Stealth Metaphysics
by BradfordSome opponents of ID argue that intelligent agency cannot be argued unless a disclaimer is attached specifying the intelligent agency as a conscious intelligence. In effect imposing an added evidentiary requirement about a matter which is metaphysical in nature and likely to remain an unresolvable philosophical argument. The existence of free will is philosophically tenable but it has its philosophical counterpart which denies it. Those advancing the free will objection argue that since free will is not an empirical certainty, it needs to be pointed out that theories pointing to consciously intelligent causation may not reflect reality because a metaphysically based negation of free will would make it impossible to discern ai (artificial intelligence) from conscious intelligence. The metaphysicians take it further and argue that it cannot be shown that conscious intelligence is a sina quo non for generating ai.
Artificial intelligence has been designated as non-conscious as opposed to human intelligence which is conscious. Human intelligence owes its causal genesis to either another conscious intelligence or to an unconscious physical process. My question is whether one should be required to attach a disclaimer when proposing evolutionary pathways to human intelligence in view of the fact that we neither observe nor understand how a physical process would give rise to human-like intelligence? We have a general genetic approach laid out of course but it is lacking in the specifics needed to identify at what point in a physical process human consciousness arises. If free will not being put on an empirical basis is call for a metaphysical disclaimer, should not the emergence of consciousness, being not empirically established, necessitate a like disclaimer? The disclaimer would acknowledge that consciousness presupposes that its emergence results from an empirically unknown process. If emphasizing that it cannot be shown that conscious intelligence generates ai then let it likewise be acknowledged that unintellgent chemical reactions are not known to produce consciousness. Otherwise we are left with a stealth attachment of metaphysics to science.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Hi Bradford,
Nice presentation, but I feel it needs a little more balance.
You wrote…
There are more broad examples of intellegence than just two…
1. Mechanical intelligence with no randomising elements (glorified calculator)
2. Mechanical intelligence with randomising elements via Quantum Mechanics
3. Simple animal intelligence, e.g. single celled organism finding food
4. Complex animal intelligence, e.g. dogs and monkeys
5. Human intelligence
While you may be inclined to suggest some kind of reverse stealth metaphysics, I have no empirical reason to make a distinction between human intelligence and complex animal intelligence.
In short, my presumption is that most, if not all, animals are conscious. If for no other reason than they can be rendered unconscious in the same manner and methods as humans can be.
A false choice.
Interconnected quantum effects may be key to complex life's intelligence/consciousness. This physical process that may, or may not, be itself conscious.
We have some understanding of the physical process by which complex animals (including humans) process information and learn.
It is consciousness that is the hard problem.
Bradford, I suggest you are falling into the all-too-common practice of slapping the "human-like" label on something you presume is singularly unique (divine?).
I suggest in this context, humans should be considered just another complex animal that is intelligent and shows signs of being conscious.
To do otherwise is clearly assuming a predetermined conclusion ("begging the question").
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 11:58 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
TP, how does this differ (other than the different physical mechanism alluded to) from those who would attribute consciousness to such things as synapses, neurons… IOW, how would one test this and be able to predict that when condition x arises so does consciousness?
There are commonalities shared by God and creation but even more differences.
But humans are unique in this respect. Humans are able to ponder and ascertain the properties of the universe they find themselves in. They can experiment and learn abstract concepts. That makes them uniquely suited to analyze science and intelligent design- two topics to which considerable discussion is devoted at TT.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hi Bradford,
I am a little disappointed even if not overly surprised by your response.
I am disappointed because I was hoping this thread might continue the interesting conversations we were having in the other one.
Now, the simple, clear proposition is…
Bradford claims that humans are singularly unique and that this human-like uniqueness requires an even more unique creator/designer. While this is a metaphysical assumption any and all counter-arguments are "stealth metaphysics" which Bradford is free to ignore. QED
What's left to discuss?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Then tell me TP what do you think of this homily?
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify God as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policy solutions or solve health care or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. God actually help us evolve. He is a philosopher and peacemaker of a very high order, and he speaks not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
TP, when is the last time you discussed metaphysics with your dog?
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Bradford
I would be interested in seeing the context for this claim; any chance of a lik to a typical example?
I ask because I wonder whether oppoents want to differentiate between a process such as evoluition, which could be described as an unconscious intelligence, and what we might intuitively think of as a conscious intelligence, be that ETI or God. To put it another way, perhaps these unnamed opponents are right.
I still find it perverse the lengths IDists go to avoid answering any question about this supposed intelligence. Let me ask you Bradford; do you think the intelligent design was conscious, unconscious or are you undecided on the question?
Right, because IDists could prove there was an intelligent designer any time they wanted, it is just proving a conscious intelligent designer that is holding them up. Not.
When do you think consciousness arises in an individual? At birth, at conception, at some other time? Until we can answer that question with confidence- about something that is happening right now all around us - how could we expect to answer it about something that happened millions of years ago?
