The Intelligence Challenge
by chunkdzIt seems that ID critics do not agree with my definition of intelligence. Some opinions so far:
"laughably stupid", "utterly futile", "comical", "not even wrong", "goofy", "just silly", "arrogant", and "absolutely, positively, comically stupid"
Actually, all those comments all came from one commenter named "aiguy". (The fact that my definition has provoked a steady stream of insults rather than an informed substantive response tells me that I have struck a nerve and must be on to something!)
Well, aiguy (or anybody else who wants to try), this is your chance to substantively challenge The Intelligence Product™ in a formal internet debate!
Resolved: For any machine, intelligence may reasonably be defined as the product of problem solving, planning, and learning.
IP = (PS)(P)(L)
I will take the affirmative. The debate will take place in two stages:
1) Opening statements will be posted, 1000 words or less, and after a pre-determined period responses will be posted, 1000 words or less.
2) First round of judging.
3) Main argument: 3000 words or less, followed by rebuttals and a brief closing argument. 2000 words or less total.
4) Final round of judging.
We will need three mutually agreeable judges: preferably an ID'er, an ID critic, and an "I don't care". Volunteers?
August 28th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Hey Chunkdz
I’d like to volunteer
I’m a advocate of ID but I find aiguy’s arguments to be fascinating and your definition is Greek to me.
So I think I could be fair.
If we could tone the rhetoric down a little bit I think that ID folks and those interested in the possibility of strong artificial intelligence are uniquely positioned to sharpen each other’s ideas.
In fact I think ID as it stands is just a Turing Test applied to the universe or biology.
Regardless of if I’m acceptable as judge I’m looking forward to the conversation
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 28, 2012 @ 9:18 pm
August 28th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Are organisms considered meat-machines? Or, in other words, is this definition supposed to be applicable to biological organisms as well? If so, that should probably be specified. If not, it seems to run counter to previous incarnations of the IP.
Comment by hrun0815 — August 28, 2012 @ 9:57 pm
August 28th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
FFM – Great! Would you consider yourself an "I don't care" judge?
hrun – yes.
Comment by chunkdz — August 28, 2012 @ 10:54 pm
August 29th, 2012 at 7:01 am
I'd probably call myself a "no dog in the hunt judge" but of the choices you gave " I don't care" fits best
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 29, 2012 @ 7:01 am
August 30th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Hi, Chunkdz.
Intelligence has already been formally mathematically defined. In summation, what intelligence is is the ability to maximize a reward signal (or set of reward signals) in an environment in which complete information about the environment may not be available. In essence what intelligence is is the ability to model one's environment in order to make predictions about it–that which is more intelligent will be able to make better predictions. This can be shown to mathematically correspond to agents which produce programs that model their environment, with the shortest program consistent with the available facts being the program which is most likely to produce the most accurate predictions. In other words, intelligence is the process of applying Ockham's Razor.
This can also be mathematically shown to be a data-compression process, because how data-compressors work is by predicting the next piece of datum (i.e., character, byte, bit, etc.) based upon what information has already been made available to the data-compressor (which includes the data-compressor's built-in models on the type of data it is compressing), of which requires understanding: the better a compressor is able to compress a corpus of data, the better it understands it. How data-compressors do that is by building models of the data they are compressing based upon the information about that data available to them.
To date no artificial data-compressor can predict the next characters in human-language texts as well as humans can. It has also been mathematically shown that if an artificial data-compressor could predict the next characters in human-language texts as well as humans can then it will be able to pass the Turing test, because in order to compress (i.e., predict) human language as well as humans do so, a data-compressor would have to possess models pertaining to human language and culture at least as good as that of humans, and hence it would be able to make predictions regarding its responses that would satisfy its interlocutors that it possesses a human-level understanding of language and human affairs (as it would be able to give responses that its interlocutors could not statistically distinguish between that of humans).
For the references regarding the above mathematical formalization of what intelligence is, see App. D: "Additional Resources", p. 130 of my following article pertaining to physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):
James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Aug. 6, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://archive.org/details/The... .
Below is the relevant section from my foregoing article:
""
Mathematical Formalization of Artificial Intelligence: For the mathematical relationship between Artificial Intelligence vis-à-vis data compression and Friar William of Ockham’s epistemic razor, see References 205–207, and Reference 264, Section 1.4: “Compression is an Artificial Intelligence Problem”.
—–
[Bibliography]
[205] Marcus Hutter, “Towards a Universal Theory of Artificial Intelligence based on Algorithmic Probability and Sequential Decision Theory”, arXiv:cs/0012011, Dec. 16, 2000. Published as pp. 226–238, doi:10.1007/3-540-44795-4_20 , in Luc De Raedt and Peter Flach (Eds.), Machine Learning: ECML 2001: 12th European Conference on Machine Learning, Freiburg, Germany, September 5–7, 2001: Proceedings (Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2001), ISBN 3540425365, LCCN 2001044635, which is Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2167: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (2001), doi:10.1007/3-540-44795-4. A slideshow for this conference presentation is also available: WebCite: 61vNhIRh4, . 130
[206] Marcus Hutter, Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability (Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2005), ISBN 3540221395, LCCN 2004112980. 130
[207] Marcus Hutter, “Human Knowledge Compression Contest: Frequently Asked Questions & Answers”, hutter1.net, ca. Oct. 25, 2006 (updated since), WebCite: 61v3PRbui, . 130
[264] Matt Mahoney, “Data Compression Explained”, mattmahoney.net, updated May 7, 2012, WebCite: 69gDEuMGr, . 130
""
Comment by James Redford — August 30, 2012 @ 3:51 pm
August 30th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Hi James Redford,
I don't see the need to treat intelligence as predictive. Intelligent machines are perfectly capable of operating without predictive algorithms.
Comment by chunkdz — August 30, 2012 @ 4:55 pm
August 30th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Hi, Chunkdz.
In my foregoing post, the term "prediction" includes any question-and-answer process. The definition of intelligence given above is the most general definition. Prof. Marcus Hutter's AIXI model has been shown to behave optimally (i.e., give the most correct answers given the available information) given any environment. For fuller details, see the references I cited above, and see also:
Marcus Hutter, Shane Legg and Paul M.B. Vitanyi, "Algorithmic probability", Scholarpedia, Vol. 2, No. 8 (2007), p. 2572, http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar... .
Comment by James Redford — August 30, 2012 @ 7:02 pm
August 30th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
James, your treatise looks fascinating. My favorite quote thus far:
Comment by chunkdz — August 30, 2012 @ 8:40 pm
August 30th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Thank you for the compliment, Chunkdz.
Comment by James Redford — August 30, 2012 @ 10:02 pm
August 30th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Some weapons-grade crack-pottery going on here.
Comment by olegt — August 30, 2012 @ 10:46 pm
August 31st, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Olegt, interested in being a judge?
Comment by chunkdz — August 31, 2012 @ 1:10 pm
August 31st, 2012 at 7:29 pm
No, it won't look good on my resume.
Comment by olegt — August 31, 2012 @ 7:29 pm
August 31st, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Aiguy, yes or no?
Comment by chunkdz — August 31, 2012 @ 8:48 pm
August 31st, 2012 at 9:19 pm
I already told you more than once that I would happy to debate you under the two simple conditions I stipulated.
1) No personal attacks. Feel free to attack ideas as fiercely as you please, but do not attack me. To be clear, there's no problem calling some idea laughably stupid, but not to say something like watch as this simple, straightforward definition turns aiguy into a stuttering, drooling idiot.
2) We negotiate a mutually agreeable debate proposition. You rejected my suggestion, apparently because you felt it was not accurately representative of your position. I reject your suggestion, because there are conceivable situations when it would arguably be "rational" to propose a definition even if it has no utility.
My main complaint about your formula was that the variables could not be measured in any non-arbitrary way (that is, different people would generally interpret the variables differently and arrive at different values). If you wish to rebut my criticism, then I suggest you write a debate proposition that reflects what you believe. If, on the other hand, you agree with my complaint – that values for your formula are subjective and will vary greatly among independent researchers – then I suppose we could debate how a metric whose value can be arbitrary concocted could possibly have utility.
Comment by aiguy — August 31, 2012 @ 9:19 pm
August 31st, 2012 at 10:03 pm
I don't intend to use personal attacks. In fact, I've written a rough of my opening and it contains no attacks at all. There are 3 reasons why we (or any debate format) cannot have a formal rule against insults and personal attacks:
1) Political correctness is the scourge of modern society. 'Nuff said.
2) It creates more problems than it prevents. Imagine if I were to say "aiguy is rabidly anti-ID, especially when it comes to William Dembski and Stephen Meyer". You may take offense to such a statement even though it is not intended as an insult. But down on points at the end of a debate you could pull out the old "No insult" rule, feign outrage, and now we have a whole big mess simply because of a silly PC rule with a completely subjective measure.
3) It is unnecessary. I have no desire to base my argument on ad-homs for the simple reason that I want to win. Our judges will not look favorably upon ad-homs and insults and I have no desire to lose points in the debate. It is the presence of mutually agreeable judges which tempers the tone of debate.
I respect you greatly and, frankly, I owe a great deal of my formulation of the IP to your input. I have no intention of insulting you in formal debate. You can take me at my word.
I can add "utility" to the definition if you like.
Resolved: For any machine, intelligence may reasonably and usefully be defined as the product of problem solving, planning, and learning.
IP = (PS)(P)(L)
Comment by chunkdz — August 31, 2012 @ 10:03 pm
August 31st, 2012 at 10:23 pm
chunkdz,
Very well then! I will argue the negative. I'm afraid I've laid most of my cards on the table already, but I'm looking forward to see your opening argument.
Comment by aiguy — August 31, 2012 @ 10:23 pm
September 1st, 2012 at 9:19 am
Well, we'll see. It's quite formidable as a layman to be debating an AI expert about one of the letters in his own name.
We still need judges. Volunteers?
Comment by chunkdz — September 1, 2012 @ 9:19 am
September 1st, 2012 at 9:45 am
I don't think it's a good idea for me to volunteer. I would squarely fall into the camp of 'ID critic', but more importantly I also fall into the camp of 'person who thinks that defining intelligence as IP is "laughably stupid", "utterly futile", "comical", "not even wrong", "goofy", "just silly", "arrogant", and "absolutely, positively, comically stupid". I don't think that would make me a suitable judge.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 1, 2012 @ 9:45 am
September 1st, 2012 at 8:06 pm
I don't think you can define intelligence in the sense that ID proponents want. You want to define intelligence in such a way that it becomes necessary to explain creation. You are essentially attempting to define God!
The mind of God encapsulates all that intelligence is. You can try to reduce the term to the lowest level that still instantiates a form of it, but all you've accomplished then is to make the creation something less that what it really is.
Why bother?
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 1, 2012 @ 8:06 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:55 am
<blockquoteWhy bother?
Because this is THE most central point of ID. Without defining what intelligence in ID is, all you have is the living things and the world were created by 'God. [Whose mind] encapsulates all that intelligence is.'
To be honest, some (including me) believe that this is indeed all that ID is. But not very many folks in ID are willing to agree. Therefor I think it is necessary to press them to define what the mean by the term 'intelligence'.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 2, 2012 @ 9:55 am
September 2nd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
hrun0815
Sounds like you’d make a good critical judge. We have a proposed definition let's evaluate it's merits.
Come on man put your mind where your mouth is.
I on the other hand think that If AI can get along just fine with out defining exactly what the “I” is ID can muddle through as well.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 2, 2012 @ 1:09 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 3:04 pm
FFM, I want to stress a couple of points.
1) The point about all that is left from ID is that God did it comes directly from Daniel, who said that defining intelligence in ID is akin to defining God.
2) I don't understand how you could say that only intelligence can create CSI, or fCSI, or irreducible complexity, or create life, or whatever else you want to claim only intelligence can create, without actually defining what you mean by intelligence.
This seems so self-evident to me that I don't actually know how to argue about this, other than by analogy. Let's say it was called BRBLSCX design, and the argument is that only BRBLSCX can design. Wouldn't you agree that then it would be necessary to define BRBLSCX?
3) About the judging, I'll go for it if you think it'll work out. I am unconvinced, since I would probably attempt to use the very same arguments aiguy uses to show why I think IP is non-applicable. But, nevertheless, I'd give it a shot to be impartial and fair.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 2, 2012 @ 3:04 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 4:14 pm
That is not what Daniel said. He said
Quote:
End quote:
I would end to agree with this statement . If our definition of intelligence boils down to ——-what is necessary to explain creation.
Then we will end up with—— intelligence equals God.
However I don’t think that is what Chunkdz advocating.
Let him make his case and we will see
Perhaps, but I could also say something like
"I don’t understand how you could say a particular hardware/software combination is intelligent without defining what you mean by intelligent."
But a lot of prolific robotic and computer industry professionals would seem to disagree.
If they can get along knee deep in AI without a rigorous definition of "I" why not the rest of us?
I’m not in charge but a sincere attempt at impartiality is all anyone of us can do
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 2, 2012 @ 4:14 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Comment by hrun0815 — September 2, 2012 @ 4:31 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Meh. Formatting is apparently not my strength.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 2, 2012 @ 4:33 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Hi FMM -
No, the situation isn't the same at all. In AI research we try to build machines that do what people do, in particular those things that people tend to call "intelligent" when people do it. (These are the "primarily mental tasks" that I describe here). If we build a system that does something that somebody does not feel is a mental task, or somehow is not worthy of the label "intelligent", well we frankly couldn't care less, simply because our systems do whatever they do and whether you feel like calling them intelligent or not is nothing but an argument over the meaning of "intelligent" and has nothing to do with the capabilities of our programs.
I will admit that various companies attempt to use the term "AI" or "intelligent systems" or some such thing in order to differentiate and market their product. This is just advertising – they might also say their systems are "revolutionary" or "leading edge" or any other ill-specified bit of lingo to make customers think they're getting somethings special. But this has nothing to do with us scientists and engineers who research ways to make computers do things that previously only human beings could do. Calling a program of mine "intelligent" is no more meaningful or important to me than calling it "cool" or "awesome" or "interesting". It doesn't say anything at all about the program in actuality.
In stark contrast, ID uses the term "intelligence" as an explanation for biological complexity and various other things (like the fine-tuning of the universe). If ID can't say what is meant by "intelligence" in this thery, then it is simply the case that the meaning of this "theory" is ambiguous, and cannot be evaluated to see if it is true or not.
Comment by aiguy — September 2, 2012 @ 5:09 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Come on hrun
when was the last time you saw an add for a smart phone or intelligent cruse control or an intelligent search engine that ….actually defines exactly what they mean by intelligence and how it is measured
In about 15seconds I found this in an article from CNET
"The Web and the amount of information is growing at such a pace that it's an imperative to build an intelligent system that leverages knowledge and exploits it efficiently for people,"
Statements like this are ubiquitous from those involved in AI. In the quote intelligence is a quality that makes search engines better.
Sounds like an explanatory term to me
One of the pioneers of AI Herbert Simon offers the best operational definition of intelligence I’ve come across yet
intelligence." —A (mental) act or series of acts is intelligent if it accomplishes something that, if accomplished by a human being, would be called intelligent.
If you don’t mind this will be my last response
I’d like to hold off on the chit chat and concentrate on the arguments
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 2, 2012 @ 5:27 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:35 pm
and
I would like to point out that you found exactly what I was saying: "[...]that might fly in popular writing, but not if you are attempting to do science."
Since you are done with the "chit chat", so am I.
By the way, this is not debating what is proposed as the discussion: chunk says he has a useful definition of intelligence, he does not say that ID can just muddle along without defining intelligence.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 2, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
hrun0815:
Yes, that is what I mean.
I am no longer a proponent of ID for that reason (I got tired of telling people "it doesn't have to be God – just some form of intelligence").
