT — August 11, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Bradford,
Loosely descriptive, perhaps. Explanatory, quite obviously not.
Chunkdz,
I guess they were interested in something different.
It was only superior in terms of saying which pixels belonged to the road. It may have been much worse in terms of how long it took to accomplish that, or how it used that information to stay on the road. Maybe it couldn't figure out how much it had to slow down in order to stay on the road, while other cars (which got more pixels wrong) could figure that out really well. And this has nothing to do with anything that doesn't use pixels to recognize where roads are, or anything that doesn't try to stay on a road in the first place.
You're getting nowhere, because there is nowhere to get to along this line of reasoning.
So, which one is more althetic – a ping-pong player or a defensive guard? Can't you see how stupid, arbitrary, and useless that question is? Can't you see it has nothing to do with what ping-pong players or guards can do, and everything to do with however you'd like to define the word "athleticism"?
Because it makes no difference what you are talking about. The concept just can't be generalized any more than the concept of athleticism can be. Here's a simple example: Do you think the moon is athletic because it moves so quickly around the Earth?
I've explained and illustrated the problem here over and over again.
Comment by aiguy — August 11, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
It's no different than a researcher laying out the definition of "species" or "life". If someone chooses a definition of life that excludes or includes viruses we shouldn't decry this as "stupid, arbitrary and useless". Working definitions are quite useful.
If it turns out that a ping pong player is the most athletic, who cares?
Comment by chunkdz — August 11, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
If an organism's behavior involves manipulating its environment so as to further a specifiable objective one could define that result as having resulted from the application of intelligence. That would include organisms we think of as unintelligent such as termites, for example. It could include processes like those which create ditches for irrigation purposes as opposed to those resulting from erosion. A design theory would have to connect dots and string together design causes and effects. Bones of contention would remain primarily where they are today- focused on origins. Dembski's distinction between an outcome attributable to chance and necessity and one not determined by that combination is a useful indicator of design.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Just FYI, this is a patently false urban legend. In the USA the police may not unduly coerce or intimidate in order to cause a person to commit a crime. (This is generally considered entrapment.) But they may lie to a suspect, including about their status as a police officer. (Moreover, I have personally seen the police lie about their status as a police officer many times on Cops.)
(Disclaimer: IANAL – Consult your attorney.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 11, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
aiguy:
My (Christian?) beliefs do not require that 'algorithmic machines be unable to replicate human thought'. My interest is in a purely sci-fi geek way; nothing to do with some theological gymnastics or other… as interesting as the implications for such may be (in a "what if there are aliens/multiverses" sorta way). Besides, nobody even seems to be able to agree on a defintion for intelligence (even experts whom study how to replicate it for entire lifetimes
) much less its theoretical theological and/or philosophical implications. First things first.
Anyway, when it comes to human thought, music/art seems a good place to start. Thank you for the links.
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — August 11, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I wonder if you throw the word "we" around too freely. DARPA seems to be very interested in a definition of intelligence with cross-discipline applicability.
Sounds vaguely similar.
Have you called DARPA yet to tell them that their quest is "utterly stupid"?
Comment by chunkdz — August 11, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Ok, so here's what we've got so far. (oops, put this in the wrong thread originally)
PS = Problem Solving = An unweighted, finite integer representing the number of problems a machine is able to solve.
P = Planning = A measure of a machine's accessible planning database.
L = Learning = Rate of successful inference from acquired sensory input.
I = Intelligence = (PS)(P)(L)
Comment by chunkdz — August 11, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
kornbelt:
I tried to do some intial google research on that, but (strangely) it was just returning bull sessions on the subject (like this one) with mixed opinions. I have heard Cops say many times on that show "Do I look like a cop" or variations of that. There has to be nuances as in is the conversation being recorded, is there other evidence against the suspect and so on. I know that police are in general permitted to lie – they certainly won't be arrested themselves for doing so – and I know that undercover agents don't have to send the Mob advance notice of their identity. But I suspect that in at least some states, an arrest directly resulting from a false answer to that question on tape would be comprimised. If you have authoritative information to the contrary please provide it.
Comment by JT — August 11, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
August 11th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Maybe the scam is being perpetrated by the show itself to make the criminal element think that cops have to admit they're cops. I know the show depicts cop sucess rate in foot and car chases as pretty much 100%, and that doesn't seem quite right either.
Comment by JT — August 11, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Bradford,
If you want to define "intelligence" in terms of organisms manipulating environments, that's fine. Is that what you'd like to do?
You seem to be saying "intelligent" acts result from living things, and "unintelligent" acts result from non-living things. Is this what you are saying?
Now you seem to be saying something entirely different – that "intelligence" is anything that isn't a result of chance and necessity. Is that how you want to define "intelligence" instead?
Can't any of you decide, once and for all, what in the world you are talking about?
Rob R,
OK. (Your theology is therefore different from Dembksi's).
Hear, hear!!!
One of the first things we learned in AI was that the tasks that were the hardest for humans to learn (medical diagnosis, theorem proving, expert chess playing) were the easiest things to enable computer systems to do, and the easiest things for humans to learn (natural language, facial recognition, understanding melodies) were the hardest things for computers.
Chunkdz,
Yes, it is completely different. It should be obvious to you that nobody attempts to explain anything by invoking "species" or "life" as a cause of anything. ID, however, offers "intelligent agency" (or some such term) to explain biological complexity – it is the sole explanatory concept of ID theory.
You can't even give me a working definition of the sole explanatory concept of ID theory, which means ID Theory really is useless.
You still don't get it. It can't "turn out" one way or the other, because there is no fact of the matter. It is purely an arbitrary choice of definition, and not something to learn about ping-pong players or guards. We already know what those things are, and choosing to say if they are athletic or not tells us not one thing more.
Yes, that is what DARPA is looking for. They intend to develop a theory of intelligence (for some mathematical definition thereof) based on the principles of thermodynamics. If they succeed, we will no longer have to argue about a scientific definition of intelligence, because we will have one. It will not, however, be of use to ID proponents (because it will be the result of chance and necessity and nothing else).
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 12:32 am
August 12th, 2009 at 4:31 am
chunkdz:
Very impressive. I guess with "unweighted, finite integer" you mean a non-negative integer.
When making a model you have to keep track of units. What are the units of P? Bits? L is apparently a rate, something per unit time. Therefore intelligence has units bits/time. Am I reading that correctly?
Comment by Raevmo — August 12, 2009 @ 4:31 am
August 12th, 2009 at 7:03 am
aiguy:
One needs to focus on effects (evident in the environment) rather than on internal biological dynamics (cellular functions, neurons etc.) when assessing intelligence.
Chance and necessity from an environmental perspective. Necessity (physical laws) and chance are not inconsistent with or irrelevant to the process that produces these message exchanges (muscle movements, neural impulses etc.) but physical laws alone do not explain the letter sequencing or the concepts they represent. The environmental impact (the message) is the indicator that something other than chance and necessity is a causal factor.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 7:03 am
August 12th, 2009 at 9:54 am
“… you really are saying nothing at all.” Ignoring all the rest, this is the sum of the argument, isn’t it aiguy? Sorry for wasting your time.
There is and always has been a general theory of intelligence: Inference. The ability to derive reliable causal inferences (in support of decisions and actions) from uncertain or partial observations is the basis of just about every discipline in and model of artificial and natural intelligence.
How ‘bout that IDers? Think you could work with that theory of intelligence?
I don't think that's going to work for you. It's not "theological."
Comment by Rock — August 12, 2009 @ 9:54 am
August 12th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Rock:
As in the comment preceding Rock's, I often cite TT messages as good examples of intelligence. They are primarily argumentative and are intrinsically inferential. (How does one derive logical conclusions without inferences based on partial data?). Constructs showing evidence of design would indicate junctures at which some possibilites were realized at the expense of others. Events indicating non-preferential outcomes (from a reductionist perspective) would be indicators of intelligent design.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 10:32 am
August 12th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Bradford,
That's fine – you are opting for a behavioral rather than a functional definition of intelligence. Now all you need to do is to characterize the behaviors of intelligent things vs. unintelligent things so we can tell them apart.
I have an idea – why not define intelligent things as "anything capable of creating CSI"? Is that a good definition of intelligence?
You believe, but you do you know, that physical laws alone do not explain those things. Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, and the answer can't be ascertained scientifically.
So, if you're going to stick with the "not (chance+necessity)" definition for intelligence, you've relegated all of ID to philosophy, where it has been for thousands of years anyway.
And by the way, you've just returned to a functional, rather than a behavioral, definition of intelligence. As far as I can tell, we haven't made an inch of progress on this problem – we're just going 'round in circles.
You can provide examples, but that isn't the same as providing a definition.
If ID insists on saying that features of the world are best explained by "intelligent cause", then somebody needs to say what an "intelligent cause" is in a way the rest of us can use to decide if that statement is true or not. If you decide it means "that which creates CSI" then ID is a vacuous theory. If you decide it means "by means other than chance + necessity" then you'll need to provide evidence that anything does anything by means other then chance + necessity.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 11:40 am
August 12th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Penrose cited the existence of unknown laws of physics when analyzing consciousness. Fine, if that's what he prefers to believe. It's not a scientific answer either. Science has boundaries.