Comment by The Pixie — June 9, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Bradford,
This is not really a disclaimer; no. Without saying something about what an "intelligent agency" is supposed to be, and specifically how it is supposed to be different from other things, then the term has no meaning at all in the context of ID. So ID needs to say something about what it is supposed to mean.
Saying it means "conscious action" means something to all of us, because we can inter-subjectively verify we are conscious. Saying it means "contracausal free will" also means something - it means some sort of mental cause that has no antecedent physical cause. Contracausal free will is a meaningful idea, but it is not a not scientific hypothesis, because it can't be tested against observable evidence.
Yes, I think it is an unresolvable philosophical argument.
It is not simply that there is some remote possibility that libertarian, contracausal free will (hereafter just called "free will") might not exist of course. Neuroscientists for the most part interpret their results as showing that free will is a superfluous hypothesis without any hint of empirical support at all and even in contradiction to some experimental evidence.
So that we don't waste time arguing this repeatedly, let us just carefully agree to this: There is no method anyone can suggest to empirically resolve the problem of free will
This is a bit confused too: When you say "Generating AI", you need to say if you are talking about "creating a machine with conscious intelligence" or "creating a machine that can do the things that humans do". You see, we must make these clarifications in AI as well as ID so that people can know what we're talking about. We do not actually do consciousness research in AI per se, so when we talk about AI it has nothing to do with consciousness.
For us in AI, "intelligence" is just a loose descriptive term, like the way a kineseologist might describe what she studies as "athleticism". In both cases, the terms don't refer to actual things in the world; they are just loose, fuzzy categories of behaviors that we might be interested in studying.
No, that's wrong also. Nobody has "designated" AI as either conscious or non-conscious. What we do (build computer systems) simply does not address the issue at all.
But "evolutionary processes" are well defined without saying anything about consciousness one way or the other.
We agree that free will has no empirical basis. Since Bradford's version of ID (hereafter just called "ID") depends critically on the truth of free will, this means that ID is a metaphysical postulate. ID is saying "Free will exists, and it is responsible for the origin of life". There is no way to provide empirical evidence for this.
Edit: Dembski's version of ID also entails conscious free will, as (I believe) does Mike Gene's (but I could be wrong about Mike's since I haven't yet read his book).
Oh, I think I see. Evolutionary theory doesn't explain the origin of consciousness - I completely agree. But evolutionary theory is well-defined (we all know what is meant by mutations, differential reproduction, etc). So no, there are no similar metaphysical dependencies in evolutionary theory, or any other scientific theory.
ID requires the metaphysical assumption of free will, but scientific theories do not.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
ID infers design by describing purposeful arrangements of parts.
The words purpose, foresight, etc. are implicated by design proponents in this description.
The term "Intelligent" in the title of ID clarifies that which is implicit in the word "Design", that said purpose and foresight indicate intelligence. This is what alternative explanations have sought to negate, in part, by redefining "Design".
Therefore, when certain structures are observed they are best explained by all of the above, design, purpose, foresight, intelligence, etc. These do not reduce to tautologies but are different ways of describing the same thing.
AIguy wants this to reduce to "consciousness" which he says is beyond science, or synonymously, to "choice" (with all kinds of scary qualifiers) for the same reason.
But, as I argued on a previous thread and as Bradford has argued on a different previous thread, this claim about choice and science is metaphysical.
AIguy claims that to claim choice is metaphysical, but to claim no-choice is not.
As the OP suggests in relation to consciousness, this is special-pleading.
Choice is observed. A rat in a maze can go left or right. It sometimes goes left and it sometimes goes right. A second rat may do the opposite. A fly makes moves which are not random and are not determined by the environment - the are considered spontaneous.
It is a metaphysical claim to say that choice is not evident or true here but that what is observed may yet be deterministic.
To reduce ID's claim, as has been done, to being reliant upon consciousness or choice is to reduce its refutation to being reliant upon the opposite. Both are equally metaphysical or they are equally not metaphysical.
There is no metaphysically neutral position on whether choice is real or not, and if one is not scientifically demonstrable then neither is the other. This then eliminates this refutation by definition and metaphysics and returns us to the evidential status of ID.
The ID claim is that there is no explanation without reference to choice which makes choice superfluous.
Some will deny this evidentiary claim and they are fee to argue it. But, as from before, ID does not fail for its definitions, the so-called dormitive problem, or a reliance upon a metaphysical requirement.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hi Bradford,
I am perfectly willing to discuss philosophy and religion with you.
Such discussions help me hone my "ambiguity tolerence" skills because different people see different Truths. Very few people see things the way I do.
I also enjoy the challenge of debating science (or pseudo-science).
These discussions require clearly stated assumptions where one needs to back their positions up with hard evidence and logic. It is the strength of the data and the argument that wins the day knowing full well that new data may totally change things tomorrow. I find it an enjoyable game that helps this intelligent being learn.
