So then how did it happen?
by BradfordPiattelli-Palmarini: Ostracism W/out Nat Selection, is the title of an article featuring an interview of Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini by Suzan Mazur. It is rich in notable quotes. Although Piattelli-Palmarini has some counter-mainstream ideas he establshes his bonafides with mainstreamers with this comment:
I think that abandoning Darwinism (or explicitly relegating it where it belongs, in the refinement and tuning of existing forms) sounds anti-scientific. They fear that the tenants of intelligent design and the creationists (people I hate as much as they do) will rejoice and quote them as being on their side. They really fear that, so they are prudent, some in good faith, some for calculated fear of being cast out of the scientific community.
How does one develop hatred for those he has never met and knows nothing about other than the singular belief they hold? I'll bet if some critics were fed truth serum and asked if they hate serial murderers like Ted Bundy they would reply in the negative. Yet… Let me bring a fear to fruition. There was this quote:
Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?
Gotta love it. You'd think the man was a double agent posing as an ID hater when he is advancing front loading with a side comment.:mrgreen: How about this one?
Of course, there is natural selection all around us (just think of the flu virus, mutating and adapting every year, to our detriment) and inside us (just think of our antibodies and our synapses and the pancreas cells and the epithelial cells). The point is, however, that organisms can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is NOT the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.
For that, major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks have to occur. All this is perfectly naturalistic and now well documented. Minor changes in the order of activation of master genes can create vast discontinuous morphogenetic changes. Very similar (in the jargon orthologous) genes in insects and in vertebrates produce an inversion in the development of the nervous system.
I don't understand this man. Follow this reasoning and tell me what I'm missing.
Major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks have taken place naturally but not through natural selection right? Piattelli-Palmarini believes that genomes code for proteins involved in biological functions. He knows mutations occur yet discounts selection as an explanation for new species. He also disavows intelligent design and creation. So how did new species come about or is this how gaps are created?
May 14th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Hate and fear. What a sad commentary on the state of science these days.
Comment by nobody — May 14, 2008 @ 12:32 am
May 14th, 2008 at 1:53 am
nobody,
I was lamenting that. There's another article on the Scoop site talking about an upcoming (I believe) meeting of 16 major figures in evolutionary theory – and naturally there's not only a snarl against ID proponents, but the Templeton foundation too (A modest religious organization if ever there was one.) The quote therein basically amounted to 'I don't care if you have to feed your kids or put them through college, you should never cooperate with any religion-based group for any reason as a scientist'.
But, the articles are still very interesting. Looks like there's a lot to debate about evolution even in the mainstream. I suspect that if any truly drastic change in theory ever came to pass, they'd just call it 'neo-darwinism' anyway.
Comment by nullasalus — May 14, 2008 @ 1:53 am
May 14th, 2008 at 2:19 am
nullasalus says:
You're probably correct. I'm sure you're familiar with that old, well-worn consumer marketing phrase: "NEW and IMPROVED!"
Comment by nobody — May 14, 2008 @ 2:19 am
May 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
As I have been doing for many years, let me point out once again that the real question in evolutionary biology is not "can natural selection produce the things we see around us?" The answer is clearly no; natural selection doesn't "produce" anything, it simply preserves characteristics that are produced by the "engines of variation."
That said, what most people who haven't read Darwin's Origin of Species seem to miss is that the first two chapters of that book are not about natural selection. Rather, they are about precisely what they should be about: variation, which provides the raw material for natural selection and adaptation. As Darwin pointed out in his summary to Ch. 5 of the Origin,
[emphasis added]
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=185
We are today a little closer to understanding some of the causes of variation upon which natural selection and the other "engines of evolution" operate. As I have pointed out in another thread, two properties appear to be inextricably at work in the "engines of variation": emergence and contingency. Both of these contribute to what MikeGene calls "front loading", and must be incorporated into any overall theory of variation and evolution.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — May 14, 2008 @ 9:56 am
May 14th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Allen_MacNeill:
I've got to make one more comment before tearing myself away from this for awhile. ( This can be addictive. Maybe that's an emergent behavior.) It seems as if emergence is similar to Behe's irreducibly complex idea- the whole being different than the sum of its parts. Behe of course based his ID friendly beliefs at least in part on IC.
You cite other "engines of evolution." Are they known, unknown, partially understood? This looks like a situation begging for a good theoretician(s) to come in and set things straight.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2008 @ 10:53 am
May 14th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I think there is a valid reason that serious researchers feel the need to disavow "intelligent design" before exploring these issues.
People (structuralists of all flavors) have been talking about "front-loading" by other names for a long time, and continue to do so, without the anthropomorphically charged and scientifically vacuous notion of an "intelligent designer".
If the universe was front-loaded with constraints that shape biological systems, by all means let us try to characterize and understand this. Lots of smart people are looking at what is wrong with and missing from our current evolutionary theories. They are justified in wanting to distance themselves from those who believe that "intelligence" is a meaningful explanation of natural phenomena.
Comment by aiguy — May 14, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Growing up during the latter days of the Cold War, I saw many irrational fears directed towards the people of the USSR. When the Cold War ended, I think we saw just how irrational those fears were with regards to the people. Too bad some lessons are easily learned.
Regarding the token anti-ID and creationism comments in the Scoop articles, I personally like to employ what I call a "Sharpie policy": any ad hominem attacks are blacked out, just as if I crossed them out using a black Sharpie pen. I then focus on and respond to the remainder of the argument (of course, there may be no argument left, but that speaks volumes towards the actual content of the argument, eh?).
This Altenberg 16 summit looks very interesting. If a new evolutionary synthesis does emerge, I propose when naming it to just add another neo to the front of "Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis". Just keep adding neo's 'till it's right, sez me!
Dr. MacNeil, I recall that somewhere on your blog you had a list of the various mechanisms for NS & RM. However, I can't seem to find it. If you could please provide the link for this, it would be much appreciated.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — May 14, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
You're right. There is a valid reason. They want to keep their jobs.
Comment by nobody — May 14, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
JJS P.Eng.:
Ah, yes. Those Russians…
[Sting & Sergei Prokofiev]
Comment by Joy — May 14, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
aiguy,
My apologies that I only have time for one comment but I couldn't resist.
I personally don't understand the need to disavow any attempt at establishing a scientific hypothesis. If I personally don't agree with something I state my reasons and then continue on my merry way and let the research that I disagree with either kill itself or flourish … the true scientific way.
IE: psi effects. I personally don't think that there is such a thing but I could be wrong. I wouldn't personally donate money to such endeavors, but whatever … nature has on occasion proven to be stranger than one can imagine.
1. How is "intelligent designer" necessarily anthropomorphic?
2. Also, why would an "anthropomorphic intelligence" necessarily be so evil to consider in a scientific research program? If it is only superfluous, then I agree. We can discuss intelligence (ie: computer based or QM based) without referencing human or animal intelligence — other than comparing the similarities that actually cause the system to be intelligent. After all, anthropomorphic or not, intelligence is fundamentally a type of sufficiently organized information processing.
3. Intelligence is intelligence (an information processing system with foresight and creative ability) regardless of any "anthropomorphizing." Is the AI that you deal with "anthropomorphic?" Does attaching that scary "a" word affect anything by way of research and development?
4. If "intelligence" is a scientifically vacuous notion, then why is there any research being done on artificial intelligence? Are you saying that there is no dividing line between that which is intelligent and that which is not? Are you also saying that there is no way to measure intelligence or its output and the amount of informational input necessary to achieve specific intelligent outputs? Are you saying there is an actual theoretical limitation which would make that type of research impossible?
5. If QM is a source of intelligence as per Hameroff and Penrose, then a sufficiently organized quantum computer may possess true intelligent foresight. How can you say that this intelligent quantum computer is in any way anthropomorphic? If it is anthropomorphic, does it matter? Why?
6. Intelligence is not necessarily anthropomorphic any more than a computer (or any other information processing system including the universe [as per Seth Lloyd]) is necessarily anthropomorphic.
7. If intelligence is seen as scientifically vacuous, it is only because research into its cause and its effects is for some strange reason barred from scientific inquiry. As an artificial intelligence expert, you could probably tell me if that is truly the case. If that is not the case, then what are you talking about when you reference "scientific vacuousness of intelligent design?"
Are you saying that the view that foresight (and the ability to creatively apply foresight) as a necessary cause of an engineers blueprints and the fruition of those blueprints is not even partially meaningful and all scientists ought to distance themselves from the view that foresight is at least one out of many necessary causes for that blueprint for some arbitrary reason set up by yourself? If foresight is necessary for anything, then it is not scientifically vacuous. Is foresight necessary to see the fruition of an engineers blueprint? Excellent research question. If affirmative, then your assertion about the vacuousness of intelligence is incorrect. Either way, it makes for stimulating research.
Of course, you may want to discuss the cause of foresight, but that is different than blatantly denying that foresight (as one aspect of intelligence) is necessary for anything and then assuring us that people who share that opinion of denying intelligence as a necessary cause are somehow justified in disavowing the alternative research questions in favor of their own arbitrary [and non-evident] opinion.
Comment by CJYman — May 14, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
JJS P.Eng:
Hi Eng. I think most of those fears were not directed at the people but rather at a government that held sway over them and most of eastern Europe as well.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
aiguy:
I'm waiting and listening for an explanation of how natural laws generate information in the absence of intelligence. Thinking that intelligence lies at one end of a causal chain does not detract from a need to search for constraints. But the nature of the constraints could differ.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Here's another quote from the article:
Despite the fact we have some very different paradigms I share some specific views with the interviewee.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
The ability to be self critical is fundamental to the practice of science, but when self criticality is lost then science because pseudo-science. What is self criticality but life's innate ability to recognize its own contrivances? And what is contrivance but a code word for intelligent design?
In order for Darwinism to return to science it becomes necessary for Darwinists to rediscover their long lost self criticality. Then they can return to the tree of life.
Intelligent design advocates need only point to contrivances that they believe belong a life that found peace with its self criticality; so these folks are advancing science by carrying the forgotten self criticality.
Comment by Stephen — May 14, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
My favorite quote from the interview:
Or already was.
Comment by Bilbo — May 14, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
No matter how many times creationists repeat this "biology is broken" mantra it still won't be true. You assume Biology rejects all new ideas simply because they reject one particular completely unfounded idea, namely Intelligent Design. The truth is Biology is a rapidly advancing science and rapid advancement doesn't come by clinging to invalid concepts. Rather rapid advancement only occurs when current ideas are leading to fruitful new discoveries by making successful predictions. Just to be clear:
Biology doesn't reject new ideas, it only rejects your unfounded IDeas.