For me then the ID argument is weak and too conciliatory to materialism. It essentially says that we can't tell if something simple is designed – only complex things. I no longer agree with that. I think the best form of argument for "intelligent design" is to prove God's existence ala Aquinas' Five Ways (or other philosophical proofs). If you can prove (as Aquinas claims) that God is necessary in order to explain the simplest natural phenomena (change, motion, gradation, contingency, and intentionality), then there is no reason to worry about specified complexity or defining intelligence for the sake of explaining creation. God exists! We can know this! It then goes without saying that the universe is his creation.
That's why I said "why bother?"
For that reason I would recuse myself as a contender for judge in this discussion!
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 2, 2012 @ 5:39 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Thanks for clarifying, Daniel. I got a little bit worried that my reading/comprehension was going down the drain.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 2, 2012 @ 5:45 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Ok
Just one more little piece of chit chat
It seems to me that Daniel is saying that he is not a proponent of ID because it does not hold that the intelligence that designed the universe and biology must be God.
And hurn is not a proponent of ID because it basically just means that God created the universe and biology.
Somehow hrun thinks that they are saying the same thing. Amazing
For my part I already know conclusively that everyone knows that God exists and that he created the universe (Romans 1:19-20).
Therefore ID has nothing at all positive or new to say about God.
On the other hand it’s possible that ID could have something new and positive to say about the universe or biology.
If intelligently designed objects are inherently different than the products of chance and necessity then that knowledge might help us to understand them better and utilize that knowledge for the benefit of mankind.
That’s something that all of us could get behind.
But for some reason instead of exploring that possibility folks on both sides feel they must waste time using ID as nothing but an excuse to argue about what we all already know to be true.
Why bother
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 2, 2012 @ 7:06 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 7:19 pm
I never said that I am not a proponent of ID because "it basically just means that God created the universe and biology." I believe that this is in essence what ID boils down to, but most ID proponents are pussy-footing around this issue.
It seems that Daniel agrees that this is the case. If more people were to give up the pretense and come right out and say that ID holds that God created life and everything else in the universe he'd be just fine with it.
So there are two choices: If ID is supposed to be useful, define what intelligence is. Or, alternatively, come out and say that you can't define intelligence, because you are actually simply talking about God designing life and the universe.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 2, 2012 @ 7:19 pm
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:36 pm
AAAAAAAAh
The level of disconnect boggles the mind
Both you and Aiguy concede that the "useful" AI has no precise definition of intelligence yet as I have shown in the popular press intelligence is used in an explanatory sense all the time in the context of AI
Yet you now demand that ID come up with a precise definition before it can be useful like AI is. This is because in the context of ID intellegence is used in an explainatory sense in the popular press.
My brain hurts from the whiplash
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 2, 2012 @ 8:36 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 4:01 am
Indeed. Sadly, it appears that the disconnect is on your side, probably driven by the fact that ID and AI both have the term intelligence in their title. There are two major difference:
1) Intelligence (and design) are the central explanatory concept of ID. Take one of the arguably most important parts of ID, the explanatory filter: it first rules out things occurring by law, then by chance, and then ascribes it to be the product of 'intelligent design'. Without defining what 'intelligent design' is, this is simply vacuous. That means, one could replace ID with any other term and you would not convey any more information.
AI simply does not have 'artificial intelligence' as the explanatory concept. Some people might call something intelligent or an artificial intelligence, but as we pointed out, only in popular press or PR, but not in the scientific world.
2) Even though AI does not use intelligence as an explanatory concept, nevertheless they go ahead and give you an operational definition of AI systems: "[...]an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success."
Using this definition individual researcher should be able to define which entity is an intelligent agent and which one is not. And separate researchers likely will get the same answers.
ID does not have such a definition. The only definitions I could find are the IP which we will talk about later or something circular like 'intelligent means being able to design stuff that can't be the consequence of chance or necessity.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 3, 2012 @ 4:01 am
September 3rd, 2012 at 5:07 am
Here from UD: "ID Defined. The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."
Here from ARN: "Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence."
Here from ID the future: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Here from IDEA: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."
In all cases the term 'intelligent' in combination with things like cause is used as explanatory for a specific phenomena. If you don't define what you mean by intelligence then the theory is simply 'certain things are not explained by chance/law, but rather by a cause'.
What would change if you were to take the word intelligent out of AI? What would happen if you were to replace it with the definition they offer ("[...]an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success")? We could ask aiguy who is actually working in AI, or we can simply try and figure it out on your own.
I can only implore you to try and read again carefully what people are saying, and not be thrown off by what you believe to be contradiction or incongruency. aiguy lays out very specifically how the term intelligence is used in a post above ("No, the situation isn't the same at all. [...]"). Rather than being frustrated by this supposed disconnect, why not try and understand what he is saying?
[It's the same with your interpretation of the exchange between myself and Daniel. You apparently read a supposed contradiction where there was none. I clearly was able to understand what Daniel was saying since he confirmed that my interpretation was correct, and I also never stated why I am or I am not an ID proponent. Nevertheless, you interpreted Daniels statements to mean something else, and you ascribed a belief to me that I do not hold, and bemoaned the contradiction, rather than attempting to understand what Daniel and I were actually saying.]
Comment by hrun0815 — September 3, 2012 @ 5:07 am
September 3rd, 2012 at 9:07 am
FFM, maybe there is another way to show you that there is no disconnect: I believe that when science writers, company PR departments, spokespeople, or even scientists say that an item is intelligent or smart, then it is legitimate (and necessary for understanding) that one asks 'what do you mean by intelligent?
We have smart grids, smart phones, even smart fridges. You point out that some search algorithms are described as intelligent and so forth. For there to be meaning behind any and all of these statements, one needs to find out what they mean, otherwise these names are vacuous.
Nevertheless, the difference between what AI researcher do and say about intelligence is different from what ID researchers do and say (as you can see from my quotes from the various websites above that define ID and from what aiguy says about his research).
Comment by hrun0815 — September 3, 2012 @ 9:07 am
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:05 am
hrun
Here is the deal hrun I'll try and be gentle with you
You can make this claim but it is nothing but bluster and bluff on a blog.
No one cares. Computer programmers and robotic manufactures will continue on there mary way oblivious to your demands.
Everyone knows what a smart phone is no precise parsing of the language is necessary.
If I say my phone or toaster or search engine is smart or intellegent
Everyone has the expectation that ………
it accomplishes something that, if accomplished by a human being, would be called intelligent.
That is presisly the operational definition that AI uses (recall Herbert Simon).
No one (not even you in real life) is concerned that the definition is circular or imprecise or vacuous we all know what intelligent is and we all know it when we see it.
But for some reason when I state the odvious and say the entity that devised and developed the bacterial flagellum is smart you cry foul and demand I presisely define my terms in a way that is satisfactory to you
no one is buying it
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 10:05 am
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:16 am
Here is the deal part two.
There are even some AI folks who believe that when a computer reaches a level of smartness that is indistinguishable from a human (ie it can pass a Turing test) it should be given full human rights.
I don’t see you frequenting their blogs endlessly demanding that they define their terms before they are taken seriously.
That is the disconnect I’m talking about.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 10:16 am
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:59 am
FFM, thank you for offering to be gentle with me. I don't think that essentially calling me a loud, ineffectual liar is particularly gentle, especially give both my tone and effort in trying to explain my position to you, but be that as it may.
Let's also not pursue your reasoning that 'it's ok if others do it', rather then defending the points on its own merits.
Let's also not discuss that in your eyes only my actions on another blog with another topic would legitimize my arguments, not the logic of the arguments itself.
Let's also ignore that even with the countless smart phones, grids, computers, algorithms, etc the term intelligence is used differently than in ID (i.e. not as an explanatory concept, but rather than a description).
You offered a definition of intelligence you feel is perfectly acceptable for ID, right? An agent is acting intelligently if 'it accomplishes something that, if accomplished by a human being, would be called intelligent.'
If that is the definition you want to run with for ID, let's go for it. In that case I doubt that anybody would have any problem with ID. I, for one, totally agree that whatever process the flagellum arose out of "would be called intelligent if accomplished by a human being". In fact, I would say that very many things that happen in nature "would be called intelligent if accomplished by a human being".
Do you think most other ID researchers would agree that your definition actually describes what they understand when they use the term intelligent?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 3, 2012 @ 10:59 am
September 3rd, 2012 at 11:12 am
These quotes illustrate the problem with ID: It assumes that the rest of the universe (outside of biological life) is "undirected". Aquinas, in his Fifth Way, showed the opposite to be true: the most basic elements of the universe are directed toward determinate ends. Science, for example, can predict how long it will take half of the isotopes in a rock to decay. This "random" process proceeds predictably. This is because things have determinate ends – and this requires God (or so the proof goes).
ID (as I see it) is a Christian reaction to the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in schools – which they see as a challenge to the biblical teaching that God created life. Natural processes (such as evolution) are usually portrayed as "random" and "chance-based" and biological life is held up as an example of something that can't be "natural". The problem with describing nature that way is that it concedes a big portion of the universe to random undirected causes. This is dangerous theologically (IMO) and, at least according to Aquinas, inaccurate to boot.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 3, 2012 @ 11:12 am
September 3rd, 2012 at 11:15 am
It is interesting to see critics of ID from either side of the spectrum see ID (at least in this particular aspect) exactly the same way.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 3, 2012 @ 11:15 am
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:06 pm
That sounds like a descriptive term to me.
Comment by don provan — September 3, 2012 @ 1:06 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Daniel while I’m feeling gentle I’d like to talk to you.
You can talk till you are blue in the face and you will never convince a rebel to acknowledge that God is the creator. If Aquinas was so convincing folks like hrun and aiguy would not be here to argue about it.
Philosophical arguments for the existence of God (the five ways included) presuppose that the enemies of God are capable of setting aside their hatred and animosity of him and using there own at autonomous intellect to judge the strength of God’s claim to be the Sovereign Creator of everything by weighing the evidence from an objective neutral place.
As such they are not only naive but unbiblical. It’s the same sort of intellectual endeavor that the serpent tempted eve to engage in.
On the other hand once we have humbly bowed the knee to the Triune God of majesty mediating on the many obvious evidences of his presence and providence will lead us to worship.
It’s the folks that want to use ID as some sort argument for the existence of God or against evolution that are hindering the development of some truly interesting speculative thinking.
I for one could care less about arguments for God’s existence.
My God does not require puny human arguments to prove his existence
hrun
cool now lets relax and take a gander at chunkz definition
peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 1:09 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:15 pm
before I said,
Just to clarify these folks would include people from both sides of the culture wars
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 1:15 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Me before
DP
Now we are going to argue about the categorization of terms. good grief
According to DO
It’s descriptive to claim my system is intelligent because it leverages knowledge
But it’s explanatory to claim my system is intelligent because it exhibits CSI
Oh the agony
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 1:28 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:33 pm
FMM – as for ratio vs. intellectus and knowledge of God: I agree that God is only known through intellectus (revelation), but I also believe that the existence of God can be known through ratio (reasoning).
The fact that these people are here to argue about it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Aquinas' argument. That's just silly. I could say the same thing about the words of Paul, or Jesus for that matter. Does the fact that not everyone has accepted the words of Christ (in fact some dare to – gasp – argue about them!) mean that Jesus is "unconvincing"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 3, 2012 @ 1:33 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:41 pm
FFM, I get the feeling that an attempt to engage you on this topic has ceased to be useful. In many iterations I have laid out an argument, both about the difference in use of the term intelligence, and also about the fact that intelligence is defined in one case but not in the other.
I then took the definition of intelligence and specifically pointed out that this is a perfectly agreeable operational definition of intelligence and I'd be happy to discuss the consequences if ID were to define intelligence this way. I don't think anybody who believes ID is a useful endeavor would agree with your definition, but I might be wrong.
But now it seems that the definition is not good anymore for ID, right? Now it's chunk's definition? Fine, we can wait and discuss that one. But discussing that definition will not resolve the problem whether or not it is necessary for ID to define intelligence.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 3, 2012 @ 1:41 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Back on topic…
Intelligence is inextricably tied to the mind. (That's why "artificial intelligence" is just that – artificial.)
To give an analogy: We could call a robot an "artificial human". Should we then redefine "human" to include robots? Of course not! Only a human qualifies as "human". A robot is fabricated to be like a human – but it is not human.
It is the same with intelligence – it is the correct working of the mind. Only minds possess intelligence.
Aquinas related this truth in his Fifth Way when he noted that when things without minds act as if they have minds, a mind is required as an explanation. Artificial intelligence is an example of that principle – the "intelligence" that AI systems exhibit is the direct result of human intelligence behind the scenes.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 3, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 3:11 pm
The Bible does not say that the existence of God can be known.
It says it is known
quote:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
(Rom 1:19)
end quote:
I never said Aquinas’ argument was not valid only that it will not convince a rebel
Does the fact that not everyone has accepted the words of Christ (in fact some dare to – gasp – argue about them!) mean that Jesus is "unconvincing"?
Jesus (or Paul or anyone else in schripture) never tried to convince anyone of the existence of God that is because rebels will never be convinced.
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
(Psa 14:1a)
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
(Pro 26:4)
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 3:11 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Back on topic…
Thank GOD,
I agree however
There is a huge contingent of AI folks willing to give Human rights to the first computer to exhibit human level intelligence.
It's a worthwile philosophical discusion to have to determine if these folks are delusional or not. I expect you would find some of the rebels here would agree with you others would not. That is because whether one connects consciousness to intelligence in robots does not have any obvious bearing on the question of God’s existence.
At the same time there are other AI folks who don't bother with the big picture implications but instead just try and make my phone "smarter". I would like to see some of those sort of folks investigate ID when that happens it will begin to be usefull.
peace
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 3:32 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 3:35 pm
God's eternal power and divine nature are said to be "plain to them" and "clearly seen" (i.e. perceived through the senses), and "understood from what has been made" (i.e. deduced from creation).
IOW, the fact that God exists is obvious given creation. Aquinas was just being specific as to five of the ways it is obvious.
As for your "is known" vs. "can be known" distinction, you can't selectively literalize scripture. You can't have the "is plain to them" apart from the "what can be known about God". I don't know of anyone who believes that everything that can be known about God is already revealed to us in the creation.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 3, 2012 @ 3:35 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 4:01 pm
I’m not selectively literalizing anything
The very next verse defines the “What can be known” Namely his eternal power and divine nature. What makes GOD GOD
This is not everything that can be known about God but it is certainly something
Instead you are saying that even is existence is somehow an open question that “can be” known. Not a fact that is known.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 4:01 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 5:33 pm
I apologize for getting so far off topic here but…
Do you see any inconsistency between these two statements? (Because I sure do!)
Explain again how this scripture proves that God's existence "is known".
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 3, 2012 @ 5:33 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Daniel,
I have zero interest in engaging in a debate about apologetic methodology in a forum that is supposed to be about a debate about a definition of intelligence.
If you wish to continue to push a rock up the same hill forever like Sisyphus knock yourself out I’m sure hrun will oblige you.
OK last time
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:19-20)
Notice it says
What can be known is plain to them
Not……… God’s existence can be known by logic and deduction
And it says
God’s power and nature have been clearly perceived
Not
We can deduce his existence from philosophical arguments.
peace out
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 5:59 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Daniel,
The reason we call AI "artificial" is because people make it, rather than find it in nature.
But a robot has artificial hands, feet, knees, eyes, etc. These are real hands, feet, eyes, etc. We needn't redefine anything – we just realize that there are both natural and artificial hands, and they are made of flesh and bone or metal and plastic, and so on.
If you wish say only minds "possess" intelligence, fine – then we build artificial minds.
This seems terribly confused. You believe that God has a mind, and that God designed humans, and that humans act like they have minds, but also that humans actually do have minds. But when humans use their minds to create other things that act like they have minds (that is, AI systems), you deny that AI systems have minds. And finally, you believe that everything that acts like it has a mind must have been created by something with a mind… except of course you don't believe that at all, because you don't believe that God (who acts like He has a mind) was created by something with a mind.
Anyway, you guys seem to have skipped my post about why AI folks have no need or interest in definitions of "intelligence".