I can even tolerate mixing science and religion.
I sometimes enjoy debating creationists. While the primary source of their assumptions is the Bible at least it is a known given. And since I have some working familarity of the Bible and religious teachings I generally can do fairly well in these debates.
Which is usually the problem, I do too well.
Religious people tend to get understandably frustrated that I don't respect their cherished beliefs enough to accept them without the backing required of any non-religious debate proposal.
Bradford, now that I have goaded you into forwarding a religious argument how long will you continue it before heading back to the safer position of evasion?
You wrote…
As you are probably aware, I am less than impressed with how God guided President Bush in his foreign policy decisions. I also question the wisdom of Allah's guidence that Osama Bin Laden received. These don't impress me as philosophy and peacemaking "…of a very high order."
I take it that you are offering that the "soul" is the property that makes humans unique (not "intelligence", not "consciousness").
I presume you are aware of the attempts to scientifically detect a soul. And if there is a soul to be detected, scientifically we would also be interested in looking for the control case. What is without a soul? If animals have souls too then, once again, humans aren't fundamentally unique other than a sweeping presumption that we are because we say so.
Can we take it that it is the presumed lack of a soul that you are offering as the property that separates AI programs from humans in ID's counter argument that an AI program is incapable of being the Intelligent Designer?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
AIguy,
Neuroscientists also interpret their results as evidence of choice, including the infamous Libet.
Neuroscience does not have the answer and empirical evidence is not on either side.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Pez,
You have this wrong again: I claim that free will is a metaphysical issue, and this is hardly a controversial statement. I have never, however, claimed "no-choice" (i.e. that free will does not exist). I simply point out that scientific theories cannot be predicated on either the truth OR falsity of any metaphysical proposition.
Without saying something about what an "intelligent agency" is supposed to be, and specifically how it is supposed to be different from other things, then the term has no meaning at all in the context of ID. So ID needs to say something about what it is supposed to mean. This is why Bradford, Mike Gene, and others admit that when they talk about "intelligent agency", they do indeed mean to imply conscious free will.
This means ID theory rests on the metaphysical postulate of free will, while scientific theories do not.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Pez,
You have not read my first post in this thread, where I make this quite clear:
So that we don't waste time arguing this repeatedly, let us just carefully agree to this: There is no method anyone can suggest to empirically resolve the problem of free will
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Pez!
I am glad you could join us.
Your comment about choice was very good, IMO.
I will try to respond in full in a moment.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
It appears there are two different sources of confusion lingering here.
First, some still fail to see why ID must say something about what "intelligent agency" is supposed to mean. The thread "AIGuy's Computer" has discussed this at length, and I do not believe that I failed to answer any objection to my argument there. Subsequently, even Bradford admitted that ID's conception of "intelligent agency" necessarily entails conscious free will.
Second, some still fail to understand that scientific theories can not be based on metaphysical postulates about free will, since we have no way to determine if free will exists or not. Maybe libertarian, contra-causal free will exists, and maybe it does not, and we have no way of telling which is the case. Scientific theories are not predicated on any answer to this question.
And so we see that in contrast to scientific hypotheses, the hypothesis of ID cannot be evaluated against any observable evidence.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Hi Pez,
I don't know if you have had a chance to read Mike Gene's Design Matrix yet (still available for $16.47 on Amazon). Mike presents ID as a subjective continuum with the assumption that everything can be viewed as containing both designed and non-designed aspects.
While this may not be very helpful to the rapid Culture Warriors on either side, I suggest it is closer to the real situation. If God created the universe then even a plain old rock will have evidence of "purposeful arrangement of parts".
Most people, especially Theistic Evolutionists, tend to accept the possibility that a metaphysical being may have created the universe.
So, how do we dissect the aspects of the dueling metaphysics (one of Joy's favorate phrases) surrounding Intelligent Design?
I have pointed out before how I felt the choice of the term "intelligent" bordered on a brilliant marketing move for the ID Movement. The standard dictionary definition is simply an ability to learn and adapt to new information. However, the common person would leap to the assumption that an omnicent God would be intelligent even if he/she/it has no need for the ability to learn.
Only elitist scientists would worry about actually defining terms to a testable degree.
I think Aiguy is correct in that there is no fundamental restriction that should prevent an unguided AI program from being considered an intelligent designer (little "i").
It is not unreasonable to suggest that the ID Movement is suggesting something more from its Intelligent Designer (big "I") than just an ability to learn and design.
First of all it is no secret that there is a presumption the designer is also a creator. While it may be attempted to be quaffled about in court and blogs, the ID Movement implies some kind of special creation from a special designer/creator.
The other thing that appears obvious is, as you suggested, the creator/designer has a purpose. It would seem obvious that for a designer/creator to have purpose he/she/it would also have to be conscious.