This does point to a way in which the ID movement is hurting science though. Scientists should be able to more openly discuss different ideas without the fear that various religious and political groups will hijack their research to misuse for political reasons. IDist like to claim science is being squelched when in fact they are simply trying to fight against what they see as religion hijacking science. When scientists are forced into this sort of adversarial mode then its sure to negatively impact their work. It might be a bit strong to claim you hate these people, but if someone was hijacking your life's work in order to support a political cause that you are personally opposed to wouldn't you be upset too?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 14, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Todd, you feel something that you find irritating; but irritation is the way self doubt feels.
Comment by Stephen — May 14, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Hi Todd,
What would lead you to suspect that life was intelligently designed?
Comment by nobody — May 14, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Wow. That's some phenomenal psychoanalysis. I bet if he didn't feel irritation, but bliss instead, you would tell him that he feels bliss only because he is unaware of his self doubt? And if Todd would have said he felt self doubt, would you have told him that that's actually how irritation feels?
And by the way, if this post makes you, or anybody else feel irritated, don't worry, that's just self doubt that you are feeling.
Comment by hrun — May 14, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Oh the hype and the drama of it all. One's life's work being hijacked. Whose? Any names? That about gives one the license to do anything. Can't have wanton destruction now. Actually the DI could take a lesson from this diatribe. Threatiness, gross exageration, upset to the point of hate and all justified as a response to politics. Josef Goebbels did not do any better than this.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Well played, Bradford. Well played.
Comment by hrun — May 14, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
hrun, the feeling of hopeful induction corresponds to bliss; so it is not true that bliss indicates a missing self doubt, necessarily. It must return to an oscillation between bliss and irritating doubt. Be aware that bliss and irritation are two sides of the same coin, held by a yin-yang synthesis that is well described by Hegel's logic and by the intuitionist mathematics of Brouwer.
Natural selection running on hopeful bliss is a self blind induction that forgot its most irritating self doubt. You would expect nothing less coming from the said blind watchmaker. But the blind watchmaker will make mistakes, and the only way for the watchmaker to become aware of the watchmaker's mistakes is by the feeling of irritation carried by self doubt. Deductive thinking grew out of self doubt, but deduction is not a one-sided inductive thinking.
You would think that Darwinists would admit that their theory has limits; but they find themselves unable to pull themselves away from the hopeful induction, thereby claiming that the watchmaker is completely blind when there is no ground to make such an absolute claim.
Understand that ID advocates don't need to define the watchmaker, because their job is to carry the self doubt ignored by the Darwinists. Their job is the negative argument, the argument made by deduction that shows the mistakes of inductive thinking. The induction carries the hopeful optimism, so induction must make the positive argument. You would think that a self critical deduction would have a place in science, but we are told that the blind watchmaker is unable to entertain any self criticism that detracts from their exalted euphoria.
Comment by Stephen — May 14, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
JJS P.Eng. asked:
Here it is:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — May 14, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
They wouldn't be telic thoughts now would they?
Comment by willo — May 14, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
CJYman,
Scientific hypotheses are fine, no matter how strange. But we must have a way of deciding if they are true or not. If I propose, say, "magic" as an explanation for some phenomenon, I expect it will be rejected on the grounds that I have not characterized "magic" in a way that will allow us to decide if magic really is responsible. Likewise, the characterization (or lack of same!) of an "intelligence" capable of creating the original life forms (or the universe) does not enable us to decide if it exists or not. In contrast, the hypothesis "psi effects exist" can be (and has been) tested quite directly (experimentally).
It depends what you mean by "intelligent designer". Perhaps you mean, for example, something that might have no conscious awareness, can't use grammatical language, can't recognize itself (or consciously recognize anything at all), and has no ability to adapt to novel situations, and has no free will? In that case, I would agree – you aren't projecting human traits.
I don't think this is what you mean, though. I think you are talking about an intelligent mind that is similar to a human mind (or maybe similar to what we assume about the mind of an ape or a whale, but maybe not like the mind of a spider or a bacterium.) In that case, you would be projecting traits of living beings onto the cause of a natural phenomenon, in the tradition of animistic explanations that have existed since the beginning of history.
Not necessarily evil – just unwarranted (yes, superfluous).
If you have a theory of intelligence that enables "comparing the similarities that actually cause the system to be intelligent", then I would love to hear it. I don't think "sufficiently organized information processing" is a useful definition for "intelligence" for this purpose, however. In any case, if you believe intelligence can emerge from things like computers or quantum devices – deterministic or stochastic physical mechanisms – without consciousness, then specifying the cause of life was "intelligent" means nothing at all except "it was capable of producing life". If you think it means something else, what would that be? Most scientists consider learning and grammatical language to be essential aspects of human intelligence. Do you?
AI is explicitly anthropomorphic! We try to build systems that do what human beings can do! But nobody in AI would ever try to explain anything by invoking the concept of "intelligence". "Intelligence" is not a thing with causal force that we imagine existing inside the machine. Rather, it is an informal way to refer to various abilities that people (and other animals) have, and some machines have some of these abilities too.
One reason is because we want to figure out how humans and other animals manage to do what they do. Another reason is because it can be handy to have intelligent machines.
Still, "intelligence" truly is vacuous as an explanation – it doesn't mean anything at all. Consider:
Q: "How did Johnny manage to score so well on his IQ test?"
A: Johnny is intelligent
Q: "How did Deep Blue manage to beat Kasparov at chess?"
A: Intelligence
A: How did the flagellum come to exist?
Q: Intelligence
In each case, we learn nothing by invoking the concept of intelligence.
Another way to see it: Say I discover the cause of complexity in biology, and I tell you the cause is "X". So far, you know nothing about it at all. Now, I tell you that X is intelligent. What have you learned? Have you learned anything about what else X can do, or cannot do? Have you learned what it will or won't do in any situation? Have you learned what X experiences consciously, if anything at all? No, you have not a single thing, because "intelligence" is a description of the phenomena we wish to explain, and not an explanation per se.
I'm saying the dividing line is a matter of definition rather than discovery, and that there is no single definition of intelligence, and that without a specific definition, the word is just a vague reference to the sorts of things that living organisms do.
Unfortunately there is an infinite number of different ways to measure "intelligence", but there is nothing to say that all of these different measurements are measuring the same "thing"… because intelligence is not a thing. That is why all scientific research that employs the concept must always provide an operationalized definition. In general, the definition is performance on a particular standardized test of various cognitive functions (e.g. an IQ test). Obviously this particular operationalized definition is inapplicable in the context of ID. If you'd like to offer "intelligence" as an explanation of life, you'll need to come up with some other operationalized definition. Good luck to you! (Make sure you avoid "the ability to make complex designs" or something else that renders ID an empty tautology).
I don't know what you mean by "amount of informational input" or "specific intelligent outputs". And it is not that there are theoretical limits, it is that we have no general theory of intelligence in the first place.
Please tell me what "true intelligent foresight" is (as opposed to "fake intelligent foresight" or "true unintelligent foresight" Also, Hameroff/Penrose do not say QM provides intelligence, only a "Platonic Logic" that mechanisms of the brain interact with to produce intelligent behavior.)
I assure you that nobody has visited my laboratory and told me not to study the "causes and effects" of intelligence. If I produced a general theory of intelligence, and it enabled me to create machines with far greater mental abilities, I would not be barred from anything; rather, I would be rich and famous. And of course we have already built machines that do things which – when humans do them – we call intelligent. But is it "true" intelligence, or "fake" intelligence? (There is no meaningful answer to that question). And again: It would be ludicrous for me to explain how my AI system managed to, say, design a circuit by saying "It is intelligent!"
When some mechanism searches a solution space according to deterministic algorithms and finds solutions that match certain criteria, do you consider this "the ability to creatively apply foresight" If not, then when Deep Blue creates a brilliant, complex and novel strategy for chess, is it not creatively applying foresight? And if you do think algorithmic search constitutes foresight, why wouldn't you consider Darwinian evolution to have foresight? Because it we can actually observe all of its discarded candidate solutions?
Cognitive psychology has been studying this for a long time, of course. The answers tell us about human cognition, however, and not about intelligence as an abstract, general thing.
It's certain that Deep Blue does not work the way human chess masters work. Not only are things different on the lowest levels of abstraction (the physical substrate of neurons vs. silicon chips), but experiments reveal that the machine remembers the board and evaluates moves using very different methods. So in what sense is the operation of Deep Blue the same thing as the operation of a human chess master – besides the fact that they both play good chess? What does it mean to say that foresight is necessary for both of them to play chess?
Comment by aiguy — May 14, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
May 14th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Bradford,
And I'm waiting and listening for an explanation of how intelligence generates information.
It really doesn't mean anything to say "intelligence" lies at the end of the causal chain until you are more specific. But if you are more specific (like saying "human-like consciousness" is responsible) then your claim will be without evidence.
Comment by aiguy — May 14, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Describing the designer is less interesting to me than describing physical phenomenon revealing effects not ascribable to chemical determinism or a selection process.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 12:08 am
May 15th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Bradford,
In saying this you are describing a hypothetical designer: You are describing this designer as operating according to some principle that cannot be reduced to "chemical determinism" (which I take to mean physical determinism, yes?)
But why is this particular distinction important – is this what "intelligent" means to you, something that is not physically determined? And also, how do you propose we decide when something is not physically determined?
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 12:31 am
May 15th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I don't mean not physically determined. I mean resulting from determinism. There is a distinction. When combustion takes place and hydrogen is the fuel, water and not carbon dioxide results. That's predictable and predetermined. If I hold a hydrogen fuel tank and a bucket of coal I can make a choice as to which I'll burn and which by-product will result. That would be a physical process too but is the consequence of choice and not predetermined by physical necessity- until the point of combustion.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 9:14 am
May 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Haha, thanks for the tip yogi-san.
Evidence of a designer would do it. Space alien artifacts that are four billion years old, for example. A failure of current biological theories to make progress towards eventually explaining the OOL would certainly make me question the validity of current theories, but even if I was convinced that modern theories are 100% wrong that does not provide any warrant to jump to an Intelligent Design conclusion. Of course I might have some sort of stroke or brain injury that alters my brain function turning me into a born-again religious zealot, that would convince me ID is true without the need for pesky evidence.