The definition was there- not reducible to chance and necessity. If fleeing to the unknowns is needed to save science from inferences of intelligence then science itself ceases to have utility.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 11:51 am
August 12th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
aiguy,
What property do humans possess that enables them to design things?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 12, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
aiguy:
The choice of these letters is not determinable by a chance and necessity lens. The sufficiency of chance + necessity is undemonstrable. The operative word is choice and that entails the winnowing of possiblities to produce the very small one consistent with the objective- in this case the communication of specific ideas.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
What the heck do you think I've been doing?
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Wow, I hadn't considered the possibility of negative intelligence. Let's stick with non-negative values for now – this might be something to theorize about in the future.
P is in bits. PS is just a number. I've purposely avoided time as a variable for now, so L is a rate of success/bit of aquired sensory data. The "bits" cancel and we are just left with a number. Or to be exact, a non-negative finite integer.
I = (PS)(P [bits])(L [success/bit])
Thanks for the input!
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Maybe you should go argue with "ID" whoever that is. I am simply trying to find a working definition for intelligence, much the same way a researcher might find a working definition for "life" or "species".
Sure there is. There are all kinds of metrics we could use to measure athleticism. Arbitrary doesn't really bother me as much as it apparently bothers you. But it seems funny that you call my subjective definition of intelligence "meaningless" without realizing that you are appealing to a subjective quality called "meaning".
Ahhhh… now I get it. It's only "utterly stupid" to look for a broad definition of intelligence IF YOU ARE AN ID'ER.
And here I was thinking I was talking to an open minded critic. Oh well.
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Bradford,
We agree then. Penrose has written popular books with a number of conjectures about consciousness and mentality in general; we have no scientific results to say if he's on the right track or not. Perhaps someday there will be testable predictions from his (and Hameroff's) theories that can be confirmed or disconfirmed. Until then, we're still in the dark.
But ID is based upon just this sort of untested conjecture – that mind does not operate via chance+necessity – while pretending that it is based on "experience-based knowledge" of mind. That is what I object to.
Don't you agree that since ID relies on one particular untestable conjecture, people like Meyer should stop pretending that his conclusions are actually inferred based on our experience-based knowledge?
Well, I would say that science has tremendous utility (so much is quite obvious). And the reason it has utility is because scientists are required to provide evidence for their results. Otherwise, science will degenerate into a shouting match where all opinions have equal weight, empirical evidence is no longer required, and opinions will subdivide continually into demoninations, never reaching consensus (sort of like religions).
I think you mean we can't predict human behavior. We can't predict a lot of things (hurricanes). That doesn't mean "mental force" or "mental substance" or anything besides chance+necessity is involved.
How many times must we go over this? We agree – nobody knows!
How many times must we go over this? You describe libertarian free will, which is also undemonstrable.
ID is based on a particular philosophy of mind, hence it is a philosophical argument. It has been a philosophical argument for thousands of years, and remains so. Scientific theories – such as evolutionary theory – may be right or wrong, but they do not depend on any particular metaphysical assumption. Evolution may be true or false whether or not dualism is true.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
aiguy:
Your objections are unfounded. The operation of the mind is a black box with respect to environmental outcomes. To paraphrase LaPlace, Sir I have no need of that hypothesis.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Bradford,
You really could not possibly be more mistaken.
You are in quite desperate need of a metaphysical hypothesis in order to support your theory. This hypothesis, which you have previously (and repeatedly) admitted cannot be supported by evidence, is that minds somehow operate by means other than chance + necessity. Therefore, when you assert that the intelligence responsible for biological complexity operates by means other than chance+necessity, you are making a philosophical conjecture, and not an inference based on our experience.
You can't escape this conclusion – ID is based on an untestable bit of metaphysics. Scientific theories such as evolutionary theory are not based on untestable metaphysical claims, but ID is.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I thought you have acknowledged that some forms of ID do not depend on any particular metaphysical assumption.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
KB,
If "ID" wasn't full of sneaky and coy rhetoric this would be a lot easier. Bradford's claims are based on dualism, since he says intelligence is something other than chance+necessity. If you want to say intelligence is not necessarily anything but chance+necessity that's fine – it saves you from making an unsupportable philosophical conjecture – but it destroys many of ID's arguments for ID in the first place.
Nobody can really argue about ID until somebody says what ID is talking about. If "intelligence cause" is another name for "biological organism", for example (which in our experience always are the same thing) then ID becomes a very different (and quite unsatisfactory!) theory indeed.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I basically agree. I find myself on the outside of the "intelligence requires consciousness" club, which is what I think referring to.
Please elaborate.
I agree except for the part about being unsatisfactory. The alien designer idea can exist within a chance+necessity framework and yet possibly explain some important features of life, such as the DNA coding system, which I would find very satisfactory.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
You mean a metaphysical hypothesis which is distinguishable from the metaphysical hypothesis needed to support your theory?
What you did not mention was that counter-hypotheses cannot be supported by evidence. That's an ideal black box scenario.
No, you need not resolve the sufficiency of chance + necessity to assert that intelligence is required to send these messages. That's the utility of a black box.
Ah, the usual red herring. It is not evolution I'm referring to as you and others no doubt know. That is unless evolution is extended to prebiotic eras. I'm surprised that you behave as if untestable metaphysical assumptions are unique to ID. They are surely not.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
KB,
IDists often argue that chance+necessity can't account for complex form and function, and so something else must, and this "something else" is "intelligence". If intelligence itself operates by means of chance+necessity, this argument is undermined.
Fine. However, as I've pointed out elsewhere, once we posit the existence of alien life forms, the simpler hypothesis would be that we are descendent from them rather than the products of their bioengineering efforts.
Bradford,
As I've said over and over again, evolutionary theory (which I assume you mean by "my theory" although I'm not an "evolutionist") relies on no metaphysical hypothesis at all:
I know you don't like this, but it is the case, and so your tu coque argument fails. Only ID rests on this metaphysical hypothesis – not evolutionary theory (or any other scientific theory).
If you are saying that intelligence may or may not operate by means of chance+necessity, then we agree. In that case, stop saying that the idea something besides chance+necessity is responsible can be supported by inference from the evidence, and agree with me that Meyer goes beyond the "experience-based evidence" that he claims!!!
Now you have once again dropped the claim about chance+necessity?!? Hopefully we can put that to rest for the last time. Good.
Now all you need to do is describe this black box in terms of behavior rather than how it works on the inside. A black box is fine, but you need to characterize what we can see the black box doing so we know something about it. Otherwise, all you are saying is that the cause of biological complexity is completely unknown (I of course would be very happy with that conclusion).
Metaphysical assumptions have no place in science. That is why ID's claims about chance+necessity are unscientific. Now you've abandoned those claims – good. But you've returned to the starting point again, where you have this black box that you are calling "intelligence" but you are unable to say what distinguishes this black box from any other black box that might be called "not-intelligence".
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
So here's a very simple and crude example. We'll measure the intelligence of a machine that plays Tic-Tac-Toe.
PS = 362,880 problems solvable by machine.
P = 20 bits (all possible games and moves can be represented in 20 bits)
L = 8 possible successful strategies played over 9 potential sensory inputs (representable in 4 bits). 8/4 = 2 successes per bit
Where I = (PS)(P)(L)
I = 13,063,680 or approx. 1.3 x 10^7
I'm wondering if we should call this the "IP" or Intelligence product to distinguish it from the IQ.
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Empiricism has a metaphysical basis. But we need to add that evolution requires the supposition of life as a starting point- an unexplained causal result. IOW, an origns black box.
Sticking with my original example, the black box has the capacity to opt between an overwhelming number of possibilites and choose just those fitting within a very narrow probabilistic range to convey a specifiable message.
The presumption that chance + necessity is causally sufficient is a metaphysical belief. When you demonstrate it for a specific system it becomes scientific. When you do not or cannot and assert that a gap in knowledge exists you are really making a metaphysical proclamation of faith that an unknown explanation, based on chance + necessity, exists but remains (temporarily) unknown to us.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
By "we are descendants" do you mean just we humans or all life on earth?
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Bradford,
If you would like to abandon empiricism, then do so. But then admit that Meyer et al are wrong to claim that experience-based evidence supports their claims. You can't have it both ways.
No problem – we do not know how life arose.
We do not know how this happened. It is a black box, and life came out. If you want to offer a theory about what happened, do so. Calling the black box "intelligent" is again trying to have it both ways! On one hand, you really want to say that consciousness, libertarian free will, and the other things you associate with intelligence are supported empirical inference, but on the other hand you know they are not. So in the interest of intellectual integrity you are obliged to either stop using the word or stop claiming your conclusions are empirically based.