Biologists don't need to define "life" in order to go about studying it, because they do not explain anything by invoking the concept of "life". Rather, "life" is just a general description of the sorts of things biologists study, and if they happen to study something that somebody refuses to believe is alive, well, that's not doing bad science, it's just doing science outside of your department.
Same with AI – we replicate mental abilities in computer systems, and if somebody doesn't want to call what we do intelligent, it doesn't change anything at all, because the systems do what they do no matter what you call it.
And as for marketing (or even technical) people saying this or that system is "intelligent" or "smart" – they aren't saying anything more than calling it "cool" or "awesome" or "interesting". There's no information, no substantive claim – just an aesthetic judgement.
ID, on the other hand, is a totally different story. Unless you define "intelligence", then "Intelligent Design" has no meaning, and all these statements on all these websites and books about explaining biological systems by "intelligent cause" and so forth are just nonsense.
Comment by aiguy — September 3, 2012 @ 6:21 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 8:28 pm
hey aiguy,
I'm sorry but I think you are completely missing the point here
ID is not using the term intelligent to explain anything.
If I say that a particular system appears to be the product of intelligent design I’m not saying that intelligence explains the object. All I’m doing is making an observation about the object.
It’s the same as if I say an object is made of steal or hot or heavy
To say an object is heavy does not explain anything but it is helpful information.
Everyone agrees that heavy objects are different than light ones.
The question ID asks is "Are Designed objects inherently different than the products of chance and necessity ?".
I and the ID crowd would say yes you would say no
That’s all.
No explanation just an observation and a question/claim
Again I just could not disagree more. To say my phone is smart is not the same thing as to say it is cool.
To paraphrase the operational definition of AI
My phone is Smart if it accomplishes something that, if accomplished by a human being, would be called intelligent.
This is definitely not the same thing as saying it is cool
I think that I could get any random shopper at walmart to agree with me
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 8:28 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I’ll take another shot at this
Simply put
ID just asks if the products of a smart phone (well executed GPS directions for example) are inherently different than the products of a dumb phone (a dial tone when I lift the receiver for example )
If the answer is yes then ID is true If the answer is no then ID is false
That is the argument in a nut shell striped of all the big picture implications
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2012 @ 8:43 pm
September 3rd, 2012 at 9:41 pm
aiguy wrote:
I can't believe you just pulled out the old infinite regress saw.
Even I, the ignorant layman, know that Aquinas had this bagged and tagged long before the Aristotelian Steady State cosmological model fell in the Twentieth Century.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 3, 2012 @ 9:41 pm
September 4th, 2012 at 2:22 am
FMM,
??? hrun just quoted four ID sites that say otherwise (…best explained by an intelligent cause…)
What you are doing is explaining how you believe the object came to exist, and your explanation is that it exists because some "intelligent cause" created it.
Saying something is intelligently designed refers not to some intrinsic characteristic of the thing (like its weight or color or temperature) but rather it refers to how it came to exist. It is like saying something is forged or extruded or built by a colony of bees.
What do you mean by "Designed Objects"? What I believe you mean is "objects that have been produced by an intelligent being". If that is not what you mean, then what is it you do mean? And if it is what you mean, then by claiming something was designed, you are trying to explain how the thing came to exist, and your explanation is that an intelligent being designed it.
I didn't mean the two words were synonymous ("cool" and "interesting" aren't synonymous either). I meant they are similar in that none of these labels convey information or represent substantive claims – they are just vague, subjective, aesthetic judgements.
No, that is not an "operational definition" (you would need to actually specify how we decide what it would be called if a human did it in order to operationalize the definition). This definition is just what we say when laypeople hound us about whether our systems are really intelligent or not.
I don't understand that at all. In what way is a smart phone intelligent while a dumb phone is not intelligent? Let's say that I believe that since your dumb phone knows how to find the nearest cell tower, use a protocol to connect to the network, and connect to who you're calling, then it should be considered intelligent. How do we scientifically decide if I'm right or not?
Comment by aiguy — September 4, 2012 @ 2:22 am
September 4th, 2012 at 2:22 am
AOFM
Smart of you to disbelieve that, considering I actually didn't refer to an infinite regress.
You miss the point. What I said about the confusion in assuming minds come only from other minds is absolutely true. Aquinas, and all other theologians, would never have said that without qualification, precisely because God is supposed to have a mind and God is supposed to be uncaused.
Again, what you believe is inconsistent:
Everything that acts like it has a mind was created by something with a mind (according to Aquainas)
1) Humans act like they have minds, and were created by something with a mind (God), and actually have minds
2) AI systems act like they have minds, and were created by something with a mind (humans), but… don't actually have minds (why not?)
3) God acts like He has a mind, and wasn't created by anything, and actually does have a mind
Comment by aiguy — September 4, 2012 @ 2:22 am
September 4th, 2012 at 7:11 am
??? hrun just quoted four ID sites that say otherwise (…best explained by an intelligent cause…)
You are reading way to much into this phrase.
I could also say that the difference between a dial tone and a well executed GPS direction is best explained by an intelligent cause (my smart phone)
It’s just an observation. It's valuable information but it is not the same thing as explainging exactly how my smart phone produces the diferent sounds.
peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 4, 2012 @ 7:11 am
September 4th, 2012 at 7:17 am
I'm sorry but I got the definition from the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence and they called it a operational definition if you disagree take it up with them. Talk to me when they capitulate.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 4, 2012 @ 7:17 am
September 4th, 2012 at 7:22 am
aiguy wrote:
You implied it. Explicit references are not needed when you imply the argument. Do I really need to explain this?
Again, what you believe is inconsistent:
No, it's not, if you understand the Kalam cosmological argument and realize its implications since the Big Bang was accepted as a valid scientific theory.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 4, 2012 @ 7:22 am
September 4th, 2012 at 11:39 am
Yes, that's right. It is descriptive to say that a system is intelligent when you are distinguishing it from systems that don't use techniques such as leveraging knowledge. You are not explaining how the system works, that's the "leverages knowledge" part. And, if pressed, the explanation could go deeper. The bottom line is that someone could say, "That system's not intelligent!" and it wouldn't really make any difference, since the description "intelligent" was being used as shorthand (or hype, if you prefer) that is not required to build and discuss such systems.
Specifically, if someone said, "What do you mean by 'inelligent'?", it would be pointless for you to run to a dictionary or demand that the asker define "intelligent", since neither of those would clarify what you're trying to say about your system.
If you want to define a new term "intelligent" that means "exhibits CSI", then you would be using that new term descriptively. (Well, that would incompetent ID, but I think we know what you mean.)
Now if someone asked, "What do you mean by 'intelligent'?", it's also pointless for you to run to a dictionary because you can just say, "'Intelligent' means 'exhibits CSI'!" That would be fine, although I'm not sure why you'd want to invent a new term that can be so easily confused with an existing term that has many unrelated definitions.
Comment by don provan — September 4, 2012 @ 11:39 am
September 4th, 2012 at 11:58 am
FMM,
We agree that ID Theory doesn't "exactly" explain anything. After all, ID doesn't say how this Intelligent Cause designed life, or where, or when, or anything else. Still, there's no ambiguity about the fact that saying an "intelligent cause is the best explanation" is a claim that "intelligent cause" is supposed to serve as an explanation.
Herbert Simon, I believe, is the one responsible for this particular definition, but I don't remember him calling it an "operational definition". (Clearly, one would have to provide a method for deciding what people call intelligent in order to operationalize it). It is certainly not some sort of canonical definition that AAAI – or anyone else – officially endorses. And of course there is no reason to have any such definition in the field of AI, for reasons I have explained over and over here.
ID, on the other hand, is an utterly vacuous endeavor without a canonical technical definition of "intelligent cause".
AOFM,
But the regress was not my point; my point was that if you state that all minds come from other minds without qualification, then you can't offer a theory of first cause. The Kalam scholars recognized this millenia ago, right?
Anyway, we haven't made progress on first cause arguments in all this time, so I'm guessing we're not going to now. The facts are that we never observe complex form and function arising without mind, and we never observe minds arising without complex form and function. Nobody has any good reason to insist that one came before the other.
Ah yes, this is exactly what I meant: Kalam makes an additional claim, starting with that critical caveat Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause. Analogously, you need to add a caveat to Aquainas' claim that everything that acts like it has a mind was created by something else with a mind, except when it wasn't.
Again, I don't think it's productive to argue ancient apologetics here; I have no problem with theology until people try to tell me that it has now gained the imprimatur of science.
And most importantly, you've ignored the other part of the confusion regarding minds: When humans act intelligently, ID folks say they are intelligent, even though you believe they were created by another intelligent being. When computers act intelligently, ID folks say they aren't really intelligent, because their behavior is (as Daniel says) "the direct result of human intelligence behind the scenes." Why then isn't human intelligence merely "the direct result of the Intelligent Designer's intelligence behind the scenes"?
Comment by aiguy — September 4, 2012 @ 11:58 am
September 4th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Aiguy
I'm not sure I understand you
are you saying that the sentence
“The difference between a dial tone and a well executed GPS direction is best explained by an intelligent cause (my smart phone)”
Is vacuous or false?
Because I think you’d have a very hard time convincing a shopper at Wal-Mart that it is either of those two things.
Are you saying that content posted on the websites of the premier authorities of a field can’t be considered the official position of the field?
If only you were consistent about such things when it comes to the content of ID websites.
Peace
PS I'd love to talk to you about the inconsistency of granting the full rights and privileges of personhood to a computer that passes a Turing test while at the same denying them to a entity thats abilities far surpass those required to pass
But That will have to wait till another time
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 4, 2012 @ 5:23 pm
September 4th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
DP
But It is not descriptive to say that a system is intelligent when you are distinguishing it from systems that don't producre CSI????????
WHAT???????
The two statements are logically exactly the same
X is Y because it produces Z
Z in this case is either CSI or leveraged knowledge
If you can't see somthing that simple I'm sorry
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 4, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
September 4th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
descriptive or explainatory
you be the judge
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 4, 2012 @ 5:48 pm
September 4th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
So we still need judges. You guys obviously are interested in the topic.
Volunteers?
Comment by chunkdz — September 4, 2012 @ 6:08 pm
September 4th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
FFM,
PS I'd love to talk to you about the inconsistency of granting the full rights and privileges of personhood to a computer that passes a Turing test while at the same denying them to a entity thats abilities far surpass those required to pass
Which entity is that ?
Comment by velikovskys — September 4, 2012 @ 6:55 pm
September 4th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
I'm not sure what else to say next when I explicitly say it would be descriptive, and you then act as if I said it wouldn't be descriptive.
Anyway, your original point was that the term "intelligent" in the text you quoted was explanatory, and it now sounds like you definitely agree it was descriptive.
Comment by don provan — September 4, 2012 @ 7:04 pm
September 4th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
aiguy:
The confusion is obviously caused by my poor statement of the argument – since you don't accurately describe what I believe. Humans don't "act like they have minds", humans DO have minds. It is the things in nature that DON'T HAVE MINDS that Aquinas is referring to.
That's because AI systems don't have minds.
Nope – that's not it at all.
Let me rephrase the argument: It is impossible for things without minds to behave as if they have a goal or a mind of their own unless there is a mind somewhere in the picture directing (or having directed) them.
It is all about unintelligent, mindless matter and why it does the things it does. (It also has nothing to do with complexity)
I am sorry that my poor wording has caused you such confusion! God does not act like he has a mind, God DOES have a mind (more correctly God IS pure intellect). The whole "acts like it has a mind" part (of my poor paraphrase of Aquinas' argument) doesn't apply to things that actually have minds. IOW, it's not a universal argument – it is specific to mindless natural objects that exhibit intentionality.
I hope that helps clear up the confusion somewhat.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 4, 2012 @ 7:40 pm
September 4th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
aiguy wrote:
First you claim you "actually didn't refer to an infinite regress", but then "the regress was not [your] point".
Make up your mind.
Yes, Aquinas' first cause argument was flawed when viewed through the prism of an Aristotelian universe (i.e., the Steady State).
However, Aquinas' task of assigning God as the first cause became easy once science slammed the lid on (roughly) two millenia of academic consensus.
Unless the chain of minds is finite. Which now it is, thanks to the Big Bang.
In that case, as long as science has theological implications, you will have problems. Like whether or not we can create artificial minds, or whether or not exotic aspects of physics can explain everything about minds… eventually… if we just have enough faith in Science and allow It to fill the gaps.
Ignoring any sects that actually believe such a thing (and I think there are some, though I can't name them off the top of my head), there's the question and importance of free will that is an importance test of consciousness, and in turn consciousness is a crucial component of intelligence.
But all of that is a moot point anyway, since no machine has exhibited anywhere near human intelligence, and according to people a lot smarter than me, no machine possibly could.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 4, 2012 @ 9:31 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 1:10 am
FMM,
What marketers call a "smart phone" has a set of features like GPS while a "dumb phone" does not have those features. We all understand that. It has nothing to do with this discussion of course, and it has nothing to do with the concept of "intelligence" or "intelligent design".
Citation please? If this is on the AAAI site, my guess is they are quoting either Simon or John McCarthy, who was probably responding to some question about what they mean by AI. I would be quite surprised if it appeared in a journal article, and if it did, I can assure you that nobody is using "intelligence" as an explanation of anything.
Every ID website publishes that or a similar statement about what ID is. You don't think those statements reflect ID? Then you agree with me that ID offers no explanation at all for anything, and trying to explain something by referring to an "intelligent cause" is vacuous? Excellent! We are then in agreement.
??? No computer can pass the Turing test yet. If they ever do, I would think a lot of people would begin to feel that computers do indeed deserve to be treated more like a person.
Daniel,
Humans DO act like they have minds, and it is ALSO the case that humans DO have minds. Both things are true.
Let's say I disagree… how do you propose we decide who is correct?
You are begging the question, because you are assuming that computers have no minds, which is the issue at hand.
You are apparently asserting substance dualism. That's fine, I won't argue the point. My stance is that "we do not know".
Again, both things can be true. I act like I'm a human being, and I AM a human being. I act like I like coffee, and I DO like coffee. And so on.
I'm curious: What inanimate object might Aquinas have been thinking about that exhibited intentionality (in the thirteenth century)?
AOFM,
You're working pretty hard to show that I've made some logical error or that I'm ignorant about some obvious point or that I've changed my mind about something. Relax a little.
I said I didn't refer to a regress, and that was completely correct, because I didn't. You said that I implied something about a regress, which is arguably the case – certainly a regress lurks close by. So I clarified that the regress was not relevant to the point I was making.
Two problems with your thinking here: First, cosmology has by no means settled on much of anything – not if the universe is cyclic, nor if it is singular. Second, it is no more evident that a conscious mind could exist outside of space and time than it is that conscious minds could arise from within the physical universe.
It seems crystal clear to me what the answer is to all of this. I'm very confident that I'm correct about this. Currently, the answer to the question of how the universe – and life – began is we do not know.
Well yes, where theology conflicts with science, so much the worse for the theology.
Although Dembski has said "my theology would crumble with the advent of intelligent machines", I can certainly see how theistic beliefs could accomodate strong AI, or theories of mind built on quantum physics.
Yes I thought there were too actually. Do Calvinists believe this?
I disagree with all this. In my view, free will is not a "test" of consciousness. We are conscious, surely, but nobody knows the nature of our will; that is, whether or not it transcends (classical or quantum) physical cause. Also, nobody knows if consciousness is causal or not. We certainly are capable of doing all sorts of amazing mental tasks without conscious awareness, and many studies indicate that we can feel as though we are freely willing something when we are not, so it is far from clear that consciousness is causal and libertarian volition is real.
The people saying that aren't really so smart about this. Nobody knows the limits of AI. We don't know what mental tasks computers will never be able to accomplish, and we don't know if some sort of machine (operating by classic or quantum principles) could ever attain consciousness. You are correct, however, that computers are very, very far away from the capabilities of humans in many, many ways.