You do understand that the watchmaker is a metaphor, right? M.e.t.a.p.h.o.r., look it up. There's nothing to explain regarding watchmakers. Thank you for a good laugh though, and keep pumping out that pop psychology! In fact posts like that are why I follow this board, it has nothing to do with irritation and everything to do with the humor provided by ID arguments. If I found this irritating I would simply not do it, but thanks none the less.
So long as they are valid scientific hypothesises it wouldn't matter. Telic thoughts have yet to lead to a valid scientific hypothesis but who knows, they might some day.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 15, 2008 @ 10:31 am
May 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Ok, but then lets assume for a moment that quantum effects are truly and fundamentally non-deterministic. If that is true then wouldn't quantum effects qualify as your intelligent designer?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 15, 2008 @ 10:36 am
May 15th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Todd, metaphor passes over to literalism, and then literalism passes over to allegory. Allegory reconnects meaning to feeling and returns to the middle between literalism and metaphor, much as Hegel declared. And hence allegory is beyond both literalism and the metaphor.
The said watchmaker is closer to allegory, otherwise Darwin remains unconvincing as he merely describes the evolution of metaphors.
And please show me the toaster that feels itself baking bread, otherwise the feeling has never been programed either by ID or by Darwin.
Comment by Stephen — May 15, 2008 @ 10:41 am
May 15th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Stephen, you used a lot of words but I'm not sure you actually said anything. If there was a point in there I was meant to respond to please let me know.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 15, 2008 @ 11:02 am
May 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Bradford,
If you mean something other than "not physically determined" when you say "not predetermined by physical necessity", then the distinction I'm afraid is lost on me. In fact what you are describing is precisely the distinction that philosophers make between physical determinism on one hand and free will on the other. I find that when ID enthusiasts talk about intelligence this is almost always what they mean: The ability to choose in a way that is not determined by physical law. That is certainly what Dembski means (and has admitted as much).
The problem, of course, is that nobody knows if such a thing as this sort of free will exists. (The sort of "ability to choose" you are talking about is called libertarian free will, in contrast to compatibilist free will which assumes that our choices are just as physically determined as the water resulting from the oxygenation of hydrogen.) Nullasalus and I have discussed this in another thread, and we agree that while scientists have performed experiments that are interpreted by many as speaking against the possibility of libertarian free will, the matter is ultimately undecided and perhaps undecidable by appeal to science.
Again: The notion that minds can transcend physical law is a philosophical speculation, and not an empirically demonstrable fact. So I think you ought to take a page from Nullasalus' playbook: Concede that when you say "intelligence" is responsible for something, you are making a metaphysical claim and not an empirical claim.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 11:33 am
May 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Todd:
Quantum effects could be designed as could the universe itself. But that was not the issue I was addressing. The issue is an empirical means of distinguishing results accruing from forces of nature, which are necessarily deterministic in nature, (quantum effects are statistically predictable) and results accruing from choice. Quoting Dembski:
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 11:34 am
May 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
aiguy:
That's a philosophical position. If philosophy is to govern scientific approaches (and it already does to some extent) then personal preference becomes an empirical determinent.
The negation of the above is equally philosophical.
I'm making a physicall distinction between pathways. One traced to intelligence and the other to brute forces of Nature. It is not necessary to resolve underlying philosophical differences.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 11:38 am
May 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Bradford
Well, no, it is a fact: nobody knows. One philosophical position is that free will exists, and another position is that it does not. Nobody can appeal to observable evidence to decide which philosophical position is correct.
ID rests on one particular position – it requires that free will exists, or else it makes no sense. Evolutionary theory, in contrast, has no connection at all to these philosophical issues. That is why ID can't be science, but evolutionary theory is.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 11:43 am
May 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Spoken like a true philosphical materialist. I don't have to resolve philosophical notions. Only make empirically distinguishing predictions.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 11:48 am
May 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Bradford,
LOL! Evolutionary theory does not rely on materialism of course! There may be libertarian free will, God, demons and devils and witches on brooms, and evolutionary theory still can be true, because evolutionary theory is perfectly compatible with dualism and libertarian free will.
In contrast, if libertarian free will (as Dembski and you describe it) does not exist, then ID makes no sense, because free will is the explanation that ID offers- it is the entirety of ID Theory's explanation!
I think you need to rethink this a bit. There are no empirical tests for free will; no "empirically distinguishing predictions" that can tell us if human beings or anything else in the universe has the power to do anything that is not physically determined just like combustion is.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 11:57 am
May 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I never alluded to evolutionary theory one way or the other. You're arguing with yourself.
You're not thinking this through. Tracing the origin of life entails accounting for causal pathways. If you make the assumption that free will is merely an expression of deterministic neural phenomeon and you trace evidence of intelligence to origins then you simply have an alternative set of biochemical pathways to cite as a cause. Instead of the primordial soup scenario you have a directing intelligence at the initiation of the causal pathways. And don't bother pointing out that that intelligent source would not have free will. That origin is a separate investigation involving different hypotheses.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
But Bradford, in ID, isn't the detection of an acting intelligence predicated on the fact that 'intelligence' can do stuff that chance and natural laws by themselves can not do. You know, for example, design stuff, create information, have foresight, …
If, as in your scenario, intelligence can be reduced back to deterministic physical phenomena, then how can you distinguish stuff that could have happened by 'chance and law alone' (e.g. combustion) from other stuff that could not have happened by 'chance and law alone' (e.g. building a combustion engine)?
Comment by hrun — May 15, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Bradford,
I was arguing with your charge that I had said something that entailed materialism. I had not; you were mistaken. My point was that science is not dependent on materialism, but ID is dependent on dualism (or at least on libertarian free will, which is typically associated with dualism).
We are talking past each other, Bradford. You want to say that "directing intelligence" is a scientific hypothesis that can be offered as an explanation for the origin of life. I say ok, please tell me what "directing intelligence" means. You explain that it means "libertarian free will". I point out that there is no scientific evidence that libertarian free will exists – it is a metaphysical speculation rather than something which can be empirically tested or observed. In other words, you are offering a hypothesis that can't be tested – we can't even tell if human beings have free will, so obviously we can't test to see if the cause of life had it.
This doesn't mean ID is wrong, but it does mean that it can't be evaluated scientifically.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Those methods were programmed into Deep Blue.
The capacity to anticipate future possibilities is shared by Deep Blue and human chess players.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
This is silly. Of course choice can be tested. Forensics does it all the time. You do not have to go into philosophical speculations about free will to test for choice. In fact I came across a paper in which fruit flies were the object of study and their choices the basis of a test. As I've pointed out before a non-free will approach amounts to a statement about distinguishing biochemical pathways and that's innately scientific.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
So when humans design things, this is an effect of dualism?
ID no more requires free will than the understanding that humans design things.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 15, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Don't you experience it every day?
What has precedence in your philosophy, a direct experience, or the cogitations of mere logic?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 15, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Bradford,
No, they weren't really. Deep Blue was taught various things about chess, but the moves can't be predicted by anybody – Blue comes up with them all by itself. Kasparov was also programmed/taught various things about chess, and his moves can't be predicted by anybody either – Kasparov comes up with them all by himself.
But it is certain the Deep Blue does not transcend physical determinism, so now you are apparently saying that intelligence does not need to be physically undetermined. This seems to contradict what you had just said (that intelligence "is the consequence of choice and not predetermined by physical necessity"). Deep Blue's moves are predetermined by physical necessity, even though nobody can know what the moves are determined to be. As far as we know this is true of Kasparov as well, but it could be that something mysterious is going on in his head (or soul) that allows him to transcend physical necessity.
Be careful what you call silly, Bradford. Forensics has absolutely nothing to do with tests of free will! There are scientists who study free will, but they are cognitive scientists, not forensic scientists. Forensic science has no tools at all to help decide if free will exists – they are simply looking for signs of the actions of human beings, and nothing else.
First you say that intelligence can't be the result of physical necessity, and then you seem to be saying that it can. You need to take a consistent position here.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Kornbelt,
Nobody knows. I think the evidence speaks against it, but others disagree, and no empirical evidence exists that can determine who is right.
Yes, of course it does. If it turned out that human thought was merely the action of physical necessity, then ID would be saying that "intelligent design" is nothing but physical necessity too. Nothing but blind undirected physical processes that give rise to intelligent effects, just like it happens in human brains (or evolutionary processes).
I do not experience libertarian free will, no. I can't tell if I decide to move my finger based on physical necessity or not. Neither can you.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
aiguy, I don't know if you are doing this deliberately or just being careless but I did not write that forensics tested for free will. I wrote that it tested for choice among other things. There is a difference.
As for Big Blue I wrote that methodology is programmed. The individual moves of course are not. Big Blue's choices are- to borrow a legal adage- fruits of the poison tree. Since the computer was designed by an intelligent source all effects resulting from its operation are effects of intelligent design as well. Very much like DNA.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
You're miscontruing a methodology for distinguishing intelligence from effects of physical laws from the nature of intelligence itself.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
If the movement was caused by either the wind or neural impulses and a determination as to which one is the objective then your beliefs about free will do not matter.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Bradford,
If you claim that there are differences between being "physically determined" or "chemically determined", or between "physically determined" and "resulting from physical necessity", or between "choice" and "free choice", or "ability to choose" and "free will", then you really need to tell us what these differences are. These pairs of concepts mean the same thing to me, and simply saying they are different doesn't help – you need to explain how they are different.
In that case, Kasparov's methodology was programmed by his teachers, the books he read, and so on. The individual moves are his, but otherwise (as far as you can show) his actions come from pure physical necessity.
And since intelligent sources are – as far as you can show – nothing but the operation of purely physical necessity, that means that – as far as you can show – everything is the result of physical necessity. QED.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Bradford,
Nobody thinks the wind moved my finger. Either my finger moved as the result of physical necessity ("blind, undirected, natural physical cause" as IDers would say) or it moved as the result of something in me that can act outside of physical necessity. I have pointed out that we do not know which is the case.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
aiguy claims:
You've got to be kidding me. You are practicing free will to post here.
Comment by nobody — May 15, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I don't care what these things mean to you. The only thing that matters to me is whether or not a series of chemical reactions bears the fingerprints of direction. Your philosophical outlook on whether or not the director has free will are irrelevant to a distinguishing prediction.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
aiguy,
Even people who take the hardest and most universal view of physicalism and physical determinism don't automatically equate the actions of humans/agents with the actions of every other system in a 1:1 manner. If they draw a line, does that make them dualists?