For the hundredth time, we agree about this. However, neither I nor evolutionary theory is making this presumption.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
KB,
Once you assume that life exists elsewhere, you might propose two hypotheses:
1) Life (in the form of simple replicators, DNA, cells, organisms, whatever) was designed and built by these ET life forms and they got to Earth somehow
2) This ET life (in the form of simple replicators, DNA, cells, organisms, whatever) got to Earth somehow
#2 is the simpler hypothesis.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
This is incorrect. Science can make predictions and inferences because of a particular metaphysic that assumes that the universe is governed by discoverable "laws." Without the metaphysical (and thus unprovable) assumption of a uniform law based universe, evidence can mean nothing, and no inferences can be made. (Even in QM, where certain individual events are unpredictable, there is some statistical "law" that gives shape to the outcome of a collection of events.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
#2 is the less specific hypothesis. "Got to earth somehow" is left unspecified in both scenarios making a comparison of simplicity of the overall scenarios impossible. If the details are all filled in, #1 may be the simpler scenario. But there's no way to know from your example.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Daniel,
(Sorry I missed this)
Humans can design things. We don't know how we do it.
What property of opium causes people to sleep? The sleep-inducing property of course!
What property of people enables them to design things? The design-ability property of course!
What is another name for "design ability"? "Intelligence" of course!
(apologies to Moliere).
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
KB,
Not so: To the extent that we can discover laws that explain and predict what we see, science works. But our scientific results are not predicated upon this.
You can take skepticism far enough to invalidate all science, or even all belief, if you'd like to. This doesn't make the difference between metaphysically-based ID and non-metaphysically-based evolutionary theory go away.
It is simpler – it makes fewer unsupported assumptions. #1 assumes that the ETs are also bioengineers.
Everything else is the same between the two. #1 requires that we believe the ETs invented life on Earth; #2 requires only that the ETs existed. Both require that the living stuff got to Earth somehow.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I don't want to abandon metaphysical values. You can't escape them. Even if you don't think you have them you do.
Sticking with my original example, the black box has the capacity to opt between an overwhelming number of possibilites and choose just those fitting within a very narrow probabilistic range to convey a specifiable message.
Whoa. The origns black box is not the one in question. A single celled organism does not have the messaging capacity.
The black box is the workings of the human mind in this case. We do not need to understand those details to evaluate the messaging.
You keep trying to peer into the black box. My focus is the symbolism of the messaging.
My conclusions indicate that a biological property of humans labled intelligence is uniquely suited to explain messaging. I need not make declarations about the internal workings of the human mind.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
KB: "Laws are discovered" because it is metaphysically assumed that nature is uniform.
aiguy: "But our scientific results are not predicated upon this."
Well, of course they are. If nature was not assumed to have uniform laws your results would only meet any expectations by a mere pragmatic fluke. But I'll bet you believe the results are true in a stronger sense than that because you really really believe in a metaphysical unformity. And don't say the evidence proves uniformity. Without the assumption of uniformity the evidence doesn't prove anything. The metaphysic is foundational.
That's right. But you said "evolutionary theory…relies on no metaphysical hypothesis at all". I'm merely pointing out that this is false. That is all.
I agree. Metaphysically based versions of ID assume another metaphysic that standard evolutionary theory (and all other science) does not.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
#1 is simpler and makes fewer direct unsupported assumptions, but that's an empty "victory" given the completely unspecified nature of the transportation of #2 to earth. A full theory would have to specify this in order to know which is really the simpler.
Consider:
A: aiguy designed this software
B: this software was designed by other software
Which is the simpler hypothesis? B requires less assumptions. It hardly makes it true or worthwhile to compare with A unless many more specifics are known. Your example doesn't help at all in the question of "how did life get here."
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
kornbelt:
No, science doesn't assume that the universe is governed by discoverable laws – science has discovered such laws, purely based on empirical observations of the universe. It also not necessary to assume that the laws are the same everywhere in the universe. Rather, that's an hypothesis that seems to have stood the test of time so far.
Science is making models and collecting data to test the models (not necessarily in that order). What metaphysical assumptions does that require? I suppose there has to be some agreement about what is a valid observation.
Comment by Raevmo — August 12, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
#2 assumes they are interstellar space travelers.
Wooooo!
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Bradford,
Either you accept empiricism or you don't. If you don't, let's stop talking about science at all.
If you do, let's agree that empirical results are based on experience-based observations. Your version of ID, like Meyer's, relies on the assumption that mental function operates by means other than chance+necessity, which is unsupportable empirically. Period.
You would like to paint evolutionary theory with the same brush, but you can't, since evolutionary theory relies on no such assumptions. Maybe physicalism is true, or dualism, or idealism – whatever – but evolutionary theory doesn't assume the truth or falisity of any of these metaphysical speculations.
It just can't be said any clearer.
Bradford, we're going around in circles.
How do we tell intelligent things from unintelligent things? I hope you will not now return to saying "living organisms do such-and-such" or "an example of an intelligent thing is such-and-such" or "not by chance or necessity…".
We've gone through all of those. So what's left? How can we distinguish this class of intelligent agents from other things in the world?
Are you now saying that anything which creates symbolic messaging is intelligent?
Are you now saying that intelligence is a property of biological entities?
KB,
No – we can look for laws without making the assumption that they must be there… and that is exactly what we do. If the universe is not lawful, we won't find any laws that work. But we find them all the time, so it looks like maybe we should keep at it.
In contrast, Meyer's ID requires certain metaphysics to be true in order for his theory to even make sense.
Then we agree. And yes, I agree that all of epistemology is metaphysical.
I'd say neither. A requires we believe in aiguy and this software; B requires we believe in this software and other software.
I fully agree that both ET-designer and ET-ancestor theory are very bad theories; neither have any evidence to support them. If all ID proponents were actually talking about ET-designer theory, there would be no debates.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
By simply measuring their Intelligence Product.
I = (PS)(P)(L)
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
What you're saying is that evidence can be interpreted without assumptions or an a priori metaphysic. How does one "discover such laws" unless one assesses the evidence according to a preexisting idea about the universe and any evidence it can provide? Effects that repeat or are consistent with an expectation mean nothing unless first there is a a priori operating assumption in your noggin that says it does, which is that nature has uniform laws that can be discovered.
"Stood the test of time" is a pragmatic philosophy based on induction. That's the operating philosophy we share with dogs.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Chunksz,
I don't think anybody understands your point, including you. In any case…
Consider a fish, a river, and Earth, and explain how we might decide if each is intelligent or not.
Right. Since you have no method by which to distinguish intelligent from unintelligent things, the proposition that "something intelligent" created life has no meaning. (I know you don't want to talk about ID, but the rest of us do).
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
aiguy:
This is a vacuous assertion. I can just as easily point out that chance + necessity cannot explain the emergence of biological organisms having advanced cognitive skills. The more accurate response to Meyer is that there is no empirical means of documenting how functionally sequenced DNA arose. Only competing explanations. Period.
Evolutionary theory (from the earliest prebiotic events to now) assumes both a viable replicator and a means of transmitting functional information to biological descendents. These assumptions clearly fall short of the empirical mark at a precellular stage.
By their effects on the environment. I have two cats. One likes to hang out with me near my keyboard. If I'm not careful she will type letters by walking on it. She never types out intelligible messages. Once in a while she types a very short word. There is a cognitive quality we have that my cat does not possess. It can be evidenced in the physical world.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
All hypothesis formation is done on the basis that the universe operate in a law-like manner. If we didn't, evidence would mean nothing, since for evidence to mean something it has to be interpreted by us according to some assumptions. This should be patently obvious.
Are you trying to say that laws can be discovered without interpreting the evidence according to any a priori assumption about nature? If so, discovered according to what?
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
aiguy:
This is silly. Of course we have ways of distinguishing intellectual abilities. I'm able to distingush which of my pets are smarter than others by the common challenges they face. Some come up with solutions and others do not. Humans are the same. The levels change but differences in behavior indicate ability.
What meaning is there to the proposition that natural laws culminated in the generation of life?
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The most important hallmark of "intelligence" IMO is foresight, which would entail manipulating matter in such a way that "sees past" proximate conditions. If someone could invent a reliable metric for that don't you think that would be impressive?
Of course, that doesn't mean that foresight of any particular designer itself isn't grounded in blind evolution. What we're after here is being able to determine if a particular object has a foresighted mechanism as its proximate maker. Law + chance may build entities with foresight over time. But some objects may require law + foresight as a proximate cause. How to tell the difference. This is the whole issue, eh?
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Bradford,
Since Meyer's explanation relies on an untestable assertion (that something other than chance+necessity underlies mind) his explanation doesn't count as an empirical explanation at all. Evolutionary theory may be wrong, but it makes no such assumptions.
I agree.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific
Cat's don't understand English. Right.
Like I was saying, we have no method for deciding if arbitrary things are intelligent or not.
Some come up with solutions and others do not. Humans are the same. The levels change but differences in behavior indicate ability.
It is obvious by now that there is no method to distinguish intelligent from unintelligent things; if there was somebody here would have said what it is by now. Talking about which of your cats is smarter by some metric you decide to make up for your cats just doesn't help.
Sure – go ahead! Now – how do we tell if the fish, river, and planet are intelligent or not?
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
KB:
What ideas about the universe does it require to discover the inverse square law of gravitation? I notice a pattern in the data and I discover that the formula c*M1*M2/r^2 fits the data very well. What metaphysical assumptions am I making?