I just saw the new movie "Robot and Frank", then asked the people I went with how close we were to having a robot like the one in the movie (which acted like most robots in movies, in other words like a human). Some people thought robots in Japan were already pretty much like the one in the movie. Others thought it would be a few years still. That has often been my experience in AI; when we built something that really pushed the state of the art, laypeople would often respond "Oh, I thought they could already do that!"
Comment by aiguy — September 5, 2012 @ 1:10 am
September 5th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
aiguy says
From here
http://www.rr.cs.cmu.edu/turin...
Raj Reddy's Turing Award Lecture, presented at ACM CS Conference, March 1, 1995. "Human and other forms of intelligence
quote:
Can a computer exhibit real intelligence? Simon provides an incisive answer: "I know of only one operational meaning for 'intelligence.' A (mental) act or series of acts is intelligent if it accomplishes something that, if accomplished by a human being, would be called intelligent.
end quote:
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 5, 2012 @ 5:45 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Those involved in your own field use the term intellegent in exactly the same way that it is used in ID and this is some how not relevant to the discussion in your view.
How convenient
What gives you the right to set in judgment of what is and what is not relevant to a discussion.
It seems to me that calling an entity intellegent because it produces X sort of disqualifies you to cry foul when some one else calls an entity intellegent because it produces Y
but hey I don't use AI as part of my username so what do I know?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 5, 2012 @ 5:57 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
You are equivocating the term "explain"
When I say the burn on my back is best explained by the sun. In the technical sense I have not explained anything at all but I don’t think anyone would say I’ve made a vacuous statement.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 5, 2012 @ 6:07 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
fmm
Ok so it was Raj Reddy quoting Simon in an awards talk. You refuse to comment on the fact that this is obviously not an operational definition, but rather a working definition that attempts to convey the sorts of things AI research focuses on. The definition is OK for that purpose, but I really don't think you (or anyone else) would want to use it as a canonical definition of "intelligence".
For starters, imagine how that definition works when describing the context of human "intelligence":
Not a very helpful definition now, is it?
But if you would like to believe that Simon's definition somehow captures the essence of what intelligence is, then GREAT! Let's settle on this definition for all intents and purposes, including AI and ID! With that definition in hand, you obviously agree that computers are in fact REAL INTELLIGENT AGENTS, just like human beings.
(Raj continues: I know my friend is intelligent because he plays pretty good chess (can keep a car on the road, can diagnose symptoms of a disease, can solve the problem of the Missionaries and Cannibals, etc.). I know that computer A is intelligent because it can play excellent chess (better than all but about 200 humans in the entire world).
So now that we've demonstrated to your satisfaction that all something has to do is something we might call "intelligent" if a human does it (like play chess) in order to be considered really, truly intelligent, where does that leave ID?
First, it demolishes the idea that intelligence is anything more than the operation of chance and necessity (because once you turn on the computer, all that is really going on in there is nothing but chance and necessity, and it really can beat you at chess).
Second, it shows that random mutation and selection is intelligent (because there are plenty of genetic algorithms that accomplish tasks that, if a human being were to accomplish them, we'd call it intelligent). And that means that contrasting evolution and intelligent design is meaningless, because by your own chosen definition, evolution by random mutation and natural selection – that unconscious, "unguided" process – is intelligent.
On the contrary, you have indeed explained what caused the burn – it was the Sun (and not a clothes iron or a cup of hot coffee). We all know what the Sun is, and if somebody happens not to know, we can all tell them just what we're talking about. That really is a perfectly good explanation of how you got your burn.
In stark contrast, ID explains nothing at all. It pretends to explain the existence of biological systems (and the fine-tuning of the universe and whatever else), but it doesn't, because it refuses to say what is supposed to be responsible.
And if you want to use your chosen definiition of "intelligence" from AI, then look how dopey ID turns out to be:
"The existence of complex biological systems is explained by something that can do something that if a human did it we would call it intelligent". Well, um, duh? Yes, if a human produced a complex life form we'd call it intelligent. If a human produced a high-voltage arc of electricity we'd call that intelligent too… so I guess that means thunder clouds are intelligent too!
Comment by aiguy — September 5, 2012 @ 6:31 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
aiguy, two days ago I posted to FFM for this very same definition:
and
Then he certainly was not willing to discuss whether or not ID would fare well with this definition of intelligence. I doubt he is any more willing now. And, of course, FMM also did not seem interested whether or not AI would change at all if intelligence was defined this way or any other old way. Again, I doubt he is more willing now.
There are probably not many clearer ways to show the fundamental difference in how the term intelligence is used in ID and AI.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 5, 2012 @ 7:07 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
aiguy wrote:
That's pretty judgemental of you, considering I didn't name names. Do you base this judgement on your work experience, or the movie theater survey you did about "Robot and Frank", or just on speculation?
Because every time I comment on the subject, you stress that we just don't know this, don't know that, we just don't know. The only you do seem to be certain of is that I'm wrong. I don't know exactly how you can be so certain of that and yet confess to not knowing so much.
Like I said before, make up your mind. Do you know or don't you? If you do, stop using the phrase "I/we don't know" as a rhetorical refuge. If you don't, stop being hypocritically dogmatic.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 5, 2012 @ 7:43 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
aiguy:
It doesn't matter if both things are true. It only matters if the thing we are discussing does not have a mind. There are literally trillions of things in this universe that don't have minds – those things are what his argument is about.
Well you would have to redefine what a mind is while I would not. That's one way.
I'm not begging the question because – if computers DO have minds – then they don't qualify as an example!!!
Not it at all. This has nothing to do with dualism. The Fifth Way is actually a pretty straightforward argument. Have you ever read it?
That is NOT a correct analogy. It would be more correct if you're NOT a human being but act like you are or if you DON'T like coffee but act like you do. But you're still hung up on the whole "acts like" part of the argument – that's why I rephrased it.
You don't have to look far to know what he's talking about. Virtually everywhere you look in nature you see mindless matter behaving as if it has a job to do. His is an argument from final causes loosely defined as "what things point at".
What water does (freeze at 32°F, expand when frozen, dissolve substances, evaporate, condense, etc.) are the things water "points at". The proof stems from the fact that water has no mind, yet it points at all those things. Water can't decide to do those things. The hydrogen and oxygen that makeup water do not have any good reason to come together, form water, and do all those things. Those exact same molecules do many different things. Why does this hydrogen molecule form water and that hydrogen molecule make heat? There is no difference between the molecules – nothing in their properties that explains this. You could say that it's "chance and opportunity" but that doesn't explain why these things happen so predictably.
Now Aquinas didn't have to know the molecular makeup of water to know that it predictably does the same things in the same situations. But here's the thing: the more we learn and the farther down we go into the most basic particles of the universe – the more the same we are discovering the constituent parts of things are. The farther up the ladder we go, the more different things become. The reason then can't be the constituent parts! It must be something else.
I can tell from this that you don't understand Aquinas argument for a first cause either.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 5, 2012 @ 7:46 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
In the words of Inigo Montoya “I don’t think that means what you think it means”
In the very quote I provided it is called an operational definition. If you think Raj Reddy is “obviously” wrong take it up with him
Never said it was a canonical definition (is there such a thing?) I said it was an operational definition. There is no need for a canonical definition.
Just like pornography we know intelligence when we see it.
Sorry but you have not established that a computer or algorithm is just chance and necessity. Call me when you win the philosophical argument that you are having right now with AOFM and Daniel.
The same can be said for intelligence. Everyone knows what it is except perhaps those who don’t like the big picture implications.
It’s not my chosen definition it’s the only operational known to a pioneer of your professed field. As I have repeatedly said even in my first post in this thread
Intelligence does not need to be defined. we know it when we see it
That goes for the "I" in AI as well as the one in ID.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 5, 2012 @ 8:48 pm
September 5th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Hey AOFM,
Sidebar if I may
I think he really does not know
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about philosophical paradoxes where two seemingly contradictory concepts meet in perfect harmony
Mind and matter
Quantum mechanics and general relativity
Free will and determinism
Time and eternity
The solution to all these difficulties is found only in the Word become flesh and as long as one denies this fundamental foundation of all knowledge he is destined to be forever ignorant.
It’s sad really. But seen in that light it’s easy to see why someone would not know whether or not to give human rights to an “intelligent” computer.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 5, 2012 @ 9:07 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 2:00 am
hrun,
True enough; if I had read your responses to FMM I would probably have just said "what hrun said".
aofm,
If I was being judgemental, I would have just said "they aren't really so smart". As it is, I was referring them being not very smart about this (viz. their certainty about the limits of AI).
None of those. My work experience involved building software systems to perform specific tasks, my movie survey was to see what sort of things people believed about the current state of AI, and speculation isn't really relevant when I'm not speculating about any particular thing. Rather, I base this judgement on the uncontroversial observation that there is nothing remotely approaching a consensus among knowledgable people on these questions regarding minds, brains, computers, and the limits of AI.
Yes, that is correct. Nobody knows the answer to these fundamental questions regarding the limits of AI, consciousness, volition, ontology, and other issues in metaphysics/philosophy of mind. If you put four experts on a panel, you will likely get six conflicting opinions on these matters.
I don't think you're wrong about everything (I think you were right about the Calvinists, for example). And I'm not at all certain that any particular idea about this stuff is wrong. Once again (it really is quite simple): I am only certain that nobody knows the answers to these questions (yet, anyway). Like Heisenberg, I can say "I am only certain of our uncertainty."
And yet again: I AM VERY, VERY CERTAIN IN MY UNWAVERING BELIEF THAT NOBODY KNOWS.
Hmm, I'm trying to think of a way to make this more clear. Perhaps bold font? NOBODY KNOWS! I AM CERTAIN OF THAT!
I DO NOT KNOW. YOU DO NOT KNOW. NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I give up.
fmm,
Raj was speaking for a different purpose in a different context. I'm sure he'd agree with me in this context. But what you fail to realize is that we're here to argue ideas, not authorities. If you wish to believe Raj Reddy is on your side, it doesn't make any difference. Argument from authority may play well in your belief system, but in my view it is a fallacy.
Yes, I do believe that intelligence is just like that – a loose, undefined, subjective term. We agree.
If you choose to believe that spirits or res cogitans or magical free will operates inside my PC, then I don't think we need to continue this discussion. I'm actually quite certain that it's just solid state electronics.
rrrring!!!
Now since you know what intelligence is, are you sticking with Simon's definition? EXCELLENT! Sorry but you've really given away the ID farm here, FMM. I'm sure Daniel recognizes this too. For you, machines can have intelligent minds, and so I really don't have anything left to argue with you.
Make up your mind. If that is now your position, then why all the bother about Simon's definition? And why all the nonsense about trying to support ID by reason and evidence?
I thought you religious types were supposed to act ethically, no? Here you're attributing a position to me that I have never said, nor do I believe. Isn't that unethical in your belief system, or does God say that dishonesty is OK?
Daniel,
I don't understand. There are lots of different definitions of "mind", and I certainly haven't picked one. What's your definition of "mind"? How does that definition show that people have minds and AI systems don't?
I have read it, but I never really understood why he thinks arrows or rocks "act for the sake of an end". Guided missiles do (they use negative feedback, the cybernetic definition of acting with purpose), but not ballistic ones like arrows or rocks.
Now, maybe lightning seems to act the sake of an end when it finds a path through the sky to the highest electrically grounded point. So when lightning strikes church steeples, would Aquinas say the lightning "acts for the sake of an end"? So he would then conclude that something with a mind has directed the lightning to hit the church steeples? (People actually did believe this until not that long ago, when Ben Franklin explained to them it really wasn't the church's fault after all).
I'm trying to understand this as you explain it, and I can't. Chemisty explains quite precisely why and under what conditions hydrogen molecules will combine with oxygen to form water, or sometimes hydrogen peroxide. (The reason it makes water more often has to do with the energetics of the reactions, which can be altered by catalysts). Hydrogen reductions are always exothermic, though. And yes, it is precisely the properties of hydrogen atoms that explains all this. And these chemical properties of hydrogen atoms can even be further explained in terms of physics.
But of course a particular molecule will not do the same thing predictably in the same situation, because of quantum uncertainty. The certainty only comes when looking at large statistical ensembles of them.
I'm sorry but I can't understand what you are saying. There are 61 different elementary particles in the Standard Model. Some of these particles mediate forces which constrain the way the particles interact. These interactions lead to the chemical properties that give rise to what we observe in (inanimate) nature. Very simple interactions of elementary things can give rise to infinitely complex structures, with no minds in sight.
I'm afraid these weren't my quotes, Daniel. You are criticizing AngryOldFatMan's understanding of Aquinas, not mine
Comment by aiguy — September 6, 2012 @ 2:00 am
September 6th, 2012 at 7:34 am
The point of Simon's definition is to show that AI is exactly the same boat as ID. It functions just fine with out a explicit detailed definition of intellegence.
When did I ever say I wanted to support ID by reason and evidence? Does anyone try and support AI with reason and intellegence?
ID just asks the simple question. "Are designed things different that things that are not designed?"
ID does not need to be supported, The question needs to be answered
You must have quite a high opinion of yourself single handedly ending a debate that has raged for 3 thousand years and all.
Wow now you are a mind reader, when did I attribute any position to you? I have no Idea what you believe
All I said was
"it’s easy to see why someone would not know whether or not to give human rights to an “intelligent” computer."
Well now's your chance what do you believe?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 7:34 am
September 6th, 2012 at 11:29 am
I'm really struggling here. I can only look again at the most central tenets of ID culled from the most prominent ID websites. I am certain, though, if we were to look through the most current 'ID literature' these or similar definitions would appear as well:
How does in this case help a definition like 'I know it when I see it'? Let's say we find what is responsible for life? How would we be able to ascertain if ID is correct if we can only define 'intelligence' by asking FFM whether or not something is intelligent? How can you even research anything in ID if you are not certain whether or not something is intelligent. Who knows, maybe all people studying evolution are IDists because evolution is actually an intelligence? How would we find out? Ask FMM? Ask if evolution was performed by humans we'd call it intelligent? Have evolution take an IQ test?
No, that is not the simple question ID asks. The question ID asks if there are certain things in nature that can't be explained by chance and necessity alone and therefor are the product of an intelligent cause/entity. To test the validity of such a statement one has to determine if something is an intelligent cause/entity.
How would you ascertain the validity of ID if you do not have a testable definition of intelligence?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 11:29 am
September 6th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
FMM
HERE IS WHY AI DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE A WORKING DEFINITION OF "INTELLIGENCE": Because in AI all we're doing is building computer systems that try and do what people do. That's it. We go about our research every day and never use the word "intelligent" (or "mind" or "designer" or "design" or anything like that). It makes no difference to AI what those words mean. Our computer systems either accomplish the tasks or they don't, and that is the point of AI.
HERE IS WHY ID THEORY NEEDS TO HAVE A WORKING DEFINITION OF "INTELLIGENCE":ID offers an explanation for biological systems, and that explanation is "intelligence" (as hrun as shown over and over again). Unless ID provides the meaning for this term, ID THEORY IS MEANINGLESS.
Sorry, perhaps I mistook you for someone who valued knowledge.
AI is not a theory. Read that a few times until you understand it. AI IS NOT A THEORY. It is not an explanation. AI does not explain anything by referring to "intelligence".
What do you mean by 'designed things'?
In order to answer the question, you must say how you can tell something that is designed from something that is not designed, so that you can then go about describing the difference. Obviously you can tell if a human being created something – is that what you mean be "designed"?
You must have a low opinion of yourself, since you are afraid to read what hrun and I write, and instead respond to things we haven't said. I am the one who insists that these ancient questions (including the mind/body problem, the problem of free will, and also the question of OOL) can NOT be answered, FMM. Get in the game, huh?
1) I believe that ID (that is, Intelligent Design Theory as expounded by both its leading authorities and the vast majority of ID proponents) seeks to explain various phenomena by saying that "intelligent cause" explains it.