Besides – an ID proponent could turn around and say that if all processes are 'just' the actions of physical necessity, it indicates that mind is fundamental to nature. After all, we know our minds exist even if they are entirely the result of physical processes, and since (as you seem to argue) there's no essential difference between one process and another, our existence is very likely participatory in a greater mind at the very least.
I suppose you can argue that if that's the case, it's a mind unlike humans' – but ID proponents wouldn't be totally surprised at that claim, and could then point out that we'd be part of that 'ultimate' mind, so presumably we could grasp enough of it to investigate.
Either way, I'd argue that 1: Even the most dualistic concepts of mind don't automatically require libertarian free will, 2: Even the most physicalist views of mind and universe don't automatically write off all processes and groups of processes as ontologically equal, 3: If they did, the result may well be strengthening the ID proposal's validity, and 4: the most purebred physicalism may be losing popularity even among cognitive scientists and philosophers, if the recent conference at Tucson is any indication. There are many 'dualisms' being thrown about; panpsychism, protopanpsychism, property dualism, substance dualism, along with a few brands of emergentism that frankly look a lot like every other dualism despite the insistence that they 'emerge from the physical'.
Comment by nullasalus — May 15, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
That's all well and good insofar as your personal beliefs are concerned but what does this have to do with a capacity to determine whether the order of the symbols in this message were made through intelligence or by random depressions of a pet walking across the keyboard?
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
[duplicate post deleted]
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 15, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
So, to simply, what you're saying is that ID requires an intelligent agent of at least the same nature as human intelligence?
Ideas about "physical necessity" are the productions of logic, which may be right or wrong. Do you consider your immediate experience as a decider to be on the same level as the products of your reasoning?
Of course, any answer you give is going to be via your rational processes. I guess if you're not experiencing what I am with regards to choice, there's no way to communicate about this. (I'm not interested in trying to convince you. You either see it or you don't. Imagine trying to argue a colorblind person into seeing blue. I'm just trying to get a handle on your views.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 15, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Bradford,
You have said that intelligence means something which is not physically determined (or "results from physical necessity"). Like it or not, this is a metaphysical claim you can't support empirically.
You use the term "fingerprints of direction" but you can't tell us how to operationalize what that means. What is "direction?" Directed by what? An immaterial mind? A physical brain? Something else? If you say you don't know, then you don't know what it means to be "directed"!
You pretend to be using concepts that are obvious, and that people in forensics and other areas of science use, but this is not the case at all. You are pretending that your claims are independent of the concepts of physical determinism and libertarian free will, but they are not.
First, of course you haven't said what "intelligence" is supposed to mean here! If you mean "the ability to order symbols in a message", then obviously this makes your explanation tautological. If you mean "not caused by physical necessity", like you said before, then your explanation is metaphysical. If you mean something else, you need to say what you mean.
Second, nobody would guess that a pet walking across a keyboard would result in English being typed, so that is just a stupid hypothesis. The only reasonable explanation is that a human being who understands English is typing on the keyboard. But that says nothing about not being caused by physical necessity, so apparently it doesn't meet your own definition of intelligent cause.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Kornbelt,
I have no idea what "at least the same nature" means.
I think you're asking me if I think my conscious awareness is the same thing as my reasoning? If that's what you mean, then no, I don't.
I think we both experience conscious awareness. My pains hurt, and my joys feel good. I do not, however, understand the connection between these subjective feelings and my ability to, say, design machinery. And I'm certain you do not understand these connections any better than I do.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
nobody,
I'm afraid you don't understand what is being discussed. Please read a bit about the "problem of free will" and you'll be able to understand what's being argued here.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
nullasalus,
No, but it means they've told us how to draw the line in some manner. If ID is supposed to science, as Bradford is arguing, then the line must be emprically grounded; No such line exists.
What do you mean by "mind" Consciousness as we humans experience it? Then no, I've already argued to you that I think this sort of mind probably exists only in humans, as a result of human brain function (and perhaps something else in addition).
I think you and I are both aware of all of these issues, and hopefully you understand that I do not pretend to have a scientific case for anything resembling materialism. I think you are not pretending to have a scientific case for free will or dualism or anything else. My purpose here is to make people understand the metaphysical commitments they are making, and I think you already understand this.
Actually I mentioned the opposite entailment: typically libertarian free will requires dualism, but there could be an (awkward) position that avoided that commitment I suppose.
I disagree – they are ontologically equal because physicalists are monists and for them there is only one ontological option. The line drawn around agency/intentionality is not an ontological one for a monist.
I disagree, as above.
I think I've already shared with you that I am, and have always been, very very far from a "purebred physicalist"! Consciousness is indeed a hard problem!
This discussion is not about whether dualism or physicalism is true. The point here is that ID requires theorists to say what is meant by (and thus entailed by) "intelligent cause" – in other words, how is this line drawn between intelligent and unintelligent cause. To the extent that proponents wish to claim an empirical foundation for ID, this line must be objectively and empirically decidable.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I agree that's a bit off. To reword: what you're saying is that ID requires an intelligent agent of at least the same intelligence as you. With desire, will, and at very least your insight into the consequences of your actions and the actions of your productions.) (And please, no quibbling about what "intelligence" means. Use an assessment of yourself as a baseline.)
That question could use refinement too: do you consider your immediate experience as a decider to be on a more primary, less primary, or equal level, as the products of your reasoning?
So, you're not certain if you have free will, but you're certain you understand how I perceive my own mind? How are you so sure that you and I are built the same? Do you believe that people have different mental talents? Can you produce symphonies in your head? How can you presume to know the mind of another?
Ever since I heard about the Turing Test, long ago, in my youth, I figured one of the best ways to determine if the thing on the "other end" was a real person or not was to probe it about consciousness and willful action, which is where I suspect is the jumping off point between humans and computers, and see what kind of answers it would come up with if I attacked at various angles. I've never encountered a computer simulation that was even marginally worthy of a Turing test, but years ago I started surveying people in the same way I might a Turing test in the matters of consciousness and will. And what I find is that there really are two kinds of people with regards to conversations like this. Those that immediately see it the way I do when we "compare notes", and those that never seem to. Apparently, you are in the latter group.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 15, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Don't you yourself have will and foresight that is immediately obvious to you as is your powers of argumentation? Do you have enough logical power to invent complex things with specific goals?
When an ID proponent says that an intelligence has to be at least as intelligent as aiguy, are you saying you don't know what this means?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 15, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
aiguy,
If you're saying that ID must be grounded in libertarian free will to proceed, I disagree. I just don't get why you're even bringing up the distinction; libertarian or compatibilism (probably even incompatiblism, honestly) are compatible with ID considerations. And science is going to hit the same walls no matter which one is taken to be the case.
I know your take on the question isn't strictly (maybe not remotely) materialist – you're trying to illustrate a point here, but I'm running with what you've outlined. Don't take my arguments here as supposing these are your views, it's not meant that way.
If we're arguing that all known consciousness is the stuff of the physical, and that all processes are equal, then it becomes an open question whether there is an ultimate consciousness that not only is its own thing, but also contains the consciousnesses that make up its system. If we go that way, humans can't help but understand a part of this big-D designer.
At the very least, I just don't see the conditions you're laying down as instituting a wall ID can't get past.
Maybe, but only in the broadest sense of dualism. I think everyone from the substance dualists to the quantum mind types to the panpsychists to the wide variety of property dualists to .. etc, could qualify here. And then comes the fight over whether they're really dualists.
But even the monist position has problems when it comes to drawing that line. Is the agent in the brain? The body? The body and anything outside of it that's referred to? Is a crowd a single agent? How about an ecosystem? I remember a case where Putnam had trouble with where functionalism led, since he wanted all the parts that make up a bee to result in an agent, but not all the parts that make up a swarm of bees.
Then that's a challenge for ID proponents to meet, not a statement that sinks their ship, so to speak. They could argue that certain intelligent agents would leave certain agent-specific patterns or clues. They could even go the route of denying unintelligent causes altogether. And even if ID entailed dualism, I'm not sure that would necessarily mean the scientific project can't get off the ground. As far as I know, none of the people rejecting physicalism (at any extreme) think that science therefore can't explore minds or say anything meaningful and unique about them.
Comment by nullasalus — May 15, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Let's see.
That's all well and good insofar as your personal beliefs are concerned but what does this have to do with a capacity to determine whether the order of the symbols in this message were made through intelligence or by random depressions of a pet walking across the keyboard?
I suppose I give you too much credit then. This is not a boundary issue. Is there any doubt that the messages exchanged at TT originate from intelligent sources based on the intelligibility of the alphanumeric symbols used? Are you going to pretend there is a possibility that an unintelligent source caused the messages? Or dumb yourself down and pretend you don't understand intelligent and unintelligent but understand all the remaining words?
But since you're the one making an issue out of intelligence not being defined for this example and allege that I'm the one pretending concepts are obvious your complaint makes no sense. We all know a pet does not cause messages like this but that in turn makes it equally obvious that an intelligent member of TT did in fact prepare the message. That's the conclusion. You don't have to look beyond this and obfuscate about free will. If you think you do then you are adding your own tack ons to my conclusion based on your own personal beliefs. Intelligence entails not choosing a stupid option. You don't win chess games by making stupid moves.
How does a human being, capable of understanding English, not fit the definition of intelligent? Brilliant moves on a chess board are evidence of intelligence and stupid ones evidence of an absence of it. The means of distinguishing chess intelligence is the contrast to stupid moves. There must exist options and those opted for reveal intelligence or lack of it. Physical necessity in a scientific context is evidenced by natural laws like gravity. There is precision to predictability and outcomes that are invariable with respect to conditions. That ball falls to earth every time I drop it. When the drop is occasioned by a pitcher in a baseball game, who puts a spin on the ball to get a curve, you get a different causal analysis. There is no law of physics predicting the thrown curve ball although physics can be useful in describing how it curves.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
aiguy says:
I've read your posts. Lots of heat, very little light.
Comment by nobody — May 15, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Hi, I'm new here.
It appears nothing has changed since aiguy's carnation at arn.org, iscid.org and everywhere he went. Aiguy simply puts too much focus and emphasis on this word "intelligence". ID is explicitly about design detection, what don't aiguy understand about that?
Comment by computerist — May 15, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Todd:
So why be worried about expressing them then, if they are valid hypothesises they will stand.
Comment by willo — May 15, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
"Intelligence entails not choosing a stupid option. You don't win chess games by making stupid moves."