Comment by Raevmo — August 12, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
That nature is uniform and acts in a law-like manner. Otherwise noticing a pattern means nothing. Moreover, that you assume nature behaves uniformly enables you to make good use of that pattern and the ISL inferred from it: to make predictions. How can you make predictions based on a "law" when you don't already believe the universe behaves in a law-like matter? Inverse Square Law is considered a "law" because nature is assumed to behave uniformly. (Now, it is true that the "laws" we formulate may be wrong to varying degrees of precision (Newton vs Einstein) and new data will clarify, but our faith in uniformity remains an essential constant underlying philosophy on which all hypothesis and laws are formulated.)
You might read this:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/art...
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Simply measure the parameters, plug in the numbers and do the math.
I = (PS)(P)(L)
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Chunkdz,
Your forumula has revealed that my marble is the most intelligent entity in the universe. I don't think that is what you were after…
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
KB:
That is nonsense. I don't have to assume that nature is uniform and acts in a law-like manner to see that the data fits c*M1*M2/r^2. I can collect more data and discover that the new data also fits the same formula. Thus I have discovered that the same formula works time and again. Now I am starting to make predictions based on the success of this formula – and guess what? – the formula still works! I have discovered a law of nature! But I didn't need to assume – at all – from the start that the universe behaves in a law-like manner. I have discovered that at least locally the same formula works over and over again. Now tell me again what metaphysical assumptions I needed to discover this law of nature.
Comment by Raevmo — August 12, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
KB,
I disagree. We notice regularities, rather than assume them. We test them. If they remain regular, we call them laws. If someday they prove unreliable, we'd have to change them.
The patterns are meaningful not because we assume they will always be true, and not because we assumed they would exist before we found them, but because they (provisionally) explain and predict our experiences.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
from upthread:
Ergo…
MARBLE
PS=1
P=0
L=0
I[marble] = (PS)(P)(L)
I[marble] = 0
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
What does "fit" mean?
Predictions? What would compel you to make predictions based on a pattern? So far you've discovered a pattern from data that "fits.", whatever that means. Are you telling me you've made an induction? Congrats, you just snuck in your operating philosophy (nature is uniform.)
When did you decide that inductions are the proper way to interpret evidence?
Based on an inductive inference, i.e, the uniformity of nature.
You assumed without stating that induction is valid, and therefore that nature is uniform.
(I hasten to add, that all inductive inferences are tentative, but that's how science is done. It's foundational assumption of science.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
aiguy, see my post to Raevmo
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
KB:
It means how well the data conform to the formula. A standard way to asses that is for every data point to square the distance to the predicted value according to the formula and then take the average of those squares over all the data points.
No, I've not made an induction. I have simply noticed that the same formula fits the data very well over and over again. This doesn't require at all that I assume nature is uniform.
Comment by Raevmo — August 12, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Mere conformance or "fit" means nothing beyond a fit. What would make you think it means more? (hint: induction.)
You and my dog can notice patterns until the sun burns out, but a fit means nothing beyond a mere fit unless an inductive principle (nature is uniform) is at work in your noggin in relation to the evidence. Merely noticing "fits" doesn't lead to predictions or discovery of a "law." Why would you make a prediction if you didn't have expectations? How could you have expectations unless you think nature is uniform?
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 12, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
KB,
Because in science, expectations are provisional. If nature turns out not to be uniform we'll change our minds. But it's worked pretty well so far.
Everyone else:
If you define intelligence, as Dembski, Meyer, Bradford, and others do, as "not chance+necessity", then for you the truth of ID theory rests squarely on the claim that dualism is true. Since nobody has any way of testing whether or not dualism is true, then contrary to what Meyer et al claim ID cannot be inferred from our experience-based knowledge.
If you say that intelligence may or may not operate according to chance+necessity, then the main arguments of ID fail (i.e. you can't distinguish intelligent cause by ruling out chance and necessity).
If you (like KB here) decide that maybe an intelligent life form was responsible, then you need to admit the hypothesis that these life forms were the ancestors (rather than the designers) of life on Earth is at least as good a hypothesis.
And if you don't define intelligence at all, then the central claim of ID can't even be interpreted.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
I[fish] = 1 x 10^25 (approx.)
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I[river] = 0
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I[earth] = 0
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
This is interesting. We cannot define "intelligence" as it relates to humans and their ability to design – even though humans have been the most studied species on the planet for thousands of years – yet you specify that ID cannot claim that life was designed until it comes up with a definition for "intelligence"!
Do you see the irony here?
This, more than anything else you have said, reveals that your opposition to ID is not based on even-minded critical thought. You have 'stacked the deck' so that there is no way ID can even begin to function.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 12, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Daniel,
You either don't read my posts, willfully ignore what I say, or are unable to process this simple idea. I have told you over and over and over and over and over and over and over again:
You CAN define "intelligence" as it relates to humans and their ability to design however you would like to define it.
I will not say this again. The next time you make this mistake, I will simply say YOU DO NOT GET IT.
It could not be more obvious that in order to explain something by reference to "intelligence", you need to be able to say what the word means. If you can't see this, you are unable to participate in discussion.
No, there is no irony. There is only frustration on my part that you are unable to process this simple idea.
Here – I will try something else. While psychologists can't even decide among themselves what intelligence is or how to measure it, many psychologists define human intelligence by the score they get on standardized IQ tests. So let us adopt that definition, ok? Happy?
Now we have a very scientific, very objective, very clear, operationalized definition of intelligence! GREAT!!!!!
Now, Daniel, please print out a copy of the Stanford-Binet IQ test and administer it to the Intelligent Designer that you believe created life.
What's that? OOOOPPPSSS! I guess that definition of "intelligence" won't work in the context of ID, will it now?
DO YOU GET IT????
That is ridiculous.
Now, tell me what operationalized definition of "intelligence" you'd like to use in the context of ID.
Comment by aiguy — August 12, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I[puddle] = 0
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
It's testable.
It's obvious there are methods of distinguishing the intelligence of a human from the lack thereof in a stone. Why is it so important for you to maintain the silly notion that intelligence is not a distinguishable biological property? It seems like something someone would assert after an acid trip.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Daniel, first run over to a lab and get information about the latest test that produces functional nucleic acids from prebiotic soup. If that fails try the kitchen. Ask the chef if he has any on the menu. Do that while the quantum mechanic repairs your car.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I[cow patty] = (PS)(P)(L) = 0
Comment by chunkdz — August 12, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
The ability to map codons to amino acids and arrange the latter in sequences consistent with functional enzymes. Hey, that designer would be pretty smart.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
August 12th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Then Archimedes wasn't very smart at all.
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Bradford,
I'm afraid you are regressing here. Either propose a test to detect something that operates by means other than chance+necessity, or retract your claim. (This is tantamount to a test for dualism).
This is ridiculous!!!! Since you are not suggesting that a human being designed life, why are you talking about tests for human beings????
If you are saying it is a biological property then you have already undermined the entire theory of ID!!!! If intelligence is only a property of biological organisms, then how in the world do you suppose the first biological organism was created by something with this property????
UH, YEAH – NO KIDDING!!!! WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING???
This is just getting worse and worse!!!!
BRADFORD: DNA was created by something intelligent!
AIGUY: Really? And what exactly do you mean by "intelligent" in this context?
BRADFORD: I mean "Capable of creating DNA"! Yeah – that's it! DNA was created by something that was capable of creating DNA! I knew there was a theory in there somewhere!
Uh, duh, ooops! I'm getting the feeling that you guys figured out you lost this debate a long time ago, and now you're not even trying.
Comment by aiguy — August 13, 2009 @ 12:35 am
August 13th, 2009 at 5:34 am
I(chunkdz)=I(Bradford)=(PS)(P)(L)=0
Comment by Raevmo — August 13, 2009 @ 5:34 am
August 13th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Hey Aiguy,
I want to personally thank you for your criticism. It forced me to focus on the term at the very core of ID. I think you know that after reflection I now believe that your concerns have been answered adequately. I realize you disagree, that is where your newfound frustration comes in.
I hope you can get past this. We need critics like you.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 13, 2009 @ 7:31 am
August 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Bradford –
I realize I have failed to explain my position adequately, and have only served to confuse people. I'm going to take another stab at it, and would like to submit a guest post which outlines more carefully – and hopefully more clearly – what I believe the issue is with proposing that an intelligent cause (as opposed to a blind, unguided process) was responsible for certain features of the universe.
Could you tell me how might I submit a guest post?
Comment by aiguy — August 13, 2009 @ 10:53 am
August 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am
You're a loser Raevshmo. Wanna play to your audience go ahead.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2009 @ 11:59 am
August 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
aiguy:
At my blog later on today, I'll post an email address of a blog member. We've done this before. You mail the information to that address and I'll get back to you via that indirect route.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
If dualism is real two things would be possible that are inconsistent with chance + necessity.
1. Thoughts would (at times) direct the initiation of biochemical pathways.
2. Thoughts could be delinked from brain biochemistry. IOW, no predictive pathways to particular thought processes would be possible even in principle.
This is another assumption that needs to be challenged. There is no need to presume that there is something unique to human intelligence that would not be shared by other forms of advanced but non-human intelligent agents. In theory a universal test for specifiable capacities is possible.
That's not what I've been claiming. What I have claimed repeatedly is that symbolism in which the mappings are independent of human impositions i.e. the type of mappings that link sun to a solar body, are abstract associations whose abstraction need not be presumed to be the incidental consequence of a blind, undirected series of chemical reactions. Rather an onlooker has every reason to presume that the abstract symbolism is intrinsic evidence for conscious thought and not the proverbial puddle effect which would be a consequence of a brute force of nature.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
chunkdz Says: What the heck do you think I've been doing?