I don't see consciousness being any more metaphysical than purpose. In fact, I argue that consciouness can possibly be scientificly tested whereas purpose will always be subjective and metaphysical.
One of the easiest scientific tests is to render the test subject unconscious. If you can do that, then it is scientific evidence that the test subject has consciousness.
As for purpose… when the force of gravity causes objects to fall, is this the purpose of gravity? Is the purpose of the moon to cause tides?
I suggest purpose will always be subjective. At best it could be argued that conscious intent ("choice") always implies purpose, but even that is a subjective assumption. Besides it gets us back to ID presuming consciousness and choice.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. You see I have this ID hypothesis that involves interconnected quantum effects that….
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Nonsense. The data shows nothing of the kind. the neuroscientists you allude to wear metaphysical blinders. That's not what their data shows.
So by attaching the disclaimer you succeed in confining disagreeable hypotheses to the metaphysical bin by definition.
Of course there is a dependency. It's called materialism. You're a philospher and can't see that?
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hi Aiguy,
Good. So you agree with the snippet you quoted and you and I are where we were two threads ago: it's not an empirical question as to whether or not free will exists. More to the point, it's not scientifically resolved .
We've gone nowhere, have we Aiguy?
ID does say somehting about the intelligence: it has purposes, it has foresight, it executes a plan and a desire. Does this imply "consciousness" In my opinion it obviously does. But to kick the definitional dog out back and make him chew on "consciousness" now is useless. If purpose, foresight, etc, indicate consciousness then they are all the definition of it that we need here. Just as they were all the definition of intelligence, for which you are determined to substitute "consciousness", that we needed.
ID rests on the postulate that what is evidenced exists.
It requires that consciousness or libertarian free will exist no more than they are already evidenced at work in us. We have already agreed that to say "well, what is exhibited in us may be determined" is not an acceptable answer in this debate as it is not empirically determined and is a philosophical metaphysical position.
So that which we call our intelligence, or consciousness, provides us foresight, purpose, goals, etc. and the means to achieve them. Let us include "choice" in here as well and worry not about whether or not it is libertarian or not or whether it is somehow determined. We see that we can select from among options in a manner contra to chance and the action of the known forces acting (yep, wind, rain, gravity, photons, etc.).
And when we do so we often leave behind certain evidential markers. Therefore, when we find such evidential markers we conclude that something working with foresight, purpose, etc. was operating.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify God as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policy solutions or solve health care or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. God actually help us evolve. He is a philosopher and peacemaker of a very high order, and he speaks not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
TP, I was not impressed with this piece of idolotry either.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
aiguy:
Anti-IDists base their case against ID on philosophical materialism. They don't need evidence for abiogenesis or consciousness. The adaquacy of materialism is presumed.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Not me TP. I grew up in a home where irreverance and trash talking aimed at religion was standard behavior. I was not and continue to not be impressed by those tactics.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Pez wrote:
Evidence?
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
aiguy:
It needs to be added that I believe ai programs owe their causal origin to conscious intelligence. I don't believe artificial intelligence creates artificial intelligence without a conscious intelligence existing at some point in the causal chain. But I can see how one who believes that unspecified chemical reactions yield consciousness would also believe that ai just exists without cause.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Bradford,
It's not my fault that nobody can figure out a way to decide if thought processes transcend physical causality.
Evolutionary theory has no theoretical dependency on materialism whatsoever. Your tu coque defense fails, and it will fail every time you attempt to apply it.
My arguments have nothing to do with materialism. I am not, in fact, a materalist, as I've told you many times.
Pez,
My position is unchanged; hopefully you now understand that ID critically relies on the notion of conscious free will, while scientific theories do not.
Please read the "AIGuy's Computer" thread to see why this argument fails. There is nothing you can show humans can do that qualitatively differs in this regard (planning, etc) from what (in ID's terms) purely natural, physical, blind, unguided, undirected, unconscious processes can do. I don't want to rehash those arguments, but you'll need to engage them. In any event, those arguments did succeed at forcing Bradford to concede that ID necessarily entails conscious free will, and this is his thread.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Hi TP,
Thanks for the hearty welcome and the book recommend.
The word "intelligent" is not the problem. The word is design and the problem is how it is evidenced. It is evidenced by purposeful arrangement of parts, indicating goals, foresight, plans, etc.
If the AI can do this, sans inputting of goals, purposes, etc., then I would agree that it is intelligent in the way that we are discussing. Aiguy says his computer has its own wants and desires - if this is true I would say we have reached a new era in computing.
This is obvious to me as well. You've just defined "consciousness" to the satisfaction of this discussion.
This makes little sense to me. You've already said that purpose implies consciousness. If we can identify purpose that is all we need to do. We do not have to find the necessary foundation for its existence. Likewise, to render something "unconscious" is just as much to define "unconscious" as it is to define "conscious". If we can do one then we can do the other.