I think intelligence is the capacity to perform problem solving. Problem solving is a result of being able to process information, interpret it, manipulate it, and produce results in some variable form. Problem solving takes into account the necessary input/s and output/s to produce a solution to x problem. In that light, intelligence is simply another term running parallel to "goal-directed". Making smart moves in chess are not necessarily the "smartest" or "most intelligent", but they are definitely goal-directed. To explain merely moving a chess piece to another coordinate may mean non-intelligent or intelligent, but to explain moving the chess piece to another coordinate to beat/win against an opponent means goal-directed and thus intelligent. In one form or another, intelligence is to explain something that which is improbable to explain without it.
Comment by computerist — May 15, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
kornbelt,
Scientifically, that means that the Designer has an IQ score greater or equal to mine on the same specific IQ test. Since the Designer can't (or won't) take our IQ tests, how to you propose to determine the truth of this proposition?
Desire and will are not part of scientific descriptions of "intelligence".
Quibbling? Quibbling? LOL!!!
Here's a theory: Life was created by mojo. And please, no quibbling about what mojo means, OK? That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it… shall we teach the controversy?
I really, truly have no idea what you mean. "My experience as a decider" means to me "my conscious experience". "The products of my reasoning" means to me "whatever behaviors I display. To compare these two concepts as "primary" "equal" or "less primary" makes no sense to me – it is a category error.
I never said I understood how you perceived your own mind! Where did you come up with that?
Nobody knows if we have libertarian free will! Sorry, but it's true.
Well, sure – except for the unfortunate fact that something which was not conscious could act like it was (i.e. either be mistaken about it or lie about). This is the issue with philosophical zombies.
First, note that I am not arguing against immaterial mind, or against libertarian free will. What I am arguing is that ID rests on a metaphysical commitment to free will, and that this means ID can't be scientifically evaluated.
I believe they mean that the Designer must be at least as capable of designing complex machinery as I am. But that is an empty tautology: The cause of the complex machinery of biology is… something that is capable of designing complex machinery. Can't you see that tells us nothing at all?
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
computerist:
It sure takes a lot of intelligence to understand this, or maybe not.
Comment by Raevmo — May 15, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
nullasalus,
It was Bradford who provided us with his definition of what ID means by "intelligence", and he described libertarian free will (something that was not the result of "physical necessity"). He does not understand that is what he is saying, but I assume that you do understand this. His understanding of ID rests completely on liberatarian free will, as does Dembski's. The reason they insist that intelligence transcends physical necessity is because they would like to claim ID can be empirically supported, rather than argued as a philosophical position. You are content with the latter, and so you are happy to admit compatibilism.
No wall, no contradictions, no logical (or even physical) impossibilities. Your views are as rational as can be. They just can't be supported by eliminating "physical necessity" as the possible (or probable) cause for what we observe, and so there is no empirical support for this position (contra Dembski and Bradford).
Yes, physicalism can't make sense of agency – I could not agree more.
Agreed again. I have yet to see any admission from leading ID authors that they need to do this, however: Their position is that "intelligence" is something we already understand, and they simply are making the case that this familiar causal force is what is responsible for biological complexity. That position is not only mistaken, but misleading as well.
Again, everybody needs to draw some demarcation of intentionality. If it's ontological, I'm afraid ID is relegated to the philosophy department, where (for some reason) they really don't want to be. If there is some other scheme they'd like to try, let's hear what it is. But don't simply equivocate on the meaning of "intelligence", surreptitiously appealing to our folk psychological intuitions and failing to address the issues. Right?
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Bradford,
If you do not tell us what you mean by "made through intelligence", then you have said nothing at all here. Tell us, once and for all, what this is supposed to mean. All you have said so far is that this means "not the result of physical necessity". Are you going to stick with that, or are you going to change your mind? If you stick with that, then please tell us how to test whether or not something (anything) occurs as the result of physical necessity. If you want to try some other definition, please tell us what that definition might be!
I'm not asking about "boundary issues" – I'm asking what exactly you believe distinguishes intelligent cause from unintelligent cause, period.
They come from human beings, Bradford. If you'd like to label human beings as "intelligent sources", you need to explain what that means.
I'm not dumb, and I understand all of the words we're using just fine. My point is that the word "intelligence" needs a specific meaning if you'd like to offer it as an explanation of some phenomenon, rather than just as a loose description of abilities that various living things have.
Let's say we were trying to explain how cheetahs managed to run fast, and I try to offer "athleticism" as an explanation. Wouldn't you ask me what I was talking about? Would that mean you were dumb and didn't understand the word "atheletic" Or instead would you realize that this word tells us not one thing about how cheetahs can run fast?
My complaint is perfectly sensible. No scientific discipline attempts to explain anything by offering the concept of "intelligence". If you think ID is scientific, and you think "intelligence" explains anything, then you need to provide a good characterization of what you think "intelligence" means, and how we can decide if something is intelligent or not, even if it won't take our IQ tests.
Is every living thing intelligent? If not, which living things are not? If so, what is the difference between the meaning of "alive" and "intelligent"
You are the one that claimed intelligent effects could not be the result of physical necessity! What about that – are you now denying this is the case?
I suppose we could answer this question if you simply provided a definition of "intelligent"!!! Do you still mean "not the result of physical causality" If so, then nobody knows if humans are intelligent or not. If you want humans to be considered "intelligent", then you need to come up with a different definition.
Oh, really? So if a human being played chess very poorly, you would say that this human is not an intelligent agent??? This is really becoming confused, I think.
Aha – are you now trying to define "intelligence" as "unpredictability" I think that is a particularly bad move here… are you sure you want to stick with this, or would you like to try yet another definition?
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Computerist,
I did manage to find at least one person here who understands the issues – nullasalus. We disagree about the philosophy, but we agree that the central questions of ID are in fact philosophical, and that they are questions about the nature of mind.
That is too funny: We're talking about a supposedly scientific theory called Intelligent Design Theory. And we're not supposed to ask about what "Intelligent" means in the context of this theory? LOL!
Oh, please, this is completely ludicrous. If "design" has nothing to do with intelligence or consciousness or free will, then we can all agree that river "designs" a path to the sea. What a joke.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
First, note that I am not arguing against immaterial mind, or against libertarian free will. What I am arguing is that ID rests on a metaphysical commitment to free will, and that this means ID can't be scientifically evaluated.
What about someone such as John A. Davison?
Comment by computerist — May 15, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Computerist,
Really? How can you tell if Deep Blue "merely" moves the pieces or if it moves the pieces "to beat/win against an opponent"
It is difficult to parse your sentence: "Intelligence" is a noun, and "to explain" is a verb infinitive. So what does it mean to say "intelligence" is "to explain something"
I think you mean that if we can't provide a probable explanation for something, then the correct explanation must be "intelligence". Is that what you mean?
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
That is too funny: We're talking about a supposedly scientific theory called Intelligent Design Theory. And we're not supposed to ask about what "Intelligent" means in the context of this theory? LOL!
Where have I suggested "were not supposed to ask about what "Intelligent" means" Tell me how much you know about the theory of Evolution by just the word "Evolution" originally meaning unfold. How much of a scientific theory could we extrapolate from that one word aiguy?
Comment by computerist — May 15, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
computerist:
You're right computerist but don't think the resident critics are really interested in a definition. Obstruction is more like it.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
No aiguy, I'm going to let you figure out why humans are considered intelligent. If you can't elevate your comments beyond these type of trivial statements then you are going to have to find some other hobby.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Computerist defined intelligence in the opening sentences of his early comment. I quoted it and you ignored it. I'm going to have to assume you are trolling if you persist with this type of BS.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Obstruction? Intelligent design claims to be able to show if an intelligence or natural laws and chance are responsible for certain features. Yet, you are unwilling to actually define intelligence and how it can be distinguished from law and chance? Who is obstructing here?
Bradford, aiguy is not claiming that he does not know if humans are intelligent by the ways we measure intelligence. Are you claiming that life was created by humans? Or do you have a more generalized definition of intelligence other than: That stuff that humans do so that we call them intelligent.
Comment by hrun — May 15, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
hrun:
You quoted my reaction to computerists's more generalized description of intelligence which I quoted in the same comment. I presume you read it as well as my approving comment so why the duh reaction?
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Really? How can you tell if Deep Blue "merely" moves the pieces or if it moves the pieces "to beat/win against an opponent"
Thats my point, we can't tell if simply moving a chess piece is or isn't part of a solution to a bigger problem (ie: to win against an opponent).
I think you mean that if we can't provide a probable explanation for something, then the correct explanation must be "intelligence". Is that what you mean?
Yes, but not exactly in its explicit form, meaning not necessarily in the context we humans use it and define it. What I mean is goal-directed as in a series of events or steps to produce a solution to a problem. We can attribute goal-directed processes to "intelligence" but since you don't like that word we don't have to use it.
Comment by computerist — May 15, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
computerist:
Easily understood computerist. Now that a definition has been produced and ignored the next step is to haggle over your apt definition.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
There will probably be no agreement to definitions either way, knowing aiguy. Intelligence is an abstraction, I also find it very vague in the literal sense but its a universally accepted term and in some cases its the "best" term to use in a given circumstance/situation. I just don't get aiguy's dilemma. Intelligent Design is not about studying what "intelligent" means anyways, its about design detection.
Comment by computerist — May 15, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
computerist:
There is no dilemna to any of this unless the problem is that critics do not like the side implications that can be drawn. That of course is a given and accounts for their behavior. A lot of money is spent on developing and administering IQ and other tests and ner a peep is heard but mention the word intelligence in conjunction with design and feathers get ruffled.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
aiguy,
I actually am undecided between compatiblism and libertarian free will. And I haven't really closed the door on intelligence and physical necessity either – that can mean a whole lot of things. And even the most hardened, classic substance dualist by virtue of their position allows for some physical necessity. It's why they're dualists, not idealists, after all.
I will say some believe design can leave a signature even on grand scales. Obviously I'm skeptical there. On the other hand, I'm skeptical of a lot of things, but it takes more than that to get me to 'and it's not worth investigating or at least hearing out'. But, that's me.
Again, I'm not sure it even needs to eliminate physical necessity. Hell, maybe it can't; but we won't be sure of that unless we at least make an attempt. I get the feeling you look at agency detection as a Turing Test problem, and I can see the reasoning if that's the case. But I think there are important distinctions that make the ID issue somewhat distinct.
I don't think they'd pretend we fully understand 'intelligence', but 'we know enough to explore the possibilities and maybe come up with a system'. ID is multifaceted, and the idea is if anything expanding. If it were being billed as an open and shut case, they wouldn't be following others' research as much as they do, or talking about the need for further research. Or most of all, playing host to a variety of thinkers in the 'tent', some of whom clearly don't believe in each other's claims.