I thought you were baiting, heckling, and ridiculing Zachriel, and by extension all evilutionists (like me). LOL
What have you been doing, chunkdz?
I'd be interested in here your ideas.
Btw, what does Nelson have to say about neurobiology, "Theory of Mind," and all that?
Comment by Rock — August 13, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
chunkdz Says: What the heck do you think I've been doing?
I thought you were baiting, heckling, and ridiculing Zachriel, and by extension all evilutionists (like me). LOL
What have you been doing, chunkdz?
I'd be interested in hearing your ideas.
Btw, what does Nelson have to say about neurobiology, "Theory of Mind," and all that?
Comment by Rock — August 13, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Cool! Now I'm permanently "Logged-In"!
And all this time I've felt that I was somehow "Out-of-the-Loop"…
I know you guys were having some problems. I will stay online continuously and comment upon every other post made in the interim, until the problem is fixed.
LOL
Comment by Rock — August 13, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I'm sorry if you feel ridiculed. I really try to save the heckling for the most obviously irrational comments. You are seldom irrational.
Well, since you asked…I have, in a matter of a few days, silenced one of the critics' main complaints about intelligent design – that the word "intelligence" is ill-defined. With the help of aiguy and raevmo, I have produced a cross-disciplinary generalized definition of intelligence.
I have even provided a few examples of this definition in action. I'm even thinking of defining "intelligent agency".
Who cares what that fundie theocrat says?! I'm busy making progress toward a theory of intelligence here!
Comment by chunkdz — August 13, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Bradford –
Thanks for the opportunity to guest-post; I'll look for the email later today.
And so now we're back to talking about intelligent cause as "conscious thought"!
Comment by aiguy — August 13, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
aiguy:
That's certainly an obvious source but so too would extensions of conscious thinkers. They would include technology for example.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Like AI does?
Let me try something here…
This is my own personal ID proposal:
1. Life was conceived of and implemented on this planet by an engineer.
2. This engineer had a means of manipulating molecules into any configuration possible.
3. Built into life were two elements:
A. Self-replication
B. Adaptability
4. By studying life, we can gain insight into the mental abilities, personality, likes and dislikes, etc. of this engineer.
5. Because this engineer invented biological life, there is no requirement that this engineer be of the class 'biological life'.
Definitions:
Now, like AI, this proposal makes no appeals to "intelligence" as a mechanism nor does it rely on that concept. Please tell me what is 'unscientific' about it.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 13, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Daniel
If the engineer had a means of manipulating molecules into any configuration, there is no state of life that the engineer could not create, therefore there is no observation that can falsify this proposal. Therefore it is not scientific.
Comment by congregate — August 13, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Can't get much more vague than that. Some unspecified means. What's the energy source? How was the energy harnassed? Any configuration? Any at all? For what purpose? Was this a one-time event? Is it ongoing? Did the engineer leave footprints? Chisel marks? A signature?
Comment by Zachriel — August 13, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Daniel,
YOU DON'T GET IT. For the hundredth time: AI never explains anything by reference to "intelligence"
That would be incredibly stupid.
Great – you want to stick with this definition?
In that case, please provide observable evidence that the designer of life used scientific principles, was fully cognizant of His design, and respected the intended function of His machines, the economics of their operation, and the safety to life and property. Since you have no way of knowing if any of these things were true, then there is no evidential warrant for ID.
Comment by aiguy — August 13, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
aiguy, go here and send the proposal.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
We'll accept that since you that is your field. But there is a broader question which is: Is a biological property known as intelligence (people used the term long before the advent of modern science) detectable?
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Bradford,
Don't take my word for it. Browse articles on AI and see if anyone ever explains anything by saying "intelligence is the cause" or something to that effect. Think about it – if you happen to find it, I can guarantee it will be somebody making a joke
It depends on what you mean by "intelligence".
Certainly if we are able to interact with an organism in controlled settings, or even observe it interacting with its environment, we can find out a lot about its ability to solve novel problems and adapt to environmental demands. Applying tests like the mirror test is some indicator of self-awareness, and devising specific tasks that the animal is capable of solving can give us an idea of the sorts of problems it can solve.
There is no single definition of intelligence that applies even to all animals, however, and any scientific paper that discusses animal intelligence will always provide an operationalized definition for the term.
Obviously, none of this applies in the context of ID, so if ID wants to use the term, there needs to be a new definition assigned.
And thanks for the link; I'll post a submission asap.
Comment by aiguy — August 13, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
aiguy:
To quote PBS nature shows, an octopus is as smart as a house cat and a parrot is as smart as a five year old child.
Comment by JT — August 13, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
JT:
I would have guessed an octopus is smarter than a house cat and that a five year old child is smarter than a parrot. But if PBS says so…
Comment by Raevmo — August 13, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
And then to quote a simpson's episode:
"im sorry, our corporation doesnt play god…"
Homer: "are you serious? all you do is play god, and i think your octo-parrot would agree."
octoparrot: "rwak! polly shouldnt be!"
Comment by JT — August 13, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
How can you mix red wine and gin?
Comment by Raevmo — August 13, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Napoleon- Dubonnet Rouge, gin, Grand Marnier
The Dubonnet Cocktail is just gin and red wine and a favorite of Queen Elizabeth II
Comment by JT — August 13, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
August 13th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Dogs and humans can have expectations without any assumption of nature's uniformity. And your expectations may be proven wrong due to an invalid inference. But science assumes natures uniformity. See here.
"Basic assumptions of science"
"There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world."
"These assumptions are important and are not controversial in science today."
That site was produced by "UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with a diverse group of scientists and teachers, and was funded by the National Science Foundation."
Maybe you and Raevmo should email them and tell them why they're wrong.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 13, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Really?
Education and the Semantic Web
Vladan Devedzic, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 14 (2004) 39-65
Sounds like he's gauging the intelligence of a Web-based educational system based on it's "capability" of "knowledge-based reasoning", "analysis" and "interactive problem-solving". I thought AI had no metric for that? How does this jibe with this?
Hmm?
Then there's this:
Intelligent Objects to Facilitate Human Participation in Virtual Institutions, I. Rodriguez, A. Puig, M.Esteva, C.Sierra, A. Bogdanovych, S, Simoff
What's the definition of an "intelligent agent"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 14, 2009 @ 12:56 am
August 14th, 2009 at 1:28 am
He left a perpetual information system encoded in the molecules.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 14, 2009 @ 1:28 am
August 14th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Daniel,
Yes, really.
Read it again:
He is defining the word "intelligence" in the context of web-based educational systems. He is not explaining how his system manages to educate people by saying "Because it's intelligent!" without providing a definition for this particular context.
This is not a "metric" – it is a specific definition this particular person is offering for using the word "intelligence" in this particular context.
Hmmm?
Not only could Dr. Rodriguez et al define their agents to any arbitrary level of detail you'd care to ask for, but they could also provide the source code – and I'm certain they cover every aspect of the implementation and bevahior of these agents in their book. Other people write other types of systems using other types of "intelligent agents", where they are defined completely differently.
For the hundredth-and-first time: You can define "intelligence" however you would like to.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 1:42 am
August 14th, 2009 at 7:28 am
So, no.
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2009 @ 7:28 am
August 14th, 2009 at 10:42 am
aiguy:
If the computational resources necessary were comparable in the two systems then the systems are comparable in intellligence. Is a tic tac toe playing program more or less intelligent than a chess playing program?
What about rivers vs people? Which is more intelligent? As far as rivers, of course we could try to model one down to the sub atomic level, but that is not what most people would mean. We mean the human experience of a river – how intelligent is that process? Well in a computer game how much code would be required to model a river in the landscape vs. how much code to model a character making human-like decisions in the game? The human character is more intelligent because it requires more code.
We could talk about computational resources required, program size, or
alternatively time-energy-space requirements to solve a problem.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 10:42 am
August 14th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Basically that means determining the shortest program capable of performing the required behaviors. Is that correct?
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2009 @ 11:00 am
August 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
There is no meaning in asking if a system that recognizes faces is more or less intelligent than a system that drives a car.
C’mon, aiguy. Sure there is. The first thing to do is to relate the two seemingly quite different functions being referred to: recognize face and drive car. How is driving a car related to recognizing a face? Well, how is recognizing a face like recognizing a pedestrian like recognizing an obstacle, to be avoided—like while driving a car.
If you’ve been on the roads lately it should be obvious that driving a car requires little or no intelligence—but not running over my freakin’ face does! LOL
What does intelligence do? Saved my life on the road (many times, so far), but that also has a lot to do with the fact that I’m quite nimble too. After all, just how smart to you have to be to dodge a moving automobile? LOL
Comment by Rock — August 14, 2009 @ 11:07 am
August 14th, 2009 at 11:09 am
None that you'll ever see apparently.
If a self-replicating, perpetual information storage and distribution system encoded into molecular structures is not evidence of a higher intelligence to you, then nothing will be I'm afraid.