I don't think we need to discuss what it means for one to become unconscious. At least, I hope not.
I would say it is, but that is not the point of the exercise. By its own admission and the limits of its project there is lots of design that ID can't detect, and, by correlation, lots of purpose it can't detect. It has outlined when it thinks it can detect them, defined the aspects studied and discussed the rationale behind the inference.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Please read the "AIGuy's Computer" thread where statements like this are thoroughly debunked.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Hi Robin,
Really?
Here it is, as always.
Show me that wind, rain, gravity, etc. can type this response to you.
My evidence is that I just saw me do it and I've never seen law do it.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Virtually all human artifacts. Those natural forces alone could create none of them.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Bradford,
Completely irrelevant, as has been explained to you endlessly in the AIGuy's Computer thread. You don't need to ask the question "Who designed the designer" in order to establish if something is intelligent or not.
You are incapable of learning that none of my arguments rest on materialism.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
You're right. But your insistence that metaphysical side issues be specified is a one way street.
Cite one evolutionary mechanism without a material basis. The events lacking them (abiogenesis, consciousness) are the ones that have not produced material explanations.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
At this point I believe that everyone here who is capable of understanding these arguments understands them. Unless I see some new argument being presented, I'll leave it at that.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Exactly. That's why the stipulation about free will is superfluous.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Hi Bradford,
I would have thought it highly unlikely, but you have managed to surprise me with just how far you will go to protect your actual beliefs and arguments from scrutiny.
I take it that your attempt to modify a quote about Obama and pass it off as your true feelings didn't go as planned.
Have you no shame?
Meanwhile, we are back to ….
But don't worry, Pez is here to cover for you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
aiguy:
And if you understand the arguments you could not possibly be finding fault with them.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Hi Aiguy,
Done. End to end.
It does not fail. Your great error there was to say "a computer can do such and such" and then expand that subcategory out, without regard to the foresight, purpose, plan, goal behind it, and say "therefore, "chance and law" can do the same.
Whatever consciousness is has been held in the definitions from the beginning. The computer does not have nor execute it. You've already conceded the fact that computers are not conscious, therefore, the things that we have used to determine that consciousness is necessarily implied do not apply to computers.
The AI case can be dropped now.
Further, you say that consciousness is meaningful and intelligence is not. Just like you said "life forms" is meaningful and intelligence is not. The meaning seems to be carried in the fact that you feel you can refute or wave away that which you say is meaningful. Lifeforms is meaningful because it hides the fact that you are talking about life just as it is here on Earth. Consciousness is meaningful, apparently to me, because you can wave it away as a metaphysical requirement. Consciousness is no more meaningful than intelligence and design were, as defined from our very first exchanges.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
My true feeling is that worship of another human being disgusts me.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Pixie:
Conscious but, I also believe that ai s are not self-generating; that they owe their causal origin to consciousness. Therefore any evidence of an intelligent source would signal consciousness at some point in the causal chain.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Is AI sceintific? Will Strong AI have free will?
Is it an unscientific question to ask if Strong AI will have free will? If it is not an unscientific question, we can not dismiss ID's reliance on free will as a grounds for it not being scientific….
I'm not insisting here that ID is science, merely pointing out some due process is in order….
many regards,
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I'm not here to cover for Bradford but to learn from him and exchange my ideas as a guest on his blog.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Thanks Pez but I'm just one of many contributors.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Salvador:
It looks like a reasonable question to me.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Granted.
My point stands.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hi Pez,
I am sorry that I dragged your name into my discussion with Bradford.
I shouldn't have done that.
Meanwhile, I am composing a longer comment for you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Sal,
The scientific aspect of AI comes from hypotheses of the following form: This type of algorithm will be capable of generating this type of behavior. These hypotheses have nothing to do with consciousness or free will.
I have no idea.
Yes, of course, since you cannot provide an operationalized definition of free will.
But it is an unscientific question, and ID is unscientific. AI can be scientific (it is also commonly just written up as engineering). Evolutionary theory is scientific. ID is not, since it relies on metaphysical postulates of conscious free will.
Right. I am insisting it is not, for the reasons I've given.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
and
These are my thoughts as well, as always I am willing to change my opinion based on reasoned arguments.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Salvador,
AI is an engineering discipline more than a science, though it has generated insights useful to cognitive scientists.
A practitioner of AI does not depend on a rigorous distinction between intelligence and non-intelligence. If she's designing a theorem-proving system, then the figure of merit is how well it proves theorems. End of story. No hand-wringing necessary over whether this amounts to "true" intelligence.
For an ID proponent, the distinction is crucial. The crux of the enterprise is to establish whether a particular phenomenon is the result of "true" intelligence, which most advocates take to mean a conscious, intelligent entity possessing free will.
Now how about responding to this and this?