You know my take on this – I think it's locked in the philosophy department, but the situation there is complex and uneven, and I think the handling is warped to say the least. I also don't really see most ID proponents as really trying to pull one over on those not educated about the complexities of the issues at hand – at least no more than any other scientist with an axe to grind or journalist or somesuch does. Which, as always, I honestly think constitutes a large part of the conflict.
Comment by nullasalus — May 15, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
aiguy,
There is no need to insist on that although even denialists behave as if they believe in free will. Empirical evidence for intelligence does not need to evaluate the source of the intelligence- mind or neural dynamics. That question can be left to philosophers.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Hey Aiguy,
I don't understand this argument at all. I for one don't believe in libertarian free will yet I think ID is the bomb. I do believe the designer has free will but folks who follow Penrose like TP do not even go that far. As long as we keep the freewill question in philosophy I see no problem in looking for design using science.
This migh be your problem. You are confusing categories. We Calvinists don't define libertarian free will in this way. An act could be physically necessary and still be free if our decisions have an effect on the universe through QM before the fact for example. Or an act can be completely determined morally or spiritually and be not constrained physically at all. You are letting you bias for materialism color your perception.
I believe that design has something to do with intelligence but nothing to do with consciousness. A beaver or a wasp can design things.
Since I don't believe humans have libertarian free will obviously I believe that design has nothing to do with freewill.
I understand you want to make this a philosophical discussion but that dog just won't hunt. Freewill is a nonissue
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 15, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Bradford
But you are obviously mistaken, since I have explicitly asked for a definition several times now.
If it is trivial to tell me what the definition of "intelligent" is in the context of ID, then do it. Otherwise please do not pretend that it is too trivial to bother with.
I have now had several definitions – please help me to choose which one(s) is (are) applicable:
1) "Not the result of physical necessity"
2) "Not predictable"
3) "intelligence is to explain something that which is improbable to explain without it."
4) "I think intelligence is the capacity to perform problem solving."
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man -
It isn't me who is making this about free will – it was Bradford who insisted that the effects of intelligence "do not result from physical necessity". That is precisely the definition of libertarian free will. Dembksi agrees with Bradford.
So don't blame me for ID being a metaphysical supposition – blame those who think that intelligence transcends physical cause, like Dembski and Bradford!
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
It seems like people are now starting to admit that the "intelligence" of ID may be something that is completely the result of physical necessity, and not something with libertarian free will, nor necessarily of immaterial mind.
So the "intelligence" of ID might be – as far as we can tell – a physically determined machine without any free will or consciousness, right? As long as it can "solve the problem" of producing complex life forms, that means it is "intelligent", and all of the rest of these attributes are strictly philosophical issues. Right?
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
no need to reinvent the wheel from here http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=intelligence
intelligence (the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience)
notice this is almost the opposite of RM/NS so if RM/NS is a scientific concept intelligence would be as well.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 15, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
What? did you read my post?
from here
http://www.theopedia.com/Libertarian_free_will
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.
I see nothing about physical necessity here. In order for you to define freewill this way you must equate human nature with physical necessity only a Materialist would do such a thing.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 15, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
No it must have the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience. Words have meanings.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 15, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
May 15th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Fifth,
Ok then, let me add this to our list:
1) "Not the result of physical necessity"
2) "Not predictable"
3) "intelligence is to explain something that which is improbable to explain without it."
4) "I think intelligence is the capacity to perform problem solving."
5) "the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience"
So I see you believe that learning (ability to profit from experience) is an essential component of intelligence. What sort of evidence do you believe there is for the ability of the Intelligent Designer of Life to learn?
Sorry but I think that is pretty silly. There is no question about what a "mutation" is, nor what "natural selection" is. There is sometimes some confusion about what "random" means in this context, but I think "uncorrelated with reproductive success" makes this clear. So no, I think RM/NS is a perfectly straightforward concept to use scientifically (whether or not one believes that RM&NS is capable of generating the complexity we see).
Since you think these are not philosophical issues, then please provide the empirical evidence that demonstrates that the Designer has the ability to comprehend and profit from experience.
Comment by aiguy — May 15, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 12:29 am
aiguy,
I think that we may be speaking past each other since I am asking a very simple question, yet I'm not getting a response from you.
We need to start from the beginning again and work up from there.
If intelligence is summed up as "foresight and the ability to apply foresight to engineer a solution to accomplish a target," then is intelligence a necessary cause to see the fruition of an engineer's blueprint? Foresight is the awareness of a future target that one wishes to attain. Is an engineer's intelligence as defined above a necessary condition for his blueprint's realization? Please answer this question with a simple yes or no as it is crucial for the following discussion.
You are correct that intelligence is not an overall explanation for "how" something is accomplished. The "how" of the operation of foresight and the "how" of the application of the foresight is a separate question. My question and the main ID thrust is that foresight does exist and its presence will leave discernible marks (since its presence is a necessary condition for these marks).
The engineer *does* apply his foresight into the creation of his blueprint and in the application of the blueprint therefore, foresight does exist. Again, my question is: "Is an engineer's intelligence as defined above a necessary condition for his blueprint's realization?" Please answer this question with a simple yes or no as it is crucial for the following discussion.
If we are merely attempting to detect the effects of previous intelligence, and the answer to the above question is "yes" then we have a starting point for detecting previous intelligence — in the patterns that it leaves. And yes, using this methodology we would be able to detect both AI and "true" intelligence.
Am I being clear so far?
BTW: the difference between "true" intelligence and "artificial" intelligence is that the former possess foresight in the sense of envisioning (being aware of) a future goal whereas the latter can only provide solutions to targets that are given to it by conscious or "true" intelligence and can not form a conscious understanding of its target. If AI discovers its own targets then it is because target aquisition is indeed one of the targets imposed upon it, however, the main difference is in conscious awareness of its target.
Furthermore, there are some phenomenon which have been solved by conscious beings (humans) yet may not be able to be solved algorithmically and thus there may be a fundamental difference between "true" intelligence and "artificial" intelligence. Right now I am thinking about Penrose non-periodic tilings.
Once we realize that there is a way to detect the results of both "artificial" fake intelligence and "true" conscious intelligence, the next question that arises is "can artificial intelligence be realized absent true intelligence?" Can an artificially intelligent network of living organisms (as hypothesized by James Shapiro) and the informational measurements — as measurements of improbability and specificity in relation to probabilistic resources — be realized absent at least the same improbable initial configurations and true intelligence? Also, can you arrive at "true" conscious intelligence absent previous "true" intelligence? According to conservation of information, the answer may be a "no". You must begin with at least the same amount of improbability in order to arrive at the target improbability within any computational scenario. I remember that we have discussed this in the past and I had suggested that the improbability necessary to arrive (discover or create, whichever your preference) at rules of inference may offset the use of any application of those rules of inference within an AI system. Basically, the amount of inference able to be performed by a computer can produce no more information (as a measure on improbability) than the configuration necessary to discover those rules of inference and apply them in an AI configuration. Will an AI system discover the rules of inference if not programmed to do so? What is the minimum information (improbable organization) necessary to do so? Does this minimum information describe an intelligent system (artificial or not)? Excellent future research questions. Don't steal them … they're mine.
Even if there is no way to separate the patterns arrived at by conscious and non-conscious intelligence (and I believe that there is a way to do so as per Roger Penrose), then these patterns being discussed as providing a method to detect intelligence would at the very least let us know that the universe itself or its foundation is at least artificially intelligent. IOW, for no reason whatsoever, the universe would just happen to have the same type of improbable organization and target aquiring tendency as an artificially intelligent system and would operate (from an information theoretic POV) in principle in the same method as an artificially intelligent system. In fact that would provide the atheist (such as Thought Provoker) with a model that fits under ID yet denies consciousness as fundamental. However, I must clarify that I think that my last para. provides a brief reason founded upon a conservation of information theorem as to why "true" conscious intelligence is necessary to see the realization of "artificial" non-conscious intelligence and even more so for "true" conscious intelligence.
What think you? In light of what I have just laid out, is attempting to discover the effects of conscious intelligence (which does actually exist as per the engineer's ability to envision a target and then engineer a solution to accomplish the goal) a non-scientific investigation that a scientist is justified in disavowing as pseudo-science?
Comment by CJYman — May 16, 2008 @ 12:29 am
May 16th, 2008 at 12:45 am
BTW: Hameroff has brought the study of consciousness into scientific scrutiny so it is no longer "merely" philosophical. There is now a potential and falsifiable mechanism for consciousness. Of course, not everything is understood, but the same is true for gravity … and the Law (which merely describes its effect) has been around for quite some time. Can you define gravity by not referring to its effects? Is gravity a field or a boson? What causes gravity? Are these scientific question and is the study of gravity scientific?
Comment by CJYman — May 16, 2008 @ 12:45 am
May 16th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Re: Consciousness
All laws of nature come as space-time equations, and the middle term that is found holding the right-hand side to its left-hand side goes unexplained by the laws. The fallacy of excluded middle notes that the middle term cannot be excluded in the name of scientific purity. Therefore, science is on very weak ground with the claim that everything can be explained by said laws, as the middle term is always unexplained.
Likewise, causation is on very weak ground, as noted by the philosophical arguments of Hume and Kant. Moreover, the laws on nature do not imply a universal law that underwrites forward causation as an absolute; rather, we can only say that forward causation is provisional, because the middle term goes unexplained yet again.
And if the laws of nature, and a presumed forward causation, cannot explain everything, then our hope of explaining consciousness slips away with the middle term. Science finds itself very provisional, as those things that relate to consciousness (e.g., beauty, ethics, philosophy, spirituality) are not studied by what we have called traditional science. Scientism can only claim that beauty, ethics, philosophy, spirituality, are explained by natural selection given the magical quality of emergence, or scientism may deny that these other qualities exist. But it seems to me that scientism is just ignoring what is self evident and what is a broader reality beyond the so-called naturalism.
Comment by Stephen — May 16, 2008 @ 1:12 am
May 16th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I believe the mistake here lies within squabbling over a definition for "Intelligence". There is no clear cut definition of intelligence, intelligence is an abstraction, its part of a hierarchical model of reality we humans recognize as unique in the universe to create "order" of a given magnitude of complexity, that which by itself would be improbable. When someone says "intelligence is the cause", intelligence is obviously not an explanation, but thats obviously not what they actually mean by "intelligence is a cause". "Intelligence" has no real in-depth scientific meaning on its own, its ID's black box sort of speak.