Why do we waste our time trying to talk sense into these people?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 14, 2009 @ 11:09 am
August 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Zachriel:
Well essentially yes, execept that if you're comparing a driving and face recoginition system it might entail differences in specialized hardware. But of course that would be code differences (different chips) but also difference in memory requirements number of processors possibly.
But doesn't an increase in intelligence essentially mean an increase in code? If you have some system that operates in some environment, and there's some threat in that environment that wasn't known about previously, then you go back and add code to handle that threat. Thus your system is now more intelligent about its environment, i.e. it knows more now about its environment and is more adapted to its environment.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 11:14 am
August 14th, 2009 at 11:19 am
OK. Thanks. I'll get right on that.
I didn't use the term "intelligence" in my description though.
I used the term "engineer" – but you had quibbles with that (shocking!).
If I were to use a term describing my proposed designer's level of knowledge it wouldn't be merely "intelligent" anyway, it would be "omniscient".
An omniscient being created life on this planet.
The level and complexity of organization required to design a living ecosystem like the one on Earth is consistent with an omniscient designer – not just an intelligent one.
Do you need a definition of "omniscient"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 14, 2009 @ 11:19 am
August 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
JT,
If you define "intelligence" as "computational resources", then yes, the one with more computational resources is more intelligent. I don't find that to be a very useful metric, but you can define "intelligence" however you would like to.
Well, tic-tac-toe and chess are at least both board games, so it's a lot easier to compare the two than something that recognizes faces vs. one that drives a car for example. If you'd like to define "intelligence" as "the one that can play the more difficult board game" then that definition would work in this context I suppose, but not in any others.
I don't think any of these are useful at all for all sorts of reasons, including the fact that you have not considered that programs written badly can be much larger and use much more memory/cycles to do the same thing. (I see Zach picked up on this point as well).
Not unless you define intelligence as "size of code", which is in my view a very odd way to define the term indeed. Again – better programmers write tighter code (and no, there is no formal method for determining the minimum amount of code required to implement a car-driving program or a chess-playing program or anything).
If that was your metric then all these very advanced theorem provers would be rated among the least intelligent programs… Well, there you go. There's never one metric that works for everything, even among computer programs….
Everybody get it now? Can we stop this?
Daniel,
But nobody will care.
It's fine that you think that, but since you're stating this in the context of "Telic Thoughts" and "ID Theory" instead of "Religion" or "Christianity", one wonders – why do you need to try and argue that this is scientific result, based on empirical evidence, instead of your religious belief?
Only if you are claiming this as a scientific result. In that case yes, you need to operationalize the term of course.
Otherwise, no – you can use any terms you'd like to in religious discussions, because you needn't ground those concepts in observable data.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 11:38 am
August 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
The shortest program is generally not computable, a fundamental result in algorithmic information theory. We can, however, sometimes form reasonable estimates or bounds.
I'm not saying such a metric can't have utility sometimes, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a single, unambiguous result.
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
That is not a footprint or signature. And the chisel marks that we have imply that biological structures are cobbled together for temporal necessities, not due to some overarching plan.
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“You are seldom irrational.” Thanks, chunkdz! I’m going to add that ringing endorsement to my resume, if you don’t mind.
You’re on the right track, and one well-tread. Most people when asked what is “intelligence,” including most scientists who investigate intelligence, will tick off a short list of skills, abilities, or attributes that they consider intelligent. You don’t have to see many of these list to realize there is a definite pattern, a “Basic Skills Set” “defining” intelligence, in the common conception. Operationalizing these skills involves further decomposition into mechanical actions or operations, materially reproducible, as is always required by science. That’s mostly what AI researchers do.
I would be wary of “metrics,” which is also a problem in the “Troublemaker” topic. The imposition of an artificial, false, or inappropriate metric upon some object or process, however well-intentioned, is invariably pernicious in its effects. The appropriate metrics (not assuming there is only one) should be derived naturally from observations, and it is not always an easy thing to do. It is indeed, a pattern recognition problem of the first order.
Comment by Rock — August 14, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
What is always in reference in discussing in the comparitive size of programs necessary, is the smallest possible program necessary to accomplish a task. If the task is "sort an arbitrary list of n integers" and the language is BASIC then there is in fact A smallest program in BASIC to accomplish that. If there were an additional stipulation in the sorting problem to use no more than x amount of memory and y time to accomplish the task, then if such a program is possible, there is in fact a SMALLEST program to accomplish it. The fact that there is no formal method for determining if an arbitrary program is the smallest DOES NOT NEGATE the fact that there is in fact a smallest program to sort n integers. (or any other specifed task). The fact that someone coud tack an infinite number of meaningless loops on the end of our sorting program (i.e. if there were no time requirements for example) does not negate the above either. Also the fact that there are different programming languages is an irrelevant consideration as well. Is the inherent complexity of a specific engineering task dependant on whether the engineers speak Italian or English? Can we compare a cake recipe in English to a plan for a rocket in English to ascertain the relative complexity of the two tasks? These are absolutely red herrings you are introducing.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
While there may be no formal method for determining the smallest program for some task, we can say with certainty that the process that created a human cannot be less complex than a human and thus cannot be less intelligent.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
If we consider biological evolution as an algorithm, then it includes the genomes and epigenomes of all the organisms that have ever lived, and the ecological circumstances each found itself in and all their individual interactions. Just the memory alone is staggering. (There are ~10^30 extant bacteria, each with a meg or so of 'RAM'.) Apparently, according to your own metric, evolution really is cleverer than you are (Orgel's Second Rule).
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
So do you think I have the "basic skill set" in hand?
That's why I tried to keep my metrics simple and limited. "Bits" should not be problematic since pretty much everything can be represented as such. "Success" is simply a measure of how often a machine's inference matches the best objective data. "Problem Solving" is perhaps the most esoteric metric used here, but I am willing to err in favor of the machine when it is in doubt as to whether something really is a problem.
But yes it is pernicious. It's kind of like viewing a rapturously beautiful sunset and being told to describe it using only the numbers 1-9.
Comment by chunkdz — August 14, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
JT,
No, they are not. Rather than sorting integers, JT, please tell us the code size required to drive a car, paint a painting, discover the laws of motion, and learn English. You can use BASIC or any other programming language you'd care to use
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Oh, and chunkdz, you can provide your "metric" for those tasks to… and please show your work
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
What convinces you that the process of learning English can be accurately codified?
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Bradford,
I am not convinced of this in the least!!! That was my point, Bradford – these attempts to use "code size" or "computational resources" to detect or quantify "intelligence" are all wrongheaded and useless. We don't even know if human thought is algorithmic (and the more thoughtful ID proponents understand that if ID is true, the answer must be that human thought is NOT algorithmic!), much less have some way of guaging how much "code" each task or ability takes. I'm frankly surprised that people here have wasted so much time on this line of thought…
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Like I've said to you many times before, humans are the most complex machines we know of.
I am building with tinkertoys and you are a crotchety old man smugly standing in cross-armed disapproval complaining that I will never build something as beautiful as the Taj Mahal.
It really seems to have upset you that I have been successful in generally defining intelligence.
Comment by chunkdz — August 14, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
chunkdz,
I agree with this.
This is funny. In the early days of AI we all built tinkertoys – inference engines, expert systems, general problem solvers, natural language parsers… Many were convinced that it was just a matter of "scaling up" these simple systems – when computers were faster and had more memory – and we would achieve systems with general abilities commensurate with humans. I trust you know that didn't happen.
chunkdz, I'm not upset, but… how should I put it… you're not even wrong. I'm not sure if you are serious or not (I think you are not) but your definition has no utility – not one bit of useful meaning – in any context at all, much less in all contexts.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
aiguy:
What about driving a car vs. facial recognition? Those were the tasks you introduced and then said that it was meaningless to try and compare their intelligence. What about comparing their respective program size? Certainly the same sorts of people with similar skill levels worked on each system so lets through out that variable as a constant. How much code is required to perform those two tasks (assuming that each side achieved a comparable level of success in their respective tasks.) What about that metric? As far as driving a car versus painting, lets assume you meant a competent college educated painter vs. getting a driver's license. How long is the driver's manual a 16 year old has to learn? 30-40 pages? How much would an art major have to read – 3-4 thousand pages maybe? This isn't rocket science.
A human being requires a 30-40 page booklet to learn to drive (plus maybe 10 hours behind the wheel to accumulate new code patterns in the brain) but we weren't counting the code in the human itself to begin with. But that is a constant between both art majors and drivers (whatever "code" that is that a human contains to begin with) so we didn't have to consider the code of a human in comparing the complexity of driving and painting above. But in the case of the automated driving system and facial recoginition system they are each many millions of lines of code, as we are having to simulate in effect the human in each of those systems from scratch (I emphasize in effect not meaning a literal implementation methodology.)
Zachriel
Just as the collectively distributed brain power of mankind and human history is smarter than me, and the reason is that it is civilization operation over millenea that produces technicological innovations. Is any one person consciously aware of how cities and technologies emerge, no.
Everything to me comes back to the ridiculously simple observation that if f(x) = y then f(x) equates to y. if f(x) is some set of laws f and input to the process x that existed in the past and resulted in mankind y, then however far back you care to go there is something directly equating to mankind. Just as when Einstein was only a single fertilized egg, you could truthfully say, "that thing will discover relativity thirty years from now".