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Vivid,
Please provide your definition of "intelligent source" so we can evaluate your claim. It must tell us what sorts of observations can distinguish an intelligent source from a non-intelligent source.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
My definition of intelligent source is you.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
You tell me the process you employed in writing your hundreds of posts on this subject.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
But then I could object AI is not science since you don't have an operational definition of intelligence. If one will admit something is science even without an operational definition of the key ingredient, namely, the "I" in AI, isn't it a bit inequitable to try to disenfranchise ID for lack of defining "I" in ID.
By way of extension, the same applies to the topic and definition of "free will"…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I'm sorry, Vivid, but we can't really debate the issues when you respond this way.
I do not understand the process I used, and nobody else does either. We have no theory of intelligence, which is why "intelligence" can't be used to explain other phenomena. "Intelligence" is the name we assign to these sorts of behaviors that we do not understand, rather than any sort of explanation for the phenomena. "Intelligence" is not a thing.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Pez wrote:
In other words, If I haven't seen it, it can't happen.
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Sal,
Sal, if we are to continue to debate, you must read my responses. I have explained how claims in AI can be formulated as scientific hypotheses, and these hypotheses make no reference to the concept of intelligence whatsoever.
Please read my post. If you do, you will understand the answer to your question. AI never offers "intelligence" as an explanation of anything.
There is no operational definition of free will. The issue is unresolvable within science; it is a metaphysical question. And therefore so is ID, since ID (as opposed to scientific theories) critically relies on the truth of free will.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
While I understand why the ID Movement wants to be careful to limit the discussion to only the evidence and not the fundamental causes, that is like a doctor saying he/she isn't interested in diagnosing the disease, only the symptoms.
Purposeful arrangement of parts and forsight is evidence of something, it is not the something in of itself.
When an AI program spits out a detailed drawing of a bridge. I suggest it is both evidence of intelligent design (little "i", little "d") with the work product being in of itself intelligent design.
While I expect that you might make a big deal over the initial purposeful choice for a bridge to be designed in the first place, it is the AI program that is the intellegent designer.
I should have been clearer. I was suggesting consciousness implies purpose.
Purpose is way too subjective to imply anything in my view. Consciousness is something we have a chance of measuring and quantifying.
The moon clearly has purpose. Does that mean the ID Movement has accomplished its mission? If not, I suggest the mission of the ID Movement is more than just trying to detect purpose.
I suggest the ID Movement's true mission is looking for compelling evidence of something (identifiable or not) that grants purpose.
I think we agree that "intelligence" alone isn't enough, it takes "consciousness" to be able to grant purpose.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Aiguy,
I am not intentionally trying to be difficult.
If you cannot understand the process you used then I take it you dont understand anything else. So we have a person who does not understand anything, even the subject that they think they understand, telling others they should understand what it is that they themselves do not understand!!!
Listen Aiguy I like you very much. I do understand that you are a very good thinker and extremely articulate. I have benefited greatly from your comments however I am saddened to find out that you do not understand what you are talking about.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Hi Salvador,
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gencePronunciation: in-'tel-&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
2 : mental acuteness "”in·tel·li·gent /in-'tel-&-j&nt/ adjective "”in·tel·li·gent·ly adverb
A computer program that demonstrates an ability to learn is intelligent by definition.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Hi Robin,
I said:
Robin asked for evidence of this claim. Evidence that we see ourselves selecting from options which the known forces cannot/do not choose for us.
I haven't seen it, nobody's seen it, it has never been seen, etc. Empiricism at its finest.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Vivibleau,
Here's your problem.
You wrote:
You might want to think that through again…
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Define for me your operational definition of "to think". Furthermore give me empirical evidence that there is such a thing as a "thought":roll:
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Pez :
Robin:
Pez:
Robin:
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hi TP,
I'm going to respond as much as possible to your arguments and leave your speculations as to motivations and character aside.
I'd appreciate if you could try not to make these issues as we discuss this.
I do not accept this as true. I see the computer as the tool achieving the goal of its designer according to the purposes of the designer. My falling dominoes spelling out "will you marry me" did not design the message and my spirograph does not design its patterns. Having law and chance and unpredictability in the equation does not eliminate the necessity of the actual designing intelligence.
Aiguy said his computer does what it wants but I don't know how this can be determined.
Does it, clearly?
How is this demonstrated? I think it does, it provides a vital function for providing the necessary conditions of this planet and its ability to sustain life.
But how is this demonstrated to be a purpose?
ID is about providing the evidential basis for the inference.
We are not discussing what you like to call the "Movement" so please don't smuggle that in.
As I've used intelligence intelligence alone is enough to have and achieve a purpose. If intelligence is limited to something other than that then whatever word is implied by the inference to purposeful arrangement of parts will work. Today it seems like "consciousness" is just that stick.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Vividbleau wrote:
Define "define".
P.S. It stinks down here. I think I'll return to the world of normal dialogue.
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Hi Robin,
Let's make that a little more analogous.