If intelligence can be best quantified and qualified as a product of goal-directed and goal-intended processes, then the opposite must be true as well. Non-intelligent can be ascribed to non-goal directed processes. Its obvious there must be two different and distinct sides to the story, aiguy believes only one is scientific of course, the magical fairytales of Darwinian Evolution.
"
Q: What enables cells to reproduce?
A: Because they are alive.
Q: What causes the cheetah to run fast?
A: Athleticism.
Q: What enables people to design machines?
A: Because they are intelligent
Q: What was the cause of biological complexity?
A: Intelligence"
aiguy, none of these are or ever were scientific explanations. I don't know where you got the idea for any of them.
They are no different then the following:
Q: What enables change to occur
A: Because it evolves
None of which tells a tale.
Comment by computerist — May 16, 2008 @ 1:15 am
May 16th, 2008 at 1:41 am
What sort of evidence do you believe there is for the ability of the Intelligent Designer of Life to learn?
aiguy has designed his own theories of intelligent design. He then added a loopback feature which takes ID back to questioning the intelligence of the designer, who the designer is etc…, since in aiguy's terms we never actually get to know what "intelligence" is or isn't. I call it aiguy's infinite loop into the oblivion.
Comment by computerist — May 16, 2008 @ 1:41 am
May 16th, 2008 at 2:08 am
computerist,
Because "ID Theory" proposes exactly that: "intelligence" (variously intelligent causation or intelligent agency or intelligent design) was the cause of biological complexity.
Ah, but absolutely noone ever attempts to explain anything this way! The explanation for changes in species is not "they evolve", but rather something like Changes occur in the genome for reasons unconnected to phenotypic expression. The changes are heritable, and their expression can affect reproductive success. Beneficial changes are thus propogated throughout a population… and so on. Whether or not you believe this explanation truly accounts for the species, you must admit that this is not simply a single, vague word like "intelligence".
Sorry, but this is a transparent dodge – the type of response I get when there is no response to give
Comment by aiguy — May 16, 2008 @ 2:08 am
May 16th, 2008 at 2:11 am
CJYMan,
You are saying that any time a solution is created for something we recognize as a problem, "intelligence" is the ability required to generate that solution. OK, sure, so this is true by definition.
Whoa! Awareness? Where did that come from? Computers can exhibit foresight… do you think they are aware?
Since you've added "awareness" to your claims then the answer is clearly "no". I believe it is quite doubtful that digital computers are aware of anything, yet they are demonstrably capable of foresight.
My answer hasn't changed since you last asked
I think you are saying that conscious awareness is necessary in order to have foresight. If that is what you are saying, I think it's pretty clear you are wrong.
Yup, apparently that is what you meant. AI systems can of course "discover their own targets", but as far as we can tell, our computers are not consciously aware of what they are doing.
Yes I'm familiar with Penrose's arguments, as well as their criticisms. It is an open question whether thought is dependent upon exotic (or undiscovered) physics, so Penrose (or some other proposal) could be right. But even Penrose's theory does not suggest that conscious awareness is necessarily causal of our non-algorithmic mental abilities; it accompanies it, but the abilities may well be independent (and derive from the Universal Platonic Logic).
We already know that a great deal of our planning and foresight happens without any conscious involvement. You are not conscious of the plans you make while driving a car, for example. Sleepwalkers plan their movements without even knowing they're walking, and so on. So I think you are simply wrong to claim that human-like consciousness is known to be required in order make plans.
Theories of gravity define gravity in terms of its effects, but the effects are always testable. Otherwise, we couldn't ever tell whether we were seeing the effects of gravity or something else. So in Newton's theory, he said that gravity was something that was always attractive, operated between any two masses, acted instantaneously over distance, caused acceleration proportional to a constant and the product of the masses over the square of the distance, and so on. Thus we could for the first time confirm that the same thing, "gravity", explained apples falling from trees and planetary motion!
Now contrast this with "intelligence". You wish to define "intelligence" by its effects, but unfortunately you can't characterize its effects in such a way that we can tell if we are seeing the result of "intelligence" or something else. You have no way to show that the same thing that enables human beings to design a car is what enabled the Designer to create life forms.
Comment by aiguy — May 16, 2008 @ 2:11 am
May 16th, 2008 at 4:10 am
computerist:
You've identified the meaning that many of the best known Intelligent Design spokespersons would concur with. Goal directed would characterize front loading and appears compatible with concepts held by Dembski, Behe and others. Random chemical reactions would not.
This thread has veered from its initial theme which focused on the Mazur interview. Set aside the discussion of definitions for a separate thread. To redirect it back to where it should be I call attention to the last paragraph of the post:
Does anyone have insight into Piattelli-Palmarini's ideas and can you articulate their specifics?
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2008 @ 4:10 am
May 16th, 2008 at 7:31 am
aiguy
Scientists often claim that RM/NS does not have the ability to comprehend and profit from experience (I can give you links if you like) and you do not consider it a philosophical issue. Why not?
Empirical evidence is never given for this claim. Is it assumed as part of the definition of RM/NS. In the same way its opposite is entailed in the definition of intelligent.
You don't perform experiments to determine definitions. Imagine if I asked you to provide empirical evidence that RM were truly random or that NS was truly natural before I accepted your theory. you would call me crazy
You haven't given this much thought have you?
I have no evidence for such a thing. I do however (if ID is correct) have evidence that design can only result from intelligence and if that is true the ability to learn would be assumed as part the definition.
In fact I can make the following prediction no CSI will be found that does not flow from an intelligent source ie one that can learn.
Let the computer experiments begin
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 16, 2008 @ 7:31 am
May 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Although you make a good point I'm asking you and others to take the definition issue to a rabbit thread or await a specific post focused on that matter.
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2008 @ 10:05 am
May 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Random mutation and natural selection are observables.
Comment by Zachriel — May 16, 2008 @ 10:22 am
May 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Zachriel:
Mutations are not always random but as I've indicated if you wish to pursue this sideline put the responses on a rabbit thread.
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2008 @ 10:33 am
May 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
You haven't "dissented" from anything, aiguy. You have, as usual, merely derailed the discussion by lobbing your perennial ignorance of what the word 'intelligence' means. If you are too confused to participate in the discussion, you've no business entering it.
Comment by Joy — May 16, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Hi Joy -
Sorry, but the fact that a half-dozen or so vague, conflicting, and differing guesses have been offered in this thread regarding what "intelligence" is supposed to mean in ID doesn't exactly support your viewpoint. Still, if you don't want to hear from people who don't agree with you, I understand.
Comment by aiguy — May 16, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
aiguy:
You don't get it, aiguy. Nobody cares whether you believe in free will, have a definition of "intelligence" or admit it exists. That's not the topic of this thread, which you've thoroughly derailed and its author has asked you to take it to an OT thread.
Agree with me about what? I've ignored your distraction, as I usually do wherever you lob it (everywhere you go). I'm not playing your juvenile video game. As Bradford requested, take it to an OT thread, see if anybody else wants to play.
Comment by Joy — May 16, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Joy:
Exactly. Noone is prohibited from discussing an off-topic issue. Just take it to the right thread.
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Fish have fins which can be modified into legs.
Reptiles have legs which can be modified into arms.
Theropods have arms which can be modified into wings.
Birds have wings which can be modified into fins.
Monkeys have opposable thumbs perfect for building 747's by humans. We know that monkeys don't need thumbs for building 747's or flight of any kind. It's almost as if thumbs were front-loaded with 747's in mind.
Who could have imagined that genes in humans would have antecedents in precursor genes?
Comment by Zachriel — May 16, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Zachriel:
It does appear though that even the discoverers themselves did not expect the sea urchin find and that surprise seems to mark the pattern of deep homology. The point being surprise is another way of indicating that a find would not have been predicted based on theoretical expectations.
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Piattelli-Palmarini said, "cannot begin to explain". Canonical Neo-Darwinism *predicts* that all traits are incremental modifications of preexisting traits. But unraveling history always involves surprises.
For those interested in sea urchins:
Sea Urchin Genome Confirms Kinship to Humans and Other Vertebrates: researchers describe the 814 million DNA bases that make up the genome of the purple sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Its 23,500 genes suggest that these algae-eating invertebrates have more complex immune and sensory systems than researchers had appreciated.
Comment by Zachriel — May 16, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I tried this question before, but never got an answer for it: Does any ID theory predict which genes have precursors dating how far back? For example, I never saw a prediction made by ID about the 'sea urchin find'. Only general statements like: We will find deep homology– which, by the way, is not what I think the surprise is about.
So, just for my curiosity: Does ID theory make any prediction about which genes have precursors dating how far back? And does it make any predictions on when novel genes were actually developed i.e. for which genes will we not find this 'deep homology'? Or are all predictions of the type: "The publishing biologists were surprised at their findings, but we teleologists would not have been."
As I wrote elsewhere:
Comment by hrun — May 16, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
May 16th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
One of the weaknesses on ID is that nothing surprises them. One of the strengths of science is that they are often surprised. If your theory is nothing more than rationalization then no possible data could ever surprise you. If your theory is clearly defined and makes specific claims then you are likely to eventually be surprised; some of these surprises might just be interesting bits of history but others might lead to significant improvements to the theory. No one thinks we already have all the answers, but the rapid progress being made is a strong endorsement of current methods.
Perhaps the biggest problem with ID is that all they ever seem to accomplish is to yell, "haha, some scientist was wrong about something, therefore we must be right." But every time science discovers they were wrong about something that means science has once again succeeded in expanding human knowledge and understanding.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 16, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Hello aiguy,
I've noticed that you are mangling what I'm saying and putting words into my mouth so as not to answer my questions. Also, you are leaving out integral parts of the discussion which provide context to my questions and when considered show how your "answers" are not answers at all. Honestly now, I'm reading what your saying right after you quote me and to me it seems like you're carrying on a conversation with someone else. Maybe it is my fault for not being clear. Here, I'll give it one more try.
myself: "If intelligence is summed up as "foresight and the ability to apply foresight to engineer a solution to accomplish a target," then is intelligence a necessary cause to see the fruition of an engineer's blueprint?"
aiguy:
In a sense that is true, but that's not what I asked now is it? I define foresight in the next sentence and you seem to have a problem with the inclusion of "awareness." Why is that?!?!? Foresight, as the awareness of a future as of yet non-existent target does exist and engineers *do* use this awareness in order to design their blueprints and then apply that design in their creation. Do you deny this? If so, why? Just because it may lend credibility to the science of Intelligent Design?
myself: "Foresight is the awareness of a future target that one wishes to attain."