2) I believe this explanation is vacuous, because for the most part, ID refuses to say what it means by "intelligent cause".
3) Some ID authorities, like Stephen Meyer in particular, does offer some meaningful information about what "intelligent cause" is supposed to mean: Meyer believes that "conscious agent" is a synonym for "intelligent agent". We all know what it is to be conscious, and so I consider this be a meaningful definition. (A good definition of "consciousness" is "The experience of self which we lose when we fall into a dreamless sleep, and regain when we awaken").
If ID settled on a definition like this (for example, "an intelligent cause is something that produces CSI via the action of conscious processes"), then I would no longer call ID a vacuous theory. Likewise, if ID came up with some other operationalized or intersubjectively verifiable definition of "intelligence", I would not consider it to be vacuous any more.
Comment by aiguy — September 6, 2012 @ 3:56 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
I’m sorry but it’s a little late to complain now
My entire experience with you has been nothing but one large exercise in your holding your supposed expertise in AI over the heads of us poor ignorant laymen. Every single argument you have made has at its core the implied contention that you know better about this stuff because you are an expert. Over and over you have said that folks in your field never do something or always do something.
However when I research for myself I find that maybe you may have exaggerated a little bit. If you want to now say that your claims about what goes on in the world of AI are just your own subjective opinion fine but then we have nothing left to discuss. Opinions are like bellybuttons everyone’s got one.
Let’s evaluate that statement
If you say the sun is the object at the center of our solar system a person from ancient Greece will not understand you because to him the earth is the center of everything
If you say the sun is the bright object you see in the sky a blind person would not understand you
If you say the sun is the object at such and such a galactic coordinate it would not be valid because the sun migrates through the Milky Way
You could not say the sun is the hot orb overhead because the earth is a globe and the term overhead is relative.
I could go on but surely you get the point.
I can think of no canonical definition of term sun can you? Yet we all know what it is. Sort of like the term intelligence.
The fact is there no “canonical” definition for any term. Definitions are always relative. The entire school of postmodernism is based on this observation. Yet in real life we get along just fine
I have no problem with this as long as you concede that the following statement is not vacuous
“The strange erotic dreams he had last night are best explained by his exposure to pornography.”
Once you do our discussion is over because that statement is logically equivalent to the principle claim of ID
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 5:25 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Really? Why don't you then actually address the arguments made, rather than pointing to what others say? aiguy made arguments about how the term intelligence is used in AI and ID. So have I. Have you at all engaged those arguments?
So you don't think this is a vacuous statement? How would you even validate that 'he' in this statement was exposed to pornography? Everybody gets to decide himself? Everybody asks FMM? I honestly have no idea.
So, here's a chance to discuss something without use of any authority: I say the above statement is not true because the person was not actually exposed to pornography. Now what do we do?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Hey hrun
I’ll answer you questions one at a time
There is no need to ask me. We all know intelligence when we see it. You won’t find any argument about what intelligence is ever at all as far as I know. That is unless it has implications that hold to the existence of God
Who said we are not certain whether or not something is intelligent ??? We are certin that is the whole point
Exactly. ID is not controversial at all. That is until you look at the implications.
That would work it's one way to do it
That is exactly what the concept of CSI is attempting to do
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 5:37 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
and
human
human child
human mentally handicapped
dolphin
dog
rat
mouse
penguin
trout
spider
fly
nematode
paramecium
e coli
smart phone
chess computer
deep blue
evolution
So we all know which of these are intelligent or not? And people will agree? Or does deciding this have implications on the existence of god?
And try as I might, I can't understand the three last sentences. CSI is trying to administer and IQ test to evolution? ID is not controversial because there is no way of knowing if evolution is actually ID?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 5:45 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Turn that question around and it simply says
Are some things in nature (the odviously designed things) different than other things in nature (those things that can be accounted for by chance and necessity alone) ?
That is exactly what I said
The same way you determine if the GPS directions I just heard are best explained as being produced by an intelligent entity (my smart phone) with out having a testable definition of intelligence
This is really just common sense
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 5:48 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
I have a really hard time understanding your answers, so I will try and clarify: Do you actually believe that a smart phone qualifies as an intelligent entity?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 5:51 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Yes it says that intelligent things produce CSI so therefore something that produces CSI is intelligent.
Exactly the same as saying that intelligent things choose b on question 1 so therefore something that chooses b on question one is intelligent
No Id is not controversial because it is not anti evolution and it might be that evolution is intelligent.
In the same way that strong AI folks believe it is possible that a computer can be intellegent.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 5:55 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Yes
the Philosophical question (that science can't answer) however is
"Is my smart phone’s intelligence simply a derivative intelligence or not?"
I’ll let Aiguy hash that old argument out with Daniel and Aquinas.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 6:01 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Yes,
Each of those things is intelligent when they do something intelligent.
For example e coli is intelligent when it acquires the genes for antibiotic resistance from an unrelated species.
Again with the Philosophic caveat that it may or may not be derived intelligence.
Since this is a philosophical question it is of course beyond the scope of science
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 6:13 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
You are having a bit of fun here, right?
So, let's assume that you think all of those things are intelligent. Do you now believe that 'we are certain' what is and is not intelligent? Do you honestly believe that people in general would agree with you that all these entities are intelligent?
And, do you also think that having a definition of intelligent agent would work with ID?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 6:21 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Hey Aiguy when I asked before "what do you believe?" You answered
"bla bla bla ID sucks "
Of cource you know that was not what I was asking. I wanted to know if you believe that the first computer to pass a turing test should be granted full human rights and privileges.
well I'll ask again. What do you believe?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 6:29 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
FMM,
If you wish to show that I have ever argued a point on the basis of authority – either my own or someone else's – simply quote what I have said. Otherwise, this is just the the whining of someone with an inferiority complex. Sorry.
This is the second unsupported complaint against me that you've made in as many paragraphs. If you think I have exaggerated something, you'll need to say just what that is, lest everyone sees you're just throwing a little tantrum because you can't actually mount an argument.
My point has steadfastly been that what goes on in AI has nothing whatsoever to do with our debate over the vacuity of AI. It is you who has tried to being AI into the discussion! I have based none of my arguments on what we do or do not do in AI; I have merely rejected your attempts to show that AI "is in the same boat" as ID because "intelligence" has no working definition.
The next time I meet somebody from ancient Greece, I'll be sure to explain the news to him! Hahahahahaha
Actually you're wrong about that. A blind person could not see it, but they do know the words "bright" and "light" and "color" and so on. Also, many people who are considered blind do still see gradations of light.
There is nothing wrong with identifying objects via galactic coordinates, even if those objects move (over millions of years of course), which is why astronomers use them to identify objects. And guess where the Sun is in the galactic coordinate system? In the center, by definition! Ooops, you are wrong again.
No, the Bible uses those sorts of phrases of course ("heaven above"), but scientifically literate people would never be so stupid as to not understand that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Oh yes, we get the point for sure: You are trying to pretend that people do not all agree on what the term "The Sun" refers to. Sorry, but this argument is as lame as it can be.
Hahahahaha
Hahahahahaha
Yes, I know what you'll say – what if somebody is too stupid to understand all this technical information describing exactly what the Sun is? What then?
Take them outside and point to the sun. If they are blind then tell them to face toward the heat. If they are blind and have a medical condition that prevents them from feeling heat, then put their hands on a model of the solar system and explain the the orb in the middle represents the object in question. And if they are blind, deaf, have no feeling in their hands, and happen to be from ancient Greece, then perhaps this person just isn't able to understand what the Sun is.
Your turn! Tell us what "intelligence" is!!!
Really – you are a postmodernist? Who would have thought that!
The last refuge of a religious person who has been trapped in a debate is often hyper-skepticism, but to appeal explicitly to postmodernism is a new one for me! Welcome to postmodernism, the atheistic, morally relativistic belief system of choice for smart, progressive folks like you!
hrun has answered this just as I would. Of course the statement is technically vacuous, since we have no working definition of "pornography". How is this so hard for you to understand?
Comment by aiguy — September 6, 2012 @ 6:31 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
yes
Yes
If they experienced them doing something intelligent
I have no Idea what you are asking. I've made it perefectly clear that no definition of intelligent is nessary for ID or AI
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 6:33 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Well, let's just say that you have made clear that this is your opinion.
Anyway, back to the point at hand:
So the crux seems to be that an entity is intelligent if it does something intelligent. And, according to you, an intelligent agent could be any kind of organism, and electrical device, a physical process, and likely anything else that could do something that we might call intelligent, even if we can't imagine what type of entity this could be.
With that, I can make a grand announcement: I think ID is absolutely 100% correct. There are certain features in the universe best explained by an intelligent cause. In fact, there is surely not a single person who could disagree with ID if defined like that.
Now, I have one last question: Is there any implication at all we can glean from ID being correct? Have we learned anything?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 6:42 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
You could not be more wrong. The point is that everyone agrees what the term "the sun" refers to dispite the fact that there is no "cannoical" definition. exactly like intellegence
Really – you are a postmodernist? Who would have thought that!
Again never said that. Just said that postmodernism is correct in pointing out that definitions are relative. As a Christian my definitional center is in God the only truly objective standard other folks are centered in a whole host of things. Yet we get along just fine in the world
Of course you know that answer would never fly in Wal-Mart or the Supreme Court or your house if the person making the stament was Mrs aiguy.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 6:48 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Cool !!! welcome aboard now you can relax or move on to the next cultural battlefield
1) we have learned that designed things truly are different than the products of chance and necessity.
This is an earth shattering scientific discovery it is nothing less that the discovery of a different type of matter.
Also
2) Depending on your stand on the whole Philosophical derived intelligence question we may or may not have provided supporting evidence to the existence of God.
Which is yet another excuse for us Fundamentalist types to bow our heads in awe and worship.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 7:00 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a second here. How have you learned that? For that you'd first have to show that all those things we agreed to call intelligent 'truly are different than the products of chance and necessity'. Where have we done that?
We have found a million and one things that are intelligent agents/entities (i.e. that could best explain certain features in the universe). We have not shown anything about all of these things. Certainly not that they are not the product of chance and necessity.
We have done what? Sure: if intelligence exists and you believe that all intelligence is derived from God, then yes, we have provided supporting evidence for god's existence. But that certainly has nothing to do with ID.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 7:06 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Why?
ID never said that intellegent things are different than the products of chance and necessity.
It claims that the things produced by intellegent things are different than the things prodused by chance and necessity
Agreed your point is?
ID does not make any claims at all about what explains an intellegent agent. Isn't that your whole point in this thread?
Actually if all intelligence is from God. And you’ve proved that the universe and biology are the products of intelligence (as claimed by ID)
You’ve proved that biology and the universe were created by God.
Can I get an amen
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 7:24 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Yes, you are right. I didn't say that right. Let's try again:
So why have we learned than that things produced by an intelligent agent 'truly are different than the products of chance and necessity'?
We have agreed that some things in the universe are best explained by intelligent agents/causes. We have also agreed that an intelligent cause can be virtually anything, as long as it does something 'intelligent'. How does this show that a 'designed' thing is not the product of chance and necessity?
Sure, and if all matter is from god. All peanut butter, all red, all c minor, … If everything is of god and there is anything, then surely there is a god.
But also if all intelligence is from the great tricorder in the sky, the pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster, or chance and necessity, then we have proved that biology (or anything else) was created by any of those things.
Why would you call evidence for the pink unicorn evidence for god?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 7:36 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
aiguy:
I don't really have a good definition of "mind" – I'm basically going by the fact that it is commonly understood that only beings have minds. When we speak of minds, that's the way we generally use the term. If you want to say that a machine has a mind, then you're not using the term in its general sense.
Arrows have ends (in his example) only because they are shot to their mark by an archer. It is a concrete example of how something mindless can have an end (because something with a mind aims it at a target).
No you can't use the "lightning argument" against Aquinas. He was not arguing that "God aims the lightning" or any other such silliness. He may say that lightning has a particular form and that it has predictable properties because of that form.
By using 'the way nature is' to explain 'the way nature is' you're explaining nothing, and your "no minds in sight" comment begs the question. (The question we're asking: "is there a supernatural mind behind nature that determines how natural things behave" is not answered by saying that you see nature behaving the way it does but you don't see a mind behind it.)
You'll get no argument from me about the fact that 61 basic elements have interactions that give rise to infinitely complex structures. The question is "why?". Like I said, the closer we get to the most fundamental levels of material reality, the more alike things are. The farther up the ladder we go, the more different things become. Why—if all of this is just random interactions of particles, wave functions, strings, or whatever—do these simple elements produce all of these amazing working systems? Why do things do work at all? What explains why basic elements join forces to become something greater than themselves? Why doesn't it stay random? Why order and not chaos?
Sorry, I haven't been able to read every post so I've been skimming.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 6, 2012 @ 8:39 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
You have just said:
We have agreed that some things in the universe are best explained by intelligent agents/causes.
If it is the product of an intelligent agent it is not the product of chance and necessity. How is that not clear?
If for some reason you believe that chance and necessity are intellegent please make your case. But when you do you will be disproving ID.
Actually to say that God created the universe and biology is to make a positive statement about him.
If ID is true (and all intellegence is from God) we know that God is not The Monad of Plato because he actually creates the universe and biology. I agree this is not much but it is enough to make us Bible thumpers do Holy cart wheels.
Now to prove he is not the great tricorder in the sky will require somthing beyond ID.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 8:54 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
If God created the universe it would also rule out the Pantheistic concept that God is the universe.
Again not much but plenty for a Hallelujah or two
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 9:00 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Come on, FMM. Between you and me, we finally got to define intelligence. It's a terribly vague definition that encompasses everything from organisms to electronic devices and physical processes. You are now making the assertion that things produced by such an 'intelligence' can not be produced by chance and necessity.
This is quite the strong assertion and it is completely unsupported. You have to give some supportive evidence for that claim! You can't simply make an assertion like that and when questioned simply say 'take it up with ID'. For starters, I can't, since I am quite certain I will not find many (or any) IDers willing to define intelligence as loosely as you do.
I absolutely agree. But you fail to see that in order to connect god to ID you first need to show that this additional conditional sentence is true: If ID is true AND if all intelligence is from god then you might have shown something about god.
But, of course, even if you only show the second statement independent of whether or not ID is true you have shown the same thing: the existence of god. If you don't show the second statement to be true you have shown exactly nothing about god.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 6, 2012 @ 9:19 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Daniel Smith wrote:
Possibly not, but this guy says the popular version of the first cause argument is abridged. What he says aligns with what I've previously read on the subject and on the Kalam argument. And no, I have not read the primary sources, they're entirely too thick for my dull brain (after marriage, children, a career burn-out, bouts of alcoholism, and various health problems) to cut through.
Aquinas had to come up with a pretzel of an argument to refute atheism in an infinite, Aristotelian universe. The pretzel is easy to untwist in a finite, biblical universe.
fifth monarchy man wrote:
I don't know exactly what he knows, but I do know what I've been promised in the computer field for the almost 30 years I've been in it, with well over 20 of those years as a programmer/analyst.
I can't tell you how many times in those +20 years the intelligentsia have told me I should prepare for the computers themselves to make my job obsolete. I get the feeling that anybody waiting for the abolition of programming might as well be waiting for Godot.
aiguy wrote:
If, as you say later, nobody knows, then they're just as correct and smart as you are about true AI.
If you know more than they do, then just say so and point out how and where they're wrong. If you don't even know who I'm talking about, then congrats, you got the point I was making about you being judgemental.
In that case (there being no consensus), you can't make a judgement call on whether someone is smart or not so smart on AI if they have similar or better credentials than you do on the subject.
If you can't think of anyone who can offer credible opposition to your position on AI, then you're either wrong about lack of consensus or you're wrong about your own judgement.
In that case (nobody knowing the answer to these fundamental questions), you don't know either and cannot judge if anyone else's answer is correct or not.
If you are correct about nobody knowing, then you don't know. If you don't know, then you are incorrect if you say anyone else is wrong for being certain, because that requires certainty and you are uncertain.