I built this buggy and it was not done by any natural forces.
Show me the evidence.
Well, I was there and I saw me do it. But here, I'll do another one and you can watch. See, I did and wind and rain and gravity and light did not.
What if somebody builds a car someday?
I don't know. What if?
Will the natural forces have done it?
I don't know. What's a car? All I know is I built this buggy and the natural forces didn't.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Intellect is a thing. It is a mental process enabling an organism to solve problems. That would explain its selection value. It is not easily defined by referencing physical phenomenon but its capacity is measurable.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Vivid,
That is like saying because you do not understand how an airplane flies, you cannot therefore fly in an airplane. Of course we do not understand how we think; that is why scientists study psychology, neurology, and all of the other cognitive sciences. We haven't figured it out, although we have made tremendous progress and can explain a great deal about memory, perception, language generation, and other cognitive abilities. But there is simply no unified concept of "intelligence" that we can even articulate, much less understand.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
At least explicitly, but then why call it AI if you insist there is no reference to intelligence whatsoever?
Let me suggest there is a parallel situation to ID. We can define designs without explicit reference to an intelligence, yet doing so does not necessarily warrant dropping the "I" from ID. If you were to be equitable, the the label "AI" ought to be dropped on the very same grounds you are trying to dismiss ID….
There is a similar situation with free will. Will strong AI mimmick the behaviors we associate with both free will and intelligence? Let's say for the sake of argument we have mis-perceived what free-will and intelligence are, that free-will and intelligence are illusions or merely convenient labels…..
…the fact remains AI researchers are trying to mimmick certain behaviors of what we perceive as free-will or intelligence (independent of whether intelligence or free will is real or illusory)….
If Strong AI implies creativity to formulate its own questions and areas of exploration, and if Strong AI implies creativity, then even if free will is ultimately an illusion, Strong AI still attempts to model these illusions. Let me apply to free will what you said of intelligence:
Why can't this be the case for ID and as well as for notions of free will. I'm merely commenting there appears to be an extreme double standard that you are applying between AI and ID, and I'm merely encouraging a bit of self-scrutiny…..
Consider Bill Dembski's own view:
If you're content to call AI science even though it is based on loose and fuzzy notions, I think its not exactly fair to turn around and apply a different standard to ID.
Again, I'm not insisting ID is science, and it is not my aim to persuade you that it is. However, I merely want to point out what I perceive is a not exactly equitable application of standards…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Bradford,
No, this is the fallacy of reification.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Pez wrote:
Why? It only takes one counterexample to disprove your statement (though there are many, many more).
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Salvador wrote:
Salvador,
I addressed that exact point here. You failed to respond.
I also responded directly, and pertinently, to two of your points here and here, showing that you were making an incorrect claim about Trevors and Abel's paper, and that you were quote-mining Jerry Coyne.
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Hi Robin,
A counter example to this?
I doubt it.
When will I see myself selecting from among options and then suddenly find out that the known forces did it instead of me?
Your claim that it only takes one counterexample is a direct undercut to induction and the assumption of laws in the first place. But we are not going to withhold scientific conclusions on the basis that someday somewhere a referenced law might be seen not to hold.
Comment by Pez — June 9, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Sal,
All scientific hypotheses must be explicit in this sense.
"Intelligence" is how we generally refer to the sorts of behaviors we attempt to explain; it is not an explanation itself. In exactly the same way, "athleticism" is how kineseologists generally refer to the sorts of behavior they attempt to explain; it is not an explanation itself.
Please provide your definition of "designs" then.
There is absolutely no similarity, as I've explained many times. Once again I will illustrate by this:
AIGUY: My computer can design complex equipment
SAL: How does it do that?
AIGUY: It is intelligent.
As you can hopefully see, the answer provides no information at all; it is a joke, because "intelligent" refers merely to the fact that it can design complex equipment, and it does not explain how that happens. It is the same joke that Moliere used in his play, which is why we call circular explanations like this dormitive principles.
You cannot characterize free will in terms of behaviors, and so you cannot attempt to answer this question by reference to behaviors. Free will is characterized in terms of the lack of antecedent physical cause, not by behavior.
"Strong AI" is not a scientific subject; it is a subject discussed in philosophy of mind.
AI attempts to produce behaviors. It says nothing about free will. It says nothing about "creativity" either, except in the most informal, descriptive sense (we also call our programs "interesting" and "cool" and "totally awesome", but these words do not have operational defintions either).
I am absolutely confident that a single standard is being applied with perfect consistency. You can't see it yet, but if you spend a bit of time reviewing some introductory philosophy of mind I think you will.
I've made this argument to Dembski. He actually didn't even try to rebut my argument at all (but it doesn't seem to have disuaded him in his quest to push ID without addressing any of these concerns).
This appears to me nothing other than theism. I have no problem with theism; it is a perfectly reasonable thing to think about or believe in. It has nothing to do with reasoning from replicable observations.