You wanted a more definite definition and I've given it to you. What do you mean "where did that come from." That came from the observation that I use awareness as a key component of my foresight used to engineer a solution to accomplish a future goal.
And that's the whole point … computers do not exhibit foresight. They and their programing and target acquisition are themselves exhibitions of the application of foresight, but until you can demonstrate otherwise, there is no reason to believe that a collection of logic gates can themselves possess awareness of future targets. That is how true and artificial intelligence are separated as I've already explained in my last post.
myself: "Is an engineer's intelligence as defined above a necessary condition for his blueprint's realization? Please answer this question with a simple yes or no as it is crucial for the following discussion."
Ok, finally, a straight forward answer. We both understand that awareness does exist. We are getting somewhere. Now, does this awareness have any effects? If you answer yes, then you have negated your previous assertion that "intelligence" is a useless concept to use as a condition.
No they are not demonstrably capable of foresight. They see nothing, they know nothing, they are aware of nothing. They are merely a collection of sufficiently organized logic gates, organized in such a manner so as to produce specific highly improbable effects that could only happen if previously targeted by a system with awareness of those future targets. IOW, computers which produce the *effects* of intelligence can only be created by previous artificial or true intelligence and as per my brief explanation of conservation of information will not be created absent the same or greater improbability of organization. IOW, according to COI, it may be that the improbability measure of true intelligence (the improbability necessary to attain awareness of future targets) can only be arrived at if true intelligence is a condition.
As I've already stated (and it is extremely relevant): "I remember that we have discussed this in the past and I had suggested that the improbability necessary to arrive (discover or create, whichever your preference) at rules of inference may offset the use of any application of those rules of inference within an AI system. Basically, the amount of inference able to be performed by a computer can produce no more information (as a measure on improbability) than the configuration necessary to discover those rules of inference and apply them in an AI configuration. Will an AI system discover the rules of inference if not programmed to do so? What is the minimum information (improbable organization) necessary to do so? Does this minimum information describe an intelligent system (artificial or not)? Excellent future research questions. Don't steal them "¦ they're mine."
Now, if you were to say that computers show the effects of previous foresight, then of course we are agreed and that is part of my point here.
myself: "Again, my question is: "Is an engineer's intelligence as defined above a necessary condition for his blueprint's realization?" Please answer this question with a simple yes or no as it is crucial for the following discussion."
If your answer is "no" then please provide some evidence that an engineers blueprint and its fruition (let's say … for a calculator) will organize itself absent the influence of any previous foresight as I have previously defined it.
myself: "If we are merely attempting to detect the effects of previous intelligence, and the answer to the above question is "yes" then we have a starting point for detecting previous intelligence "” in the patterns that it leaves. And yes, using this methodology we would be able to detect both AI and "true" intelligence.
Am I being clear so far?"
Are you sure you are carrying a conversation with *me* because that's not what I'm trying to provide evidence for. That's part of my definition. I have defined foresight as awareness of future targets. Call it whatever you want, "magic sauce" … whatever … I call it foresight. And you have agreed above that it *does exist*. I am saying that foresight has effects and is a necessary condition for certain patterns.
BTW: the difference between "true" intelligence and "artificial" intelligence is that the former possess foresight in the sense of envisioning (being aware of) a future goal whereas the latter can only provide solutions to targets that are given to it by conscious or "true" intelligence and can not form a conscious understanding of its target. If AI discovers its own targets then it is because target aquisition is indeed one of the targets imposed upon it, however, the main difference is in conscious awareness of its target.
OK, that was a little easier than pulling a tooth. So now you understand and have no problem with the difference between "true" and "artificial" intelligence.
Furthermore, there are some phenomenon which have been solved by conscious beings (humans) yet may not be able to be solved algorithmically and thus there may be a fundamental difference between "true" intelligence and "artificial" intelligence. Right now I am thinking about Penrose non-periodic tilings.
I agree. That is definitely a possibility and should be a part of ongoing ID research. However, computers do not have foresight and can not yet perform non-algorithmically, yet humans have consciousness and may think non-algorithmically. There may be a very definite correlation or even a necessary pairing of consciousness and non-algorithmic abilities derived from platonic logic.
Oh, and I am not aware of any arguments against non-periodic tilings as being non-solvable by algorithm. all I've heard is "that's just what Penrose thinks." However, it makes clear sense to me. Could you please guide me to some significant criticisms. Thanks.
When we first learn to do some of these things we must put a lot of conscious effort … that is, we must learn while thinking about our actions and how to align them with our future desired goals. But yes, we do develop both muscle and other forms of memory after a considerable amount of practise. But, I'm not saying that awareness of future targets is required for everything.
myself: "Can you define gravity by not referring to its effects? Is gravity a field or a boson? What causes gravity? Are these scientific question and is the study of gravity scientific?"
If there are certain features that require previous foresight of future targets, then you are wrong. There is a way and I believe that CSI and COI Theorem provide the beginnings to such a method. But first, we can start by answering a simple question. Is foresight a necessary condition for anything? Is foresight a necessary condition to see the fruition of an engineers blueprint or for the creation of an AI system?
Please provide evidence for your answer.
In light of our discussion, do you still stand by your assertion that attempting to discover the effects of conscious intelligence (which does actually exist as per the engineer's ability to envision a target and then engineer a solution to accomplish the goal) is a non-scientific investigation that a scientist is justified in disavowing as pseudo-science?
Comment by CJYman — May 19, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
"Awareness" you have defined in terms of consciousness, which is left undefined, while your use of "wish" implies teleology.
Having now defined intelligence as based on consciousness, no matter how many words you interject, your conclusion is predetermined.
This paragraph emphasizes the circular manner of your terminology. Computers can model the future and make decisions, but computers are not conscious. You are insisting that "true intelligence" requires consciousness. You have merely defined it so. With all your words, you have not presented an independent argument to that effect. Petitio principii.
Comment by Zachriel — May 19, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Perhaps not but if I were to look for one I would start by noting that the causal genesis of the computer's capacity extends to conscious beings. Humans are a necessary part of a complete causal chain.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 11:25 am
May 20th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Zachriel,
Bradford's last comment "took part of the words out of my mouth."
I would like to add to that, though …
Zachriel:
It is true that consciousness is difficult to define. However, awareness does sum it up pretty much. I have defined intelligence in terms of foresight and foresight in terms of awareness (or consciousness) of future targets that do not yet exist. Do you deny that you have the ability to be aware of future targets and then engineer a solution to accomplish them?
Awareness of future targets does exist. I will now provide evidence for that … I have designed a couple of mechanical logic gates in my spare time while thinking of a future target that did not yet exist (the mechanical logic gate itself).
If you want to get in to a definitions game in order to invalidate my point, then that's fine, but first let's do so with "gravity." I will begin by asking, "what is gravity?" Then, I will choose a word within your definition and continue to request that you define it … ad infinitum … until either you get fed up, in which case I will claim that you have no scientific argument for the existence of gravity, or until you arrive at a circular definition where you must rely on two different words or definitions to define each other. In that case, I will again claim that you have no argument for the existence of gravity, since you must rely upon a circular definition.
If you wish to define gravity as an equation, then I will define consciousness as an equation — E=h/t, which is part of Penrose and Hameroff's testable and falsifiable model of consciousness. As far as I understand, when the mass of coherent neurons is placed in this equation, human consciousness should occur at approx. 40 "moments" or "frames" per second. It just so happens that 40 hz. gamma synchrony is the best correlated measure within the human brain that we have of consciousness.
The only thing necessary for my argument to stand, is that awareness of future targets *does exist*. BTW: I haven't been able to continue on with my argument yet since aiguy hasn't answered my question while providing any evidence to back up his answer. However I have begun to back up my claim by citing my own ability to be aware of future targets that do not yet exist and then engineer a solution to accomplish those targets. Here's some more evidence. How many people use maps to plan a route to their destination? And this is where the word "wish" comes in. Yes, "wish" implies teleology. Have you ever "wished" for something to happen? Have you ever "wished" to arrive at a specific destination? Have you ever planned a route mentally before you got to your destination? If the answer is "yes," then foresight and teleology *do exist.*
Zachriel:
NO, I have not "insisted" that "true" intelligence requires conscious awareness of future targets. I have defined it as such. It does exist as per my above examples. Artificial intelligence, however, is not conscious (IMO, that's why its "artificial"), and you agree. AI only consists of sufficiently and highly improbably organized logic gates which have the ability to acquire future targets, which is itself the future target that is programmed into the system, and thus AI requires a causal chain containing "true" intelligence which can actually engineer a solution is the present to accomplish a target in the future. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise or do you have any evidence that "true" conscious intelligence (as I've defined it) does *not* exist?
So, is foresight a necessary condition to see the fruition of an engineers blueprint or for the creation of an AI system?
Please provide evidence for your answer.
Also, I would still appreciate an answer to the following from aiguy:
In light of our discussion, do you still stand by your assertion that attempting to discover the effects of conscious intelligence (which does actually exist as per the engineer's ability to envision a target and then engineer a solution to accomplish the goal) is a non-scientific investigation that a scientist is justified in disavowing as pseudo-science?
Comment by CJYman — May 20, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
aiguy, I have one more question for you.
Your original contention was that "intelligence" is not an explanation for anything and it is a scientifically vacuous notion. However if, as I have explained, intelligence is understood as foresight and the application of that foresight, then even if it is not a causal mechanism in itself, then foresight may still be a necessary condition to achieve certain results.
Here's the question. Can you drive yourself to someplace you've never been yet want to go without using any foresight (as I've previously defined it)? Do you personally need to be aware of which destination you are targeting and then use that awareness to plan a route that you will take *in the future* to arrive at your destination? Is foresight a necessary condition in this case? Is it a vacuous explanation to say that you used your foresight in order to plan your route? It's not the whole story, obviously, but it's definitely the beginning of an explanation which cites a very important necessary condition — foresight.
Or, how do you make money in business or investments? Answer: your success is proportionate to your foresight — what you are aware of that may happen in the future and how you align your present plan with that future information. This explanation is the foundation that can be built on in more detail, but it is definitely *not* vacuous.
Comment by CJYman — May 20, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
May 20th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Bradford: The discussion can be continued here.
Comment by Zachriel — May 20, 2008 @ 4:20 pm