You not certain of anything. You don't know.
u mad bro?
You'd be less frustrated and angry if you knew anything.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 6, 2012 @ 9:30 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Once again, this fellow and aiguy have a lot in common:
http://www.clipartheaven.com/c...(a_-_f)/boy_sawing_branch.gif
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 6, 2012 @ 9:37 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Hmmm, that didn't work. I'll just link it instead.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 6, 2012 @ 9:38 pm
September 6th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
hrun,
This has been quite a couple of days when I did not intend to chit chat
Only if they are intellegent
Since it only calls intellegent things intellegent it is not vauge at all.
No that is what ID claims. Remember the central question/claim that I have repeatedly posted in the thread
“Are things that are designed truly different from things that are the product of chance and necessity?”
The question has not changed it is the same question/claim you will find at any ID site (albeit in a slightly different form) as you have been so gracious to repeatedly point out.
As I have also repeatedly said God’s existence is not in question. So the second statement apart from ID tells us nothing new. Everyone knows that God exists.
What ID provides is a glimpse of what God does
Again I agree as I said only if you assume that intelligence is derivative does ID say anything at all about God.
The point is not what it says about God but what it says about the universe and biology.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2012 @ 10:02 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 3:00 am
You may have said that repeatedly, but that does not necessarily make it true. I know some who would agree with you, many for whom god's existence is in question, and others again for whom god's non-existence is not in question. So I would say that at the most you can say that for you god's existence is not in question.
And yes, with that, you may have learned something about the universe and biology. Yet, I am certain that for others the fact that god created the universe and biology was not in doubt either.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 7, 2012 @ 3:00 am
September 7th, 2012 at 3:03 am
AOFM,
Yes, I'm glad you got the point that this is what I'm saying. Whew! Progress!
Good grief! You just got through saying that you finally understand that my assertion is that we do not know whether or not there are limits of AI. And then you turn around and say that these people (who argue that there are limits of AI, claiming that computers will never approach human mental abilities) are equally correct to my position? We can't both be correct, AOFM. Our positions are in contradiction. I say we don't know, and they say we do know.
WHAT? I have already explained my position to you! Here is what I said:
That is why I argue that at this point we do not have good reason to believe one or another position on the limits of AI.
That is my position, and that is my reason. Why is it so hard for you to understand this? I'm not saying anything complicated, or technical. I'm saying that we have no evidential warrant to say "computers will someday be able to do any mental task that a human can", and neither do we have evidential warrant to say "computers will never be able to do all the mental tasks that a human can".
WHAT??? Do you actually believe that "credentials" are relevant to our discussion? That's just weird that you'd think that. Who cares about who has what credential? I certainly never have.
Once again: You said that some smart people in AI had said there were limits to AI. I said was that whoever said that wasn't very smart about this issue. That was my judgement call, and I've given you the exact reason I have made this judgement. These people ought to have realized that nobody can say with any certainty at all what computers of some sort may or may not be able to do some day. But instead, their opinion is that they have it figured out, and the answer is that computers have known limits. Sorry, but in my view that is not a very smart thing to say.
That sentence is incoherent.
Come on, AOFM. Maybe you're putting me on. Read this very slowly:
1) Nobody knows the answers to these fundamental issues
2) I do not know the answer to these fundamental issues either (implicit in #1, but you seem to be confused about this)
3) Therefore the correct answer to the question "Are there limits to what AI can do?" is "We do not know".
4) If anyone answers anything besides "We do not know", they are contradicting #1.
5) Therefore, if somebody says "There are limits to AI", I say they are incorrect (and I countered your claim that these people were smart about this particular issue).
Yes, very good AOFM! That is absolutely right! I don't know any more about the answers to these questions than anyone else!
Oh man. I just got through saying "THE ONLY THING I AM CERTAIN ABOUT IS UNCERTAINTY". Read that again. And again.
I am certain that nobody knows. Thus whoever might claim that they do know I believe is in error.
That's as simply as it can be said. If you can't or won't understand that, I'm content to let the fair readers of the thread decide who was making sense and who was drunk.
??? That "Hahahaha…" is supposed to indicate laughter, not anger. I was laughing because you saying such ridiculous things. Humor of the absurd sort of thing.
I'll admit to being frustrated sometimes, but not angry. I am perfectly content to say that I do not know the answer to these metaphysical questions. It always surprises me that religious people like you have such a hard time admitting that they don't know the answer either.
Daniel,
Do you mean "human beings"? If not, then I have to ask you what is a "being". Do you mean a living organism?
Sorry, but I think you are truly begging the question right here. The whole issue at hand is what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for mind, and you are trying to solve the problem by assuming your answer in the definition.
Let's equate "mind" with conscious experience, just for the sake of discussion. It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether or not a computer could ever have a mind, and how would we know if it did. (In fact this has been my very favorite question since I was quite young). The question is currently unanswered.
Now, that said, let's look at your argument again:
I stand by my claim that you are indeed begging the question, by simply trying to define the word "mind" in a way that eliminates the possibility that a suitably constructed machine could not possibly experience consciousness.
Really? It seems to me quite likely that Aquinas did think God aims the lightning. Most Christians apparently did until the eighteenth century – why wouldn't Aquinas? It is very difficult to imagine how lightning, coming from the clouds, could aim itself toward a church steeple unless something could actually see the church and aim the lightning bolt. What else could Aquinas think could have occurred besides God aiming it?
Science has provided layer upon layer of explanation of things that mystified Aquinas, but of course science hasn't explained the next layer, and there is always an opportunity to ask "why". No matter how many discoveries we've made, and no matter how much of nature we've shown is not due to the gods, there is always some more fundamental mystery that a god could have been involved in. It seems to me that after a while, one would begin to wonder if maybe its turtles all the way down.
Great questions… but again scientists don't believe that everything is "just random interactions of particles". They are distinctly not random, but instead constrained by all the physical relations we've discovered. It's like fractal images – amazingly complex structures arising from very simple constraints.
Maybe a pre-existing conscious mind started it all. Maybe a pre-existing material structure started it all. Nobody knows.
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 3:03 am
September 7th, 2012 at 3:12 am
Okay, I think we finally are getting back to the original point at hand. Maybe, just maybe, we can figure out the 'disconnect' you were talking about earlier:
1) All things that act intelligently are intelligent. (ID, you, and I agree)
2) All things that act intelligently produce stuff that is distinguishable from chance/necessity (ID and you agree, I disagree because we simply don't know).
How can you convince me (or anybody else for that matter) that no 2) is true?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 7, 2012 @ 3:12 am
September 7th, 2012 at 3:33 am
FMM, maybe I can ask the question even more directly:
How can we test that everything that 'acts intelligently' produces stuff that is distinguishable from chance and necessity?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 7, 2012 @ 3:33 am
September 7th, 2012 at 5:32 am
No hrun I can unequivocally without a shadow of a doubt say that for anyone God’s existence is not in question.
The reason I can do this is because the only person in position to know the hearts of every person to ever exist has told me so in clear easy to understand objective fashion.
Perhaps but I was not assured of the universalality of that information.
That my friend is the twenty thousand dollar question. That is where the design filter and CSI and all the rest come into play.
Perhaps you will never be convinced and ID will have failed. Such is the risk of this sort of endeavor.
My only hope is to get you to the place where you can evaluate the case rationally with out being hung up in the culture wars
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 7, 2012 @ 5:32 am
September 7th, 2012 at 5:49 am
No hrun I can unequivocally without a shadow of a doubt say that for anyone God’s existence is not in question.
Fine. Let's not talk about this, since in that respect then anything that can be said is completely futile.
I don't think so. What you (supposedly) can do with the design filter and CSI is to determine if something is not the product of chance and necessity alone. It does not show that it is the consequence of an intelligent act.
One would need to determine what an intelligent act is and then show that such an intelligent act creates let's say CSI (or you can show that when CSI is created an intelligent act had to be performed).
But again, how do you show this? So far your only criterion for intelligence is that some entity or cause acted intelligently. So, again, the question is: I have CSI, I have a cause. You need to convince people that this cause is intelligent. How do you determine that other than saying clearly the cause is intelligent because it acted intelligently?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 7, 2012 @ 5:49 am
September 7th, 2012 at 5:58 am
By the way, such statements are also completely and utterly vacuous, except for what they imply about the person making the statement.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 7, 2012 @ 5:58 am
September 7th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
And scientism once again rears it's hideously deformed head.
I'm no longer stupefied when otherwise smart people say the dumbest, most irrational things simply in the interest of keeping out God.
It's just another candid indication of where a person's priorities lay.
Comment by chunkdz — September 7, 2012 @ 1:28 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Wrong again I'm afraid, chunkdz. Very, very wrong you are.
You (and just about every other religious person I debate with on these boards) are singularly unwilling to accept what my position is.
You insist on characterizing me as a materialist, but I am not at all a materialist. I think materialism hasn't even been well defined for the past 100 years.
You complain that my priority is "to keep out God" when I have no interest at all in dissuading people from having faith. I am absolutely open to the idea that transcendental minds exist, and always have been. I don't think that theism per se (the bare belief in transcendental mind) is irrational or ignorant or wrong or that it leads to bad behavior or anything else like that.
You accuse me of adhering to scientism, when I am probably even farther away from such thinking than you are! I am a mysterian, someone who is convinced that profound mysteries surround questions of mind and origins that science hasn't begun to comprehend. I suspect that some mysteries (especially regarding the phenomenology of consciousness) will never be addressed by science.
It seems that my ability to acknowledge the fact that we do not know the answers to these questions, and my comfort with that situation, threatens religious people as much as they are threatened by scientism itself – or even more. In any event you don't know how to argue against my position, so you throw me in with people who you are accustomed to arguing against.
Anyway, my statement about science pushing back theistic explanation is uncontroversially true of course. Ancients really did ascribe all sorts of phenomena to the direct actions of various gods, and science really has made a series of discoveries that explain these phenomena without resort to gods. Sorry, but those are the facts.
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
After all, it's not like I haven't tried to make my position quite explicit:
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 2:03 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Aiguy,
I am a mysterian, someone who is convinced that profound mysteries surround questions of mind and origins that science hasn't begun to comprehend
One of these guys?
http://www.96tears.net/
Comment by velikovskys — September 7, 2012 @ 2:39 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Then show us one of your many scientific papers that falsified god.
Your position, as stated above, is that science has falsified god in many instances. I don't accept that. Furthermore, it makes it apparent that you have no clue how science works or what science even is.
Nope. Try again.
The belief that science can falsify god is a prime symptom of scientism.
Whatever. You are also a scientismist if you believe what you just wrote.
Science has nothing to say about gods. You cannot scientifically test for gods. You cannot scientifically falsify gods. It is inherently unscientific for you to declare that science has shown that no god was involved in this or that.
The only people who make such outlandish claims in my experience are scientismists – people who unscientifically exaggerate the power or utility of science.
You sir, are a scientismist. And you are irrational. Accept it.
Comment by chunkdz — September 7, 2012 @ 2:45 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
chunkdz,
One of your least coherent comments to date, I'm afraid. You've displayed two obvious confusions in this single sentence. First, nobody needs to publish a paper in order to have a worldview, and second, "god" is not a falsifiable concept.
If you didn't have your strawmen to knock around, what in the world would you do? As any reasonable reader can see, I have never once attempted anything like "falsifying god". Read what I've said, and try to understand it.
As well you shouldn't. If anybody actually does try to "falsify god", you can tell them that AIGUY says it can't be done.
Hahahahahahahaha
Ok: You insist on characterizing me as a materlialist.
(You've accused me of Scientism, which entails materialism.)
That has nothing to do with me, oh great slayer of straw men.
Yes, you are absolutely correct here. All perfectly true. Well said.
??? Seriously? You think that pointing out the obvious truth that science has displaced gods as the immediate causal explanation of various phenomena (the tides, the seasons, the motion of the planets, lightning, and so on) is tantamount to attempting to "scientifically falsify gods"??? Really, that's a very lame mistake on your part.
It just seems to get your goat that I don't reject the existence of gods, much less try to "falsify them scientifically". You just can't stand that my position is that we don't know. It just kills you that I'm able to happily admit that these questions remain unanswered, so you pretend that I have this hidden belief that science really has proven that gods don't exist.
You are so trapped in your battle with straw men that you can't see the substance of my argument, which is not only that science can't prove or falisify gods, but that the concept of "gods" is utterly ambiguous, ranging from meaningless rhetoric on one hand to overly specific (empirically unwarranted) conclusions on the other hand. My view is that there is nothing irrational about choosing to believe that mind transcends and preceded matter (just as there is nothing irrational about choosing to believe that matter preceded mind).
But of course you'll ignore what I say, and continue to pretend that what I really am is an ardent, atheistic, materialistic, scientistic dogmatist. Oh, well.
The world must be a very scary, confusing place for you.
Anyway, I've abandoned hope that you will read what I write, but for the benefit of others, I've made my position crystal clear.
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 3:32 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
velikovskys:
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 3:33 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Lol! Not only do I read it – I recite it back to you. Once again…
And again, science has never – cannot ever – show that something is "not due to a god". You have a fundamental, irrational, and foolish view of science. Scientism!
And apparently you think that you can escape your irrational scientism by making more weird statements like the following:
Aiguy, science has NOTHING TO SAY about god. Science cannot "displace" god. It cannot be a "better explanation" than god. It can't even begin to address the question, much less show that something is "not due to god", as you so foolishly assert. That you think science has shown that lightning, tides, etc. are "not due to god" is beyond ridiculous. It betrays your fundamental lack of rational understanding.
If god were making tides and lightning, science would have absolutely NO WAY to make a determination one way or the other about it.
There is no way – never – ever – in a million years – ever – ever – ever that science will be able to say something was "not due to god". Period. Ever. Nevereverevereverever.
That kind of irrational statement is only produced by people like yourself who abuse science for your own purposes – whatever they may be.
Did I mention that this can never ever happen? Ever?
Nope. Just that you think science has proven that something is "not due to god". And it doesn't get my goat. I've seen it too many times in too many critics to get upset. You are simply one more data point in a growing data set of critics who's worldview is propped up by the fundamental abuse of science.
Oh, the "I'm a victim" card. So sad.
It's hard to pretend to be the victim, though, when all I have done is repeat your own words back to you.
Comment by chunkdz — September 7, 2012 @ 4:35 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Umm no. I don't think you are a materialist. I think you are a scientismist. They are not the same, and one does not entail the other.
Comment by chunkdz — September 7, 2012 @ 4:42 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
chunkdz,
Oh, my – it's worse than I thought. Acknowledging that Thor did not actually throw lightning bolts at ship's masts does not constitute scientism. But if you wish to believe that Thor remains the best explanation of that phenomenon, then we really do have nothing left to talk about.
You are hilarious. According to you, not only am I a believer in scientism, but I also have this urge to "escape" my own beliefs! Hahahahahaha that really is funny.
Well, at least for once you've made yourself clear. For you, Thor remains the best immediate, causal explanation for why lightning strikes ships' masts. Why do we even bother trying to figure out all that stuff about electricity anyway? The best answer is still going to be "god"!
I think it's pretty much Neptune who does the tides (he also uses his mighty breath to cause storms at sea, so he's a pretty busy god).
Apparently you somehow mistake the fact that science has found convincing, immediate, causal explanations for these phenomena for the claim that this means gods do not exist. Could you really be that confused?
Ah – I think you've finally (sort of) explained what your point is! If you weren't so anxious to mislabel my philosophy, you might have simply made your case for this in the first place. Oh well.
Apparently you are making the point that because gods can do absolutely anything, they could even manipulate every subatomic particle in the universe to make them follow what we have discovered as natural laws. Oh yes, chunkdz, brilliant. You've simply illustrated the value of Occam's razor, and you've shown why people who actually understand science talk about abductive inferences rather than proof.
Nor will science be able to say something was "not due to invisible unicorns" or "not due to magic" or "not due to hallucinations in your head, because you are actually a brain in a vat".