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Rock:
here, hear now
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Bradford,
I'm a little confused why you seemingly endorsed Rock's proposal:
Rock is right – that is what we do, decompose tasks until they can be represented in simple enough operations to be implemented in machines. But if this is what you take to be intelligence, you've just given away the farm, since evolutionary (or other "blind", algorithmic) processes would be at the heart of everything, intelligent or not.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
That's a metaphysical claim.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
??????
What I said was this: IF you choose to say that intelligence is decomposable into algorithms, as Rock describes, THEN you have just made this claim YOURSELF. Since you seem to have liked Rock's description of how science defines intelligence, I expressed surprise that you would be amenable to this claim. I don't happen to believe we know this to be the case, but if you think so, you seem to be a lot more "materialist" than me.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Zachriel:
Just to further elaborate on my last response to you, I would accept that the gemone of the earth is able to learn things over time and accumulate knowledge through the process of energy input into the system. I guess I'm picturing deity as an infinite and passive and impersonal resource that is tapped into in the process of evolution via time and energy, and that the genome is in effect in a process of converging towards god itself. This is very pop science I guess in tone, and I do believe that God is capable of being personal as well, although I can also make sense of a passive impersonal mode for God.
And those who are trying to conceive of intelligence in terms of problem solving, foresight, insight or whatever I think that's a dead end.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
aiguy, you wrote this:
If human thought is not algorithmic would you nonetheless agree that humans are capable of devising algorithmic processes?
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I suspect JT means something like the least number of instructions required, which could be precisely specified by the least number of AND, OR, and NOT logic gate state changes involved. (You can specify any conventional computer processor and any programs running on it with AND gates and NOT gates, or OR gates and NOT gates, and a clocking mechanism for the hardware.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 14, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
aiguy:
aiguy has been saying this sort of thing for a long time, and it seems a strange philosophical stance for an AI expert to take. We have no other choice to but to treat thought as if it were algorithmic, as the algorithm is the most systematic conception of a description we have. If thought is not algorithmic, it means there is no english language description possible to accurately characterize it. Nothing can be learned about whatever portion of thought that is not algorithmic. To say something is not algorithmic is equivalent to saying it is random. aiguy may respond that our existing computer formalisms have not been proven to be complete, but this is a very fundamental evasion by him, imo.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Just to revise my last remark, I think I do agree with aiguy that thought may be dependent on the actual chemical and physical make-up of the human brain, so that it couldn't be significantly simulated in metal for example, but it doesn't seem that would make it non-algorithmic.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
JT:
This is a practical approach which does not necessarily reflect underlying realities.
Thoughts can be represented algorithmically but one can distinguish between the representation and the thought process itself.
Not necessarily. There are Godel propositions that can be properly stated in the symbolic language of a specifiable system and yet cannot be proven using symbolic manipulations of that system. Nevertheless they can be proven to be true through another system. There are implications of this indicating that the way the human mind works may not be reducible to complete, formalized algorithms.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
aiguy:
If you care to elaborate or link to a reference on it I could consider it further.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Bradford:
I don't understand how Godel enter into it. If someone says "Here is some meaningful information about one aspect of thought. If you learn it you will understand more about how thought works. However this aspect of thought is not algorithmic." The preceding statement would essentially be a lie.
To me all Godel says is that there is no such thing as a perfect model, which I accept. Any scientific description is bound to be incomplete or erroneous at some point. That doesn't make it worthless. And it doesn't make it something other than an algortihm.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
JT,
Some people (like Roger Penrose) believe thought is necessarily non-algorithmic, and depends on physics (quantum gravity) that we do not (yet) understand. Other people (like John Searle) believe that thought is a particular biological function that requires specific biological structures and substances found in brains, but is not fundamentally reliant on new physics. Still others (like David Chalmers) believe that something distinct from physics is required to account for thought (especially conscious phenomenology).
Nobody has figured out a way to scientifically test any of these conjectures yet.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Bradford,
Surely yes.
In any event, I won't make a case for any of these positions. My point is:
1) that all of these positions on the mind/body problem are beyond our ability to scientifically test them
2) every ID argument implicitly adopts some position on the mind/body problem, even though most people don't realize it and ID authors are coy about admitting it
3) this means that ID cannot follow from evidence; it is necessarily a philosophical or religious point of view
4) the same is NOT true of scientific theories such as evolutionary theory. scientific theories may be right or wrong, but they are not predicated on the truth of particular positions on the mind/body problem (or other philosophical problems). evolutionary theory may be true (or false) no matter WHAT is true about physicalism, dualism, and so on.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I agree but for reasons specified by aiguy in the preceding comment we ought to treat the mind like a black box in terms of what inferences we are able to draw about its internal workings. Even so we can measure its effects through behavior.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Hypothetically, one way to test for Chalmer's view would be to analyze the states of all the neurons in a brain in parallel and see if there are any correlations in the states unexplained by the neural wiring, electrical or magnetic fields (etc). If Chalmers view is right, one would expect this sort of thing on a massive scale. This is obviously far beyond the power of technology at the moment.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 14, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Bradford,
No, you cannot, unless you finally, once and for all, specify what it is you are measuring. Since you are unable to say what you are measuring, then it is clear there is neither a functional nor a behavioral characterization you are offering. In fact, it is as always, nothing more than an "I know it when I see it" sort of criterion… which wouldn't even be so bad if everyone agreed when they saw it. But we know that even that isn't true, since people always disagree about all sorts of things being intelligent (various types of animals, cells, plants, computers, etc).
And that is why when ID says that an "intelligent cause" was responsible for life, it is actually saying nothing at all.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
KB,
First of all, neurons aren't the only thing involved in the physiological substrates of thought (glial cells, interstitial substances and structures, electro-magnetic fields, and so on). Next, it wouldn't rule out Penrose/Hameroff ideas, or other QM conjectures….
The point here is we're not even remotely close to being able to reach consensus on the mind/body problem, which relegates ID to philosphical debate (where it has remained for millentia) for a long time to come.
In the meantime, we should continue to do scientific research in those areas where empirical investigations are possible.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
aiguy:
It follows from an interpretation of evidence. To you those molecular codons result from a blind algorithmic chemical process. I see the same evidence and note that meaning is inherent in the evidence. It is meaning dictated by the mappings and not by a construct of my mind imposed for the sake of intelligibility
The point is you have excluded an avenue to truth when you posit evolution as commencing with already existing mechanisms presumed to have resulted from blind algorithmic processes. You have sneaked in your metaphysics on the sly.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Bradford,
No, I do not believe that, and by now I'd think you would know this. I do not claim to understand how those codons arose, and I don't think anyone else should either at this point.
You can say there is "meaning"… fine. What you ought not to say is that you have a meaningful way to detect "intelligence" behind that meaning.
Wrong again; I have excluded nor included anything a priori. Maybe a conscious being exists for some reason outside of space and time and it created life – not excluded. Maybe the universe came to exist for some reason primed to develop life without conscious intervention – not excluded.
What I exclude are claims that we can put any of these things on a scientific footing.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I've noted on many occasions that science is limited, most likely very limited with respect to origin issues.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Bradford,
If you would note that science does not allow us to infer "intelligence" in any meaningful way simply by observing what we find in nature, then we would seem to be in complete agreement.
Otherwise… you have already agreed that functional specifications of intelligent agents aren't going to be operationalized (i.e. you advocate a "black box" approach). All that is remaining is some sort of behavioral characterization. But since we can't observe the behavior of the cause of life, I don't see how this is going to work either.
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
The reason I'm an IDist is due to my observation that assumed origin outcomes are at variance with natural laws. It's not as if something defies gravity. It's more subtle than that. I could do what Penrose and others do and assume the existence of unknown laws. I don't see that as much different than a philosophical or religious interpretation. It sounds more sciency but seems like punting on third down to me. The infamous gaps are permanent in my view because some options are simply out of bounds.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
My analogy of using tinkertoys was not about building an AI machine. It was about defining intelligence.
I'm quite serious, aiguy. I've already successfully measured the intelligence of a Tic-Tac-Toe playing machine, a river, a fish, earth, a cow patty, and a puddle. My formula for intelligence can distinguish between a robot car of lesser intelligence and a robot car of greater intelligence. It can help me distinguish between intelligent machines and unintelligent machines. And I think I can even define the term "intelligent agent" now. Theoretically, I should be able to use my formula to describe human intelligence, although I currently don't have the resources. However, for the lower echelon of intelligence, this formula is very useful.
Useful, and meaningful.
Comment by chunkdz — August 14, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Bradford:
I think the word "observation" should be replaced by "desire". It's also a rather arrogant statement – as if you are an expert on natural laws.
Comment by Raevmo — August 14, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Bradford,
Nothing I disagree about in this at all. Penrose appeals to a "Universal Realm of Platonic Logic", which as far as I can tell might as well be called some version of "God".
chunkdz,
I know. At least the first AI systems were operational and did interesting things; your goofy formulae do nothing.
That's a shame.
Pure nonsense – not even wrong. Besides just being silly, your position is really quite arrogant… that is if you are serious (and I'm still having a hard time believing you are being serious).
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
chunkdz, you should definitely try to get your formula published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will send shock waves through the elite academia.