Anyone reading this thread can see you are attributing to me something I did not say. I will ask you to quote my actual words, which will help avoid these outlandish strawman arguments in the future. For the very last time:
1) The word "intelligence" is an informal description of a class of behaviors AI studies
2) The scientific hypotheses of AI have nothing to do with any conception of "intelligence"
3) It is exactly analogous to our study of "athelticism"
I've shown that ID can't be evaluated against observable evidence, because no observations can settle the matter of free will.
I am applying single standard with perfect consistency.
* AI does not rely on any notion of "intelligence" at all for its hypotheses
* ID relies critically on the notion of "free will" for its hypothesis
* The hypothesis of free will cannot be evaluated against the evidence
* This means ID can't be evaluated against the evidence
* This does not imply anything at all about the hypotheses of AI, which state only that certain algorithms are (or are not) capable of generating certain behaviors.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I did not ask anything about how we think, I asked you
Did you sit at your computer or were you already sitting? Did you type your response? Was there anything going on cognitively that helped you craft your reponse? Did you hit the keyboard to send the message? etc, etc.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Intellect is a thing.
From the dictionary:
reification: To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.
To the contrary aiguy, I'm not treating intellect as if it had a concrete or material existence. I'm a dualist. Intellect is more real than a concrete object you cannot see or feel for everyone is in touch with their own thoughts. You do IDists a favor when you pretend intellect is not something. It may not be material but it has measurable effects.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Vivid,
Already sitting, yes I typed it.
Yes, I was thinking about AI and ID. I experienced conscious thoughts. I thought about how to make my arguments. I made decisions about what to write.
None of this has anything to say about whether these cognitive functions proceed with or without antecedent physical cause. We have no way of knowing if they did or not. That is why free will is a metaphysical issue.
Yes.
Your point?
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Robin:
perhaps but the end result is an example of applied intelligence.
That's your own restrictive definition. Any form of intelligence is a legitimate inference.
Comment by Bradford — June 9, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Bradford,
And I'm a neutral monist. Perhaps if this was a forum about philosophy of mind it would be appropriate to discuss the relative merits of our positions.
For the 100th time, I have no trouble with dualism as a philosophy. Some of my best friends are dualists.
* The truth of dualism cannot be ascertained by appeal to observation
* ID critically relies on the truth of dualism/free will
* Therefore ID can't be evaluated against our observations
* Other scientific theories NEITHER RELY ON DUALISM OR ITS NEGATION
(I use caps because you have ignored this point so many times)
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Pez asks:
No, a counterexample to this…
…and this…
…both of which are wrong, as my counterexample shows.
No one has ever seen the Hope Diamond dropped onto the surface of the moon. Do you doubt that it would fall?
If you do, then you haven't grokked empiricism. If you don't doubt it, then you've undermined your own argument in favor of the proposition that
Comment by robin — June 9, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
It may take me awhile.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 9, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Hi Pez,
I only have this extended weekend off before I have to go back to the grind that is work. You wouldn't deny me a little fun at the ID Movement's expense would you?
….
Ok, I will try to behave myself.
To my bridge building program example, you responded with…
First of all let me describe what kind of program I am talking about. Rather than offer up a hypothetical bridge building package, here is a link to a circuit board designing program. It is a free program that will automatically layout a board using only a schematic and board dimension as input.
The latest version uses trial and error to figure out where to place the components and how to lay the copper traces.
The program isn't that advanced in the state of the art (it is free after all). There are much more advanced programs with price tags to match.
Technicially it is intelligent (little "i") because it learns and adapts.
Technically it designs (little "d") in that it creates information that did not previously exist in the form of drawings, hole placements, track patterns, etc.
Therefore it is evidence of intelligent design (little "i", little "d") even if it isn't consistent with the meanings and motives of a certain movement I promised not to conjecture about.
Just because some engineering manager bellows "design a bridge to span 100 yards" or "design a three channel demodulation circuit board" does not mean all the activities performed by the people and programs that follow are devoid of intelligent design.
If a human engineer did the work of transforming a schematic into a circuit board layout he/she would certainly expect that to be considered intelligent design.
What is the fundamental difference between the human and the computer designer doing the same job?
Consciousness?
Which gets me back to my first comment on this thread.
Would you agree that complex animals like dogs and monkeys are intelligent and conscious?
Therefore, would you also agree that they are capable of granting purpose?
Finally, would you then agree that they are capable of Intelligent Design? (big "I", big "D")
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Vivid,
I understand. The idea that our cognitive functioning may actually result from physical mechanism alone is so outlandish to contemplate that Francis Crick (who believes that it does) called it "The Astonishing Hypothesis". I have been thinking about these issues as hard as I can since I was no more than thirteen years old; it no longer seems astonishing.
EDIT: off topic.
Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 5:20 pm