There is no limit to the sorts of possibilities you can imagine, and science can never, ever, neverevereverever disprove a single one of them. Be my guest and explain the world however you wish. The rest of us will continue to choose physics over Thor as an explanation for how lightning manages to find ships at see and church steeples. Have fun with that!
You seem to be descending into paranoia here. Do you now believe I am an evil scientist bent on world destruction?
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 5:11 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
It does if you credit science with this discovery. Can you imagine the abstract of that article?
We trained multiple cameras on a lightning rod and failed to see the supernatural god known as Thor, or his supernatural hammer. The measured value of Thor did not match the expected amount of Thor in our Thor meter calibrated to the Thor coefficient. We can only conclude that Thor is, at best, a negligible factor in lightning.
That's fine. Just stop saying that it was science that showed that lightning is "not due to Thor".
If anybody doubts that aiguy is irrational I invite them to simply read these two quotes of his back to back:
Irrational. Self-contradictory. Scientism.
Comment by chunkdz — September 7, 2012 @ 5:51 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
You are definitely not a scientist.
Comment by chunkdz — September 7, 2012 @ 5:53 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Comment by chunkdz — September 7, 2012 @ 5:53 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
What you (supposedly) can do with the design filter and CSI is to determine if something is not the product of chance and necessity alone. It does not show that it is the consequence of an intelligent act.
We know that somthing is the consequence of an intelligent act because it is the sort of thing that intelligent entities do.
Recall that is the reason we know an entity is intelligent in the first place.
Whether it is an consequence of an intelligent act is not in question. What is in question is "Are the products of intelligent acts inherently different than those that result from chance and necessity?"
Things like CSI and design filter if they work could show us that.
I have other ideas about what might be able to test the question as well perhaps we could talk about them sometime.
Say What ???? An intelligent act is an act that can best be explained as coming from an intelligent cause/agent
Recall my example of GPS directions.
The theory is that all CSI is only found in the results of intelligent acts. We can falsify this claim by showing that CSI can come from unitelligent things like chance and necessity.
Again a cause is intelligent if it does the things that intelligent causes do. We have covered this multiple times.
I get the feeling you are trying to discover some sort of logical inconsistency in that argument. I can assure you there is none
The only question is are the products of intelligent causes different than those produced by chance and intelligence
That is how you determine it. How else could you possibly determine anything.
I determine the sun is infrared energy source because it produces infrared energy.
I determine uranium is radioactive because it produces radiation.
I determine a cow is a mammal because females of the species produce mammary secretions.
Etc etc etc
This is not rocket science
I understand why you would say this (self deception is a powerful force).
What I don’t understand is why you don’t complain when aiguy has repeatedly made (with bold type) the logically equivalent statement that he is certain that no one knows the limits of AI.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 7, 2012 @ 6:20 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
AOFM: (from your link)
This guy badly misunderstands the fundamentals of Aristo-Thomist thought. He makes the mistake of assuming that Aquinas means "first" in order – when he really meant first in priority. For Aquinas, the argument is not about historical causal chains (these he concedes could go on to infinity because the cause and effect do not have to coexist). No, for Aquinas it's about all the causes in action right now. There simply cannot be an infinite chain of active, coexistent causes behind a present effect. There must be a primary uncaused cause.
It just amazes me how many people can assume Aquinas was just some dolt when they haven't bothered to even try to dig in and find out what he really meant!
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 7, 2012 @ 7:49 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Chunkdz,
Science does indeed get credit for the discovery. Here's how it happened: While people were still trying to figure out why God hated church steeples so much that He kept hitting them with lightning, guys like Faraday and Maxwell were busy figuring out the physics of electro-magnetic energy. Ben Franklin built on that work and published experimental results that demonstrated that lightning was electricity, and that it would seek the highest electrical ground – which provided an explanation for why church steeples were so often hit by lightning. This explanation was very convincing for many reasons, was consistent with many other phenomena, and enabled predictions that could be confirmed by further experiementation. As Franklin convinced people to put lightning rods up, the whole "God hates church steeples" thing gradually subsided.
By the way, Faraday and Maxwell were devout Christians, and Franklin called himself a Christian, too (though he also said he was a Deist). None of these folks were stupid enough to think that simply because they removed God's direct involvement from the phenomenon of lightning they were somehow trying to "falsify God". They were happy to have provided an explanation that showed God didn't have to bother Himself with aiming all the lightning bolts, because that could be now explained via the laws of nature.
Excellent! You now apparently agree that the scientific explanation did in fact replace the divine intevention theory! I call that real progress. Welcome to the 18th century!
Gosh, I'll stop saying it if it really upsets you, but it is quite obviously the truth. When scientific explanations work so well, we make the abductive inference that they represent the best explanation for the phenomenon in question, and in so doing, we displace other theories (such as "God did it").
Freud called this "projection", where somebody attributes their own failings to others.
I have already shown that providing scientific explanations for these phenomena obviated the need to invoke divine intervention. Occams' razor requires that if divine intervention didn't add any explanatory power, it should be eliminated as an explanation. And so this has happened, over and over and over again throughout history, whether you like it or not, and this is what it means to say that much of nature has been shown not to be due to the gods. So I am 100% correct about that.
I also said "'god' is not a falisfiable concept", and I am also 100% correct to say that. If you had been paying attention, you would have learned that simply displacing divine intervention as an explanation for how lightning works has no bearing on the question of God's existence. It is precisely as I said to Daniel: You can keep replacing "God did it" with powerful scientific explanations over and over again, but no matter how much you explain, you can never "falsify God".
Actually I am, but I'm not a scientisimist.
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 8:03 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Maybe there could a thread where Aiguy and Chundz debate whether Aiguy is a sciencismist ,there could be judges. Or course first there needs to be an operational definition of sciencismist.
Chunkdz,
If god were making tides and lightning, science would have absolutely NO WAY to make a determination one way or the other about it
Science could say that the effect is explained by a natural cause, gravity or agitated electrons. In other words the proximate cause does not require a divine nudge. And that is it's ability.
God might want/ need to wipe out millions of people thru the Black Death but there are scientific explanations for the plague as well. It lets God off the hook for causing natural mayhem and all the horrible things done by man. After all,why believe humans are different? We could be God's unaware puppets.Controlled like lightning.
Aiguy.
Your sciencism make me think this is what your cult is about,world domination
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...
Angrymiddleagedfatman,
Oh brother,if you think the mid forties are old,you have some really bad surprises in store. Favorite recipe?
Comment by velikovskys — September 7, 2012 @ 8:04 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Daniel,
I put this in with another post, and didn't know if you saw it. I find you to be a knowledgeable and thoughtful debater so I'd like you to see it.
Do you mean "human beings"? If not, then I have to ask you what is a "being". Do you mean a living organism?
Sorry, but I think you are truly begging the question right here. The whole issue at hand is what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for mind, and you are trying to solve the problem by assuming your answer in the definition.
Let's equate "mind" with conscious experience, just for the sake of discussion. It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether or not a computer could ever have a mind, and how would we know if it did. (In fact this has been my very favorite question since I was quite young). The question is currently unanswered.
Now, that said, let's look at your argument again:
I stand by my claim that you are indeed begging the question, by simply trying to define the word "mind" in a way that eliminates the possibility that a suitably constructed machine could not possibly experience consciousness.
Really? It seems to me quite likely that Aquinas did think God aims the lightning. Most Christians apparently did until the eighteenth century – why wouldn't Aquinas? It is very difficult to imagine how lightning, coming from the clouds, could aim itself toward a church steeple unless something could actually see the church and aim the lightning bolt. What else could Aquinas think could have occurred besides God aiming it?
Science has provided layer upon layer of explanation of things that mystified Aquinas, but of course science hasn't explained the next layer, and there is always an opportunity to ask "why". No matter how many discoveries we've made, and no matter how much of nature we've shown is not due to the gods, there is always some more fundamental mystery that a god could have been involved in. It seems to me that after a while, one would begin to wonder if maybe its turtles all the way down.
Great questions… but again scientists don't believe that everything is "just random interactions of particles". They are distinctly not random, but instead constrained by all the physical relations we've discovered. It's like fractal images – amazingly complex structures arising from very simple constraints.
Maybe a pre-existing conscious mind started it all. Maybe a pre-existing material structure started it all. Nobody knows.
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 8:07 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
aiguy:
You know, I don't know how to define "mind" in such a way that it excludes machines so I'll concede that point for the sake of argument. (It is not central to my position that "mind" be defined anyway.)
That's not the "whole issue" as I see it. Let's say that your machine qualifies as having a mind – so what? How does that affect my argument?
It's really NOT what I was talking about. I used AI as an example because it is NOT the natural tendency of silicone, plastic, copper, etc. to come together and form minds. It STILL requires a "real" mind to explain it. So call it what you want.
Even if he did believe that, it was not in any of his arguments or proofs – so it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
No discovery of science has undermined Aquinas' arguments in the least bit. His arguments are based on simple everyday observations: things change, there are causes, some things are contingent, some things are better than others, and many things in nature tend toward predictable ends.
Nice try but Aquinas doesn't try to fit God in the gaps. He makes rational arguments that the very nature of the world around us requires God (even the turtles!)
Now, if you really want to refute Aquinas you have to first show that you understand his arguments. Otherwise you're only refuting yourself.
Yes – so? Like I said – I know these things aren't random (because things have distinct forms (natures) – even the most basic elements). The question is "why ISN'T it random?"
Lots of people know with a certainty that a pre-existing supernatural mind started it. It's very basic really: no material thing can be the cause of all material things! The primary cause must be immaterial.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 7, 2012 @ 8:16 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
For anyone interested in a much deeper, more thorough discussion of the philosophy of mind (issues I'm only marginally familiar with), I'd recommend Ed Feser's blog.
His last three posts were on the subjects of: brain hacking and mind reading, consciousness in animals, and intellect and concepts.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 7, 2012 @ 8:24 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
hrun,
I'm not sure how you maintain your patience with fmm:
1. An intelligent act is an act that can best be explained as coming from an intelligent agent
2. An intelligent agent is something that performs intelligent acts
wow.
Comment by aiguy — September 7, 2012 @ 8:25 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
What is the problem with those statements? I can think of many just like them. For example
1) milk is a fluid that is secreted by female mammals
2) Mammal are a species in which the females secrete milk
or
1) A puck is an object used by hockey players
2) hockey players are individuals who use pucks
or
1)Radiation is emitted by radioactive material
2)Something is radioactive if it emits radiation
or
1) A scientist is someone who utilizes the scientific method
2)The scientific method is utilized by scientists
All of these staments are perfectly logical and none of them is vacuous. Of course none of them are definitions.
But they are not intended to be.
Perhaps your exasperation results from the mistaken notion that I am attempting to define Intelligence.
I have no idea how you got this idea. I have repeatedly said that intelligence does not need to be defined.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 7, 2012 @ 9:06 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
That lightning is "not due to god"? Lol!
If lightning were truly a token of God's divine displeasure science would not know or ever be able to know. Franklin, Faraday, and Maxwell found the mechanism of lightning, not the knowledge that God was turning his head, closing his eyes, and taking his hand off the controls during every lightning strike.
Good Lord. If I hadn't seen this kind of irrational crap almost on a daily basis for the last ten years I would scarcely believe that a learned engineer such as yourself could believe the crap that you do.
Aiguy abandons science once again as he attempts to psychoanalyze me by reading one sentence of a blog entry.
Again, aiguy insists that science has something to say about God. As if there is some test one can perform to measure the amount of "God" something has in it.
Scientism. Irrational.
Which of course has nothing to do with your claim that the tides are "not due to gods". Science can show that tides are an effect of gravity. Science says nothing about whether God intended for for the tides to occur.
However, scientismists nearly always attribute to science the ability to make grand sweeping claims about the supernatural. It is because you make grand sweeping claims about the supernatural and attribute them to science that I call you a scientismist.
Comment by chunkdz — September 7, 2012 @ 9:56 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Yes, and to verify that statement we need to figure out what is an intelligent act. And, of course, we know what intelligent act is: it's if something acted intelligently.
You know, I just had a long flight and realized that this is really not going anywhere if you can write such a post with a straight face. Actually, even if you don't have a straight face and write it just in jest, it's also a waste of time.
I think I'll just let others decide if you concept of intelligence (something is intelligent if it acted intelligently) is of any use.
Good grief. Really? Do you really believe this? Do you not see the difference between that in one case the thing you measure is clearly defined (e.g. infrared radiation, mammal) and in the case of intelligence the only definition you can offer is 'entity acted intelligently'?
I give up.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 7, 2012 @ 10:47 pm
September 7th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
When asked about how to recognize intelligence you simply said that if something performed an intelligent act it was intelligent. So for you that was not trying to define intelligence? What was it then?
If you want to attribute other things to intelligence (e.g. performs acts not due to chance and necessity) you will have to have a way to determine if something is an intelligent entity or act.
As I said before: I don't think we'll get anywhere. I have given up.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 7, 2012 @ 10:56 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 1:53 am
All right then! What is wrong with these, uh, descriptive statements (that sound exactly like definitions)? The problem is that they are circular, so unless you already know what the words mean, they provide no information. If you don't understand this, simply replace these words with words that have no pre-existing meanings.
Here are imaginary dialogues to illustrate the point:
As you can hopefully see, after FMM's descriptions, we have learned precisely nothing about either a foosbatch or boogdah.
Likewise when FMM talks about intelligence:
Here we get no information at all about what FMM means by either "intelligent agents" or "intelligent acts".
Logic is not the problem. The problem is that they don't say anything – both terms remain meaningless.
Sure, you don't have to do anything. But if you want to make sense when talking about ID, then yes, you do need to say what you mean by "intelligence".
I honestly do not know what you mean when you refer to an intelligent agent in the context of ID. Some people mean "an entity that acts neither randomly nor deterministically". Some mean "an entity that creates CSI". Some mean "a living organism". Some mean "an entity who is capable of foresight". Some mean "a conscious being". Some mean "an agent with contra-causal free will". Some mean "anything that exhibits intentionality". And so on, and so on, and so on.
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 1:53 am
September 8th, 2012 at 1:58 am
chunkdz,
For the umpteenth time, the scientific discovery supplanted the divine intervention theory.
We're not going to get any farther here. I think you are in a tiny minority, even among ID enthusiasts, if you believe that God really does aim lightning bolts. Many people used to think this, but finally realized that Franklin's explanation was far superior. I've never met anyone who believes that the reason lightning frequently hits church steeples has anything to do with God's displeasure, and the reason is because scientists figured out that it is because the steeples are tall and conduct electricity.
Again, you put words in my mouth. Science has nothing to say about God (mainly because "God" has no scientific meaning). Science displaces theistic explanations by providing better explanations, that's all.
That is ridiculous. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Perhaps some of your confusion is that you are confusing what I have been referring to as "immediate causes" (or "proximal causes") with something more removed. As I have said over and over again, you can always ask "why".
So to preserve your gaps for God, you can surely say "Ok, lightning strikes steeples because of the properties of electricity, fine. But why does electricity act like it does? Yes – that must be God's will!"
I certainly won't argue that with you, as I've also said over and over again. But obviously these are NOT IMMEDIATE (or proximal) causes! The explanation for lightning striking steeples used to be divine intervention, and now science has come up with a better explanation, and so nobody believes in the divine intervention theory of lightning (except for you perhaps).
Since you ignore what I write, I am left simply copying what I've said previously:
and
Over and over I make the same point, and over and over you ignore them and continue whining that I'm saying science has falsified God. Unbelievable.
What utter nonsense. I have made precisely ZERO claims about the supernatural. Really, show me where I have made one single claim about the supernatural, chunkdz. Are you really that desperate to win an argument with me that you just intentionally make up stuff and pretend that I said it?