Comment by Raevmo — August 14, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
And yet, it works.
If it were silly then the results would not line up so well with common sense expectations. In common parlance we usually refer to someone as more intelligent when they (1) have more stored knowledge, (2) are able to solve more problems, (3) and have greater capability to learn.
Not silly at all. Unless you thimk common sense is silly in which case I can't help you much. As for your accusing me of being arrogant? You probably just never expected somebody to actually call you on your bullshit.
Comment by chunkdz — August 14, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Is Penrose arrogant too or do you know more than he does?
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
If only it were really that earth shattering. All I've done is codify what human machines have known for some time – that some machines are more intelligent than others.
Comment by chunkdz — August 14, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Bradford:
Yeah right. When did you stop beating your wife?
Penrose has deserved to be arrogant, but I don't know if he is. I know one of his former PhD students (subject: black holes), who said Penrose hardly ever had time to talk to his students (he had about 80 at the time).
What books by Penrose did you read? Do you even understand his arguments or are you just parroting the conclusions that you like?
Comment by Raevmo — August 14, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
aiguy:
I would have thought that my conception of intelligence in terms of complexity, program size, etc might be uncontroversial. If you think about evolution for example, is there not a continual accretion in the genome over time of ad hoc strategies of one sort or another? Didn't we start with very little code in terms of DNA and end up with more and more of it?
Of course with careful planning someone could look at some inefficient code and say, "Well hey, I can collapse all that into something much much smaller". But certainly with an evolutionary process, it seems you're just continually adding stuff. Sure, animals do go extinct, But there is a continual increase in behavioral complexity in the genome. There is more encoded knowledge over time about the external environment. And is not the adaptedness, the intelligence quite literally, of the genome directly tied to all this DNA code?
Even in modern society there is a continual increase in knowledge, and for a civilization, knowledge is always encoded (written down). There is a continual increase in encoded knowledge (i.e. code) directly correlating to the cumulative intelligence of society. But even at the level of individuals this is true, if you look at the amount of knowledge they accumulate over a lifetime (understanding more and more about their environment, becoming more adapted to it as a result.)
So why you're taking exception to this is unclear. That my conception of intelligence is inconsisent with the historicial ID conception of intelligence is plain enough, but of no concern to me.
On a different note, you talk a lot about the I.D conception of intelligence, but that is only one part of their formulation. I have never heard you comment on another major part of it. Specifically in Dembski's scheme he first rules out chance by his method, wherein the more simple a pattern is, the less likely it is to occur by chance. This is evidently related to the very small percentage of compressible strings. What follows from that (as part of the explanatory filter I believe) is the really weak part, where he says that if no mechanism is apparent to have caused the thing (since we've ruled out chance) the only remaining alternative is this mysterious "intelligence". So as I've said you seem to exclusively attack this hazy notion of intelligence. But what about his method for ruling out chance? I've never heard you say anything about that.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
By the way, Bradford, Penrose didn't claim that "assumed origins outcomes are at variance with natural laws" as far as I know, so why did you mention him to support your claim?
Comment by Raevmo — August 14, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Just to revise my original comment above, intelligence isn't just an increase in complexity, its an increasingly complex but accurate picture (encoding) of the external environment, of reality, so that reality has potentially infinite complexity, and an increase in intelligence is an increase in the accuracy of your conception of it. Of course the environment would include the increasingly complex organisms inhabitating it.
Comment by JT — August 14, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Only that new laws are needed to explain conundrums.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
JT,
You can conceive of intelligence however you'd like; there is no canonical definition of what the concept is supposed to refer to. All proposals for useful metrics of mental abilities are controversial in human psychology, of course – there, the debates have raged unendingly over what IQ tests actually measure, if we should try to measure single vs. multiple types of intelligence, and so on.
I think using "program size, complexity, etc" is utterly useless for a number of reasons, including (but not limited to) the fact that we cannot write programs to do much of what humans can do (and it may not even be possible in principle to do so), and so we have no way of gauging how large or complex such programs would have to be (not even ballpark guesses).
I take exception only to the extent you are offering this metric as useful in some context. It isn't. It won't explain anything or predict anything or correlate else in the world.
Rather, the lack of a definite conception of intelligence…
I've commented on this often.
Dembski (and other ID folks) think that one can rule out not chance, but "any combination of chance + law", and once one does this, it suggests that "intelligence" is the remaining option. There are two problems with this. First, you can't rule out all law because nobody can rule out laws we haven't discovered (Dembski will reply that's true, but it still feeds an abductive inference, and then goes back to talking as though you can prove intelligence by ruling out chance+law). Second (and where I have said most about this) is that this assume that intelligence itself does not operate by means of chance+law, which is making an unsupported metaphysical assumption.
To begin to understand why this conception won't go where you think it will, read about "the problem of intentionality". Here's a good start: http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
aiguy, did you send Nathan the proposal?
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
August 14th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Bradford –
I haven't sent the proposal yet – I've written a couple of drafts that I've tossed – hopefully I'll finish one tonight. Thanks!
Comment by aiguy — August 14, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
August 19th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Problem-solving, chunkdz?
Virtually everyone agrees that intelligence is related to problem-solving. Notice how often the word “problem” occurs in this topic, and in how many different ways. (Lewontin has argued that there are no “problems.” Is there any “science” then, Dick?)
But intelligence doesn’t just solve problems. It also does not solve problems. It also creates problems.! Indeed, one of the most effective ways to create problems is in the attempt to solve problems!
So maybe you should begin with “problem,” “solve,” and “solution.”
Define. (LOL)
Comment by Rock — August 19, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
August 20th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Thanks Rock. I was actually wondering when aiguy was going to expose this soft underbelly of my argument. Apparently he's too busy tilting at the DI's windmills.
Problem. Not a problem as in "I have a goal in mind but there's this problem". And not as in "1+3=_"
A problem is simply a state. Solving the problem then is transitioning from one state to another.
Solution, then, is achieving the new state?
Comment by chunkdz — August 20, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
August 20th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Problem. Not a problem as in "I have a goal in mind but there's this problem". And not as in "1+3=_"
The former is real problem, and the latter, given the usual rules for arithmetic is not even a “problem,” or much of one, although we call it that. You and I have learned the applicable rule to solve this problem (subsuming learning under problem-solving, chunkdz), therefore no real problem. Apply the arithmetic rule of addition and there is only one solution. The real problem in that case is determining the rule. When the solution is dictated by the rule, the real problem is determining the rule. This is the singular failure of so much science and philosophy (the bad, old AI) based upon the “Turing paradigm”: the solution of problems predetermined by rules. Real world problems often have many possible solutions, many possible “rules” may be applied to reach the same or different solutions. So the “real problem” is two-fold: 1) Determine what the rules (methods for solving) are and (2) Determine which amongst many possible solutions is, in some sense, the best solution.
"A problem is simply a state. Solving the problem then is transitioning from one state to another."
But, as you said, a problem is at least three states: problem state, solution state, and the transition state (through any number of states) between.
That's the way I think of problems, as the difference between two states, and how best to transition (through any number of states) from one to the other.
Golly, how "teleological" can I be?!
Comment by Rock — August 20, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
August 20th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Planning is also a problem. So "intelligence" as "problem-solving" is the best avenue. The only one pursued by anyone interested in general intelligence.
I applaud your evolutionary-theoretic perspective on the matter! Evolutionary theory, in the Darwinian tradition, is all about the problem of adaptation. In contrast to previous, and so many other evolutionary theories and creationism.
Life is problematic. Staying alive is the solution to a problem.
Comment by Rock — August 20, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
August 20th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Rock:
What are you saying? That there is only one possible Turing Machine solution to a given problem? There would be an infinite number of TM's to solve it. The problem will be open ended to some degree, and we could compare and contrast proposed TM solutions in terms of whatever criteria they varied on and which were relevant to us.
Comment by JT — August 20, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
August 20th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I addressed directly Turing's statement of what "intelligence" is (the "Turing paradigm"): a mathematician solving a routine problem.
A very limited perspective on intelligence. He knew it. His immeduate object was to program machines to do exactly that: follow the rules! He did not fail to appreciate "non-rule bound" methods. He sought to systematically eliminate them.
Every possible solution Turing's mathematician solves is according to, due to the application of a rule he knows. He solves no other problems.
Comment by Rock — August 20, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
August 20th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Rock:
I was just reacting to the last comment you made and won't try to enter this discussion further (and maybe misconstruing it), but I would say that the code (rules) of a human grows over time. The code (rules) accumulating in his brain is maybe properly considered 'data' (although there is no formal distinction between data and code) but there is that data and a complex ever changing external environment, so even with some base set of fixed rules, they can be applied to different problems as they are encountered in the world and making use of whatever data is accumulated in the brain over a lifetime.
Comment by JT — August 20, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
August 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Using words like "best" when describing problem solving adds a level of squishiness that I'm uncomfortable with. If we have a 4-way mercury switch floating on the ocean, is it choosing the "best" solution every time it changes states? Or is it just transitioning from one problem to another?
Comment by chunkdz — August 21, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
August 21st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Death is problematic too. Rotting is the solution to a problem, no?
Comment by chunkdz — August 21, 2009 @ 3:00 pm