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 1:58 am
September 8th, 2012 at 2:52 am
Daniel,
Well, it seemed to be pretty important up until now. We were talking about your original claim that that people have minds and AI systems don't. I asked you came to this conclusion and you said it was because that is what "mind" means. I said you were begging the question, and you said you weren't. I reiterated that yes, you really were simply assuming your position in your definition of "mind", and you said that "only beings have minds". I asked you what a "being" was, and now you say that you needn't even say what a "mind" is because it isn't "central to your position". That's a bit of a runaround…
Anyway, you now concede that machines might have minds… except you think it isn't central to your point. Well, that was my point, so I'll take it that according to you, mental function needn't necessarily transcend chance and necessity, and so a computer may be intelligent and have a mind.
I was thinking your argument was that machines don't have minds, so I'd say it was pretty relevant.
Here is how you started this topic with me:
It seems to me that the meaning of the word "mind" is quite central to your position, actually, and so is the claim that AI systems can't have minds.
I call it a "mind". Now you seem to be trying to distinguish a "real" mind from… what? A faux mind? An imaginary" mind? You've just conceded that machines can have minds, but now you're saying they're not "real" minds.
I suppose you can guess what I'm going to ask you next: What is the difference between a "real" mind and a mind that is not "real"?
I'm not sure this is irrelevant either (why did you argue it?), but I'll let it go for the sake of argument.
Fair enough – I certainly am not well versed in Aquinas.
You got me interested in this when you said your topic was that "only minds possess intelligence" and that AI system don't have minds. You've backed off of these claims, so I'm not sure what else about Aquinas I'd care to debate.
I understand this, and that is why I debate here. I think it is perfectly evident that this certainty is misplaced.
We don't know how the cause of all material things could be material, and we also don't know how the cause of all things could be "immaterial". We don't know if there was a primary cause, or perhaps everything was uncaused. Even if we decided that the universe was caused, and that it was caused by something "immaterial", we have no reason to believe that this immaterial cause was a "mind" (especially because you really aren't even sure what you mean by "mind" in the first place!).
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 2:52 am
September 8th, 2012 at 8:50 am
hrun,
Cool
In spite of myself I have enjoyed the chance to discuss this
I think I’ve presented a reasonable case for the position that a “canonical” definition of intelligence is not necessary before the claims of ID can be considered
Now I will wait in anticipation for Chunkz to present the case for his definition
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 8:50 am
September 8th, 2012 at 9:04 am
agreed, your point is?
exactly because definitions of those things are not nessary (in AI or ID) that is the whole point.
once again for the umteenth time
an intellegent agent is an agent that does things that are considered intellegent.
my phone is smart because it produces accurate GPS directions for example.
I think the reason this is so hard for you deal with is because you are jumping to philosophical implications instead of dealing with the actual words said.
In every day life we use the term intelligence meaningfully all the time and it never causes any argument.
That is until we get into a philosophical conversation about whether to give full human rights to a computer that passes a Turing test or whether the creator of the universe is personal.
I for one would just assume not let philosophy interfere with my science. That goes for AI as well as ID
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 9:04 am
September 8th, 2012 at 10:21 am
FMM, it is truly sad if you believe that's what we've been doing. It was never a question of ID coming up with a canonical definition of intelligence. The question has always been: what does ID mean when they talk about intelligence. It's a question about an operational definition.
You yourself said that ID is making the claim that intelligent acts have certain properties. They produce CSI, they act outside of chance and necessity, they best explain certain features in the universe, … For any of those statements to have any meaning you have to be able what both things are.
This is not specific to ID. If in science you make the statement 'abc has property xyz' you need to at least have an operational definition of both abc and xyz, otherwise the statements are vacuous. And saying you can recognize abc by seeing if something abc'ed is insufficient as an operational definition.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 8, 2012 @ 10:21 am
September 8th, 2012 at 10:21 am
aiguy:
That's a metaphysical claim to say "Goddidntdoit".
If you want to retract, retract. Otherwise you just claimed that science has falsified the influence of God in nature. And that's scientism.
Personally, I suggest you retract the statement. I no longer think you are a scientismist. I think you are simply too arrogant and proud to ever admit you were wrong and so you've gone through winding contortions to try to polish up your turd.
Of course, if you AREN'T a scientismist and you STILL don't retract your metaphysical claim then I must conclude that you are simply disingenuous.
Comment by chunkdz — September 8, 2012 @ 10:21 am
September 8th, 2012 at 10:26 am
I appreciate your willingness to be an adjudicator, but you are the only one who expressed an interest in doing so. I don't see any point in debating aiguy unless it includes the potential benefit of a documented victory.
Comment by chunkdz — September 8, 2012 @ 10:26 am
September 8th, 2012 at 10:31 am
FMM, the problem is not that anybody wants to jump to philosophical conclusions, but that we simply want to get to scientifically testable statements. To evaluate claims ID makes about intelligence we need to know what they mean. Your circular or colloquial definition of intelligence is useless for that purpose.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 8, 2012 @ 10:31 am
September 8th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Wow. Chunk and I agree: I also don't any point in you debating aiguy.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 8, 2012 @ 10:33 am
September 8th, 2012 at 11:10 am
But that's just because you have a closed mind.
Comment by chunkdz — September 8, 2012 @ 11:10 am
September 8th, 2012 at 11:52 am
chunkdz,
What the science says is "lightning is electricity, electricity has such-and-such-properties, these properties predict such-and-such behaviors, we observe and confirm these behaviors", and so on. Science explains and makes predictions about the phenomena in question. That is what science does.
Now, when a scientific theory comes along, there are going to be other beliefs that the theory replaces. Maybe some people thought lightning was magic, and some thought it was the breath of a dragon, and some thought the sky was ripping. The new theory replaces all of these beliefs, because the new theory explains and predicts so well. But the theory – the science – isn't about magic, or dragons, or rips in the sky; it is about electricity.
It is not the case that science makes any claims about the supernatural, or about gods, any more than it makes claims about magic or dragons or rips in the sky. Still, all those beliefs are displaced by science, simply because science comes up with better explanations.
Poor confused you. Nobody says science falsified God, only that our scientific theories replaced all other explanations because the scientific theories were better. It replaced other explanations that we don't even know about, because people no longer had to make up stories to explain what they saw. We have a very useful, testable, confirmed understanding of electricity that explains a great deal about lightning and many other phenomena as well.
Not only is what I said true, it is obviously true, and it is uncontroversially true. You seem to be the only person who wants to believe that scientific theories have not displaced animistic and theistic explanations of the weather, tides, seasons, and so on. You are all alone.
I guess you can add that to the long list of things you're wrong about.
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 11:52 am
September 8th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Hey hrun
I thought you’d given up. You really are a glutton for punishment
The operational definition of any term will depend on the specific context of the statement
Lets me use the smart phone example to illustrate
My phone is intelligent (smart)
Abc= my phone
Xyz= intelligent (smart)
In this particular case “my phone” is defined as the object in my right hand and “intelligent (smart) ” is defined as the ability to produce accurate cell phone directions.
Hope that helps.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 12:02 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
fmm,
Ok, now you're beginning to understand. Yes, operational definitions are wholly dependent upon context.
The reason ID is vacuous is because the context is undefined (nobody will say what the "designer" is supposed to be), so we have no operational definition for intelligence in the context of ID.
This is the reason ID calls for a "canonical" definition of intelligence – because all of the other operational definitions of intelligence that scientists use (like IQ test scores) are inappropriate in the context of ID.
Progress!
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 12:18 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
What??
When talking about my phone. What the ABC is the object in my right hand my
When talking about the universe. What the ABC is the designer of the universe.
When talking about biological flagellum. What the ABC is is the designer of the bacterial flagellum.
This is not difficult. Why can you not grasp such a simple concept?
What????
I’m sorry but CSI is precisely an IQ test. Did you miss my conversation with hrun
Jim is intelligent because he picks b on question 1
is logically equivalent to
The designer is intelligent because it produces CSI
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 12:54 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
I want to apologize for the hundreds of spelling and formatting and grammatical errors I’ve made in this thread.
It’s a good thing that I’m not taking a test that measures intelligence by those metrics
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 1:01 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Okay. So now in the context of ID:
Abc=intelligence
What does it mean in this context?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 8, 2012 @ 1:07 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
fmm,
Ok, so your operational definition for "intelligence" is the context of your phone is "the ability to produce accurate cell phone directions." Good so far.
Right. Now we need an operational definition for "intelligence" in the context of the designer of the universe (or, as ID says, "certain features of the universe and of living things"). Good so far.
Yes – the designer of all of complex form and function (or "complex specified information" in biological systems. That is the ABC, and we need an operational definition of "intelligence" for this designer.
I grasp it perfectly well. As I said, we are in agreement about this. I'm just waiting for your operational definition of "intelligence" in the context of ID.
No, CSI is not an IQ test. An IQ test is one of several standardized sets of questions adminsistered to human beings, including the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler intelligence test.
Yes, if our operational definition of "intelligence" for human beings is stated in terms of IQ test scores (and it usually is for people), then this statement would be perfectly valid.
Oh, I see. Here is where you run into a problem. ID says that "certain features of the universe and of living systems are best explained by an intelligent cause". When we ask which features might those be, we are told that "complex specified information" exists in the fine-tuning of the physical constants, and in biological systems such as flagella and eyeballs and blood clotting cascades. It is this "complex specified information" (CSI), we are told, that cannot arise from natural processes of chance and necessity, and only arise from intelligent cause.
Are you with me so far?
So then we ask "OK, what do you mean by 'intelligent cause' in this context?
And you reply, "'Intelligent cause' is defined in this context as "something that is able to produce CSI".
Then we say, HUH????? Because all you have said is "The CSI we observe in the fine-tuning of the physical constants and in biological systems is best explained by… something that is able to produce CSI".
That is like explaining the Northern Lights by "that which produces the Northern Lights".
That is like explaining protein folding by "that which folds proteins".
That is like explaining how the Sun produces light and heat by "that which produces light and heat."
And that, FMM, is why ID is a completely vacuous theory. QED.
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 2:17 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Do you not recall when I told Daniel that ID has absolutely nothing positive to say about God?
ID is not about intellegence it is about the products of intellegence
Your questionis just silly
It would be like me asking to define the origin of the earth in the context of plate tectonics.
Plate tectonics presupposes that the earth had an origin but it is not concerned about defining it.
Instead Plate Tectonics says that given that the earth exists in a certain way we can expect it to have certain properties.
In the same way
ID says that
.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 4:21 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Ok here is the point you are missing.
"Produce CSI" is just like "Give accurate GPS directions" or "pick b on question 1"
These are all things that we expect from things that are intellegent.
My phone or Jim or the designer is smart becase it does what I would expect smart things to do.
For the thousandth time we are not explaining "intelligence" we are explaining the products of intelligence.
Why can you not see that?
I think your difficulty arises because you believe ID is about God. It is not it is about what God has made.
If your statement were really like ID it would be like saying
"Some paticular lights in the sky are special and best explained as being the result of unknown forces concentrated only in in the north and not typical stars."
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 4:45 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
please omit "unknown" from the last sentence
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Why are you bringing up god when we are trying to find out what intelligence means in the context of ID?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 8, 2012 @ 5:16 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
fmm,
OK, fine.
Huh? I'm intelligent, and I can't give accurate GPS directions. So that definition does not apply to me (nor to any human beings that I know… Homing pidgeons are intelligent in that way however, so I guess that means a homing pidgeon is more intelligent than people? Hmmm.
Really? What do we expect smart things to do? I'm smart, but I can't hide thousands of nuts in the fall and then remember where each one was in the spring, so I guess I'm not smart like a squirrel. I can't compute square roots of nine digit numbers in a fraction of a second like my calculator can, so I guess I'm not smart like a calculator. I saw an autistic savant who could instantly multiply nine digit numbers in his head, but he couldn't learn to read or tie his shoes… was he smart? I like to say my dog is smart, but she can't read or write. If something is smart, can it play chess? My sister can't play chess, but my computer can (world class chess!), so I guess my computer is smarter than my sister?
What a mess. I guess this whole "what we would expect" approach to defining intelligence is a losing proposition. Looks like you actually have to describe what it is we expect intelligent things to be able to do.
ID does not set out to explain intelligence, that is correct. ID claims to offer the best explanation of the origin of CSI in the universe and biological systems.
1) ID says the best explanation of CSI in the universe and biological systems is an "intelligent cause".
2) You define an "intelligent cause" as "something that is able to produce CSI".
3) Therefore, ID explains CSI in the universe and biological systems by "something that is able to produce CSI".
4) Therefore, ID is a vacuous explanation.
Tell me which of the statements 1-4 above you take issue with and why.
It is about explaining features of the universe and living things that contain complex specified information.
No, it would be "The northern lights is best explained by something that causes lights to appear in the sky". That is an explanation that says nothing at all – in other words, it is "vacuous". It gives us absolutely no information or understanding of the phenomenon we are trying to explain. Exactly like ID.
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 5:40 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Number four the problem is an apparent misunderstanding regarding definition of the word explain
a quick check of my word processor dictionary gives 5 definitions for explain
1. vti give details about something: to give an account of something with enough clarity and detail to be understood by somebody else I explained to him that we had no option.
2. vt clarify meaning of something: to make the meaning of something clear to somebody Can you explain this sentence to me?
3. vti give reason for something: to give the reason for something that has happened, often as justification for it Let me explain why I'm late.
4. or ex·plain your·selfvr justify behavior: to give reasons to justify personal behavior or actions You'll have to explain yourself to the principal.
5. or ex·plain your·selfvr make self understood: to express ideas or thoughts in a way that is easily understood I'm not explaining myself very well.
The ID claim is using "explain" in the everyday sense of the first definition you on the other hand seem to be fixating on the more rarely used 3rd definition.
Early in this thread I "explained" this to you yet you don’t seem to be getting it.
peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 7:31 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
aiguy:
I'm sorry but the confusion is all my fault.
I was actually making two separate arguments:
1. That intelligence is inextricably tied to the mind.
2. That nature has to have a mind behind it.
For the first argument, yes the term "mind" should be defined, but at the time you asked me to define it, I was well into my second argument and I assumed you were talking about minds in the context of that argument.
My 2nd argument (ala the Fifth Way) is based on things that obviously don't have minds so the gray area you see between human minds and AI is completely irrelevant to that argument. I further confused the matter when I used the example of AI (because I wrongly assumed that everyone would agree that computers don't really have minds).
So let me just define what a mind is as I see it:
It is A) something that only living conscious beings possess and B) something that thinks by its nature.
So, for me, AI doesn't qualify as having a mind. I was willing to concede that point for the sake of arguing the Fifth Way. I am not willing to concede it for defining "intelligence".
I hope you're not as confused as I sound!
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 8, 2012 @ 7:40 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
I'm just trying to understand your irrational disconnect in this thread.
The only thing I can think of is that your hatred of all things pertaining to God is causing you to be unable to follow the flow of the conversation because you believe that conceding the argument will somehow make you be unable to maintain your rebellion.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 7:43 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Wow. Now I am absolutely baffled.
You bring up god when we are discussing intelligence in the context of ID. I ask you about it and you complain about my disconnect and surmise is due to my hatred of everything god.
I can only ask again, but maybe somebody else can answer: what is FMM going on about?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 8, 2012 @ 8:07 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
fmm,
So you agree with #3 and take issue with #4. OK…
To review:
3) Therefore, ID explains CSI in the universe and biological systems by "something that is able to produce CSI".
4) Therefore, ID is a vacuous explanation.
I'll ignore the fact that the statements of ID that we've quoted here all come from ID resources (web sites, books, etc) which all argue that not only does ID explain the CSI of the universe and of life, but it explains it scientifically. But I've been on these boards long enought to realize that ID proponents quickly drop that requirement, and end up trying to justify ID as being any sort of explanation at all – you know, like, just an everyday, informal, easy-going, not-too-serious sort of explanation.
Does ID even meet this criterion to qualify as an explanation? Well, no, of course not.
This first definition of "explain" says that it means "give details about something". But as we've seen quite clearly, ID gives no details about anything. All it says is that the CSI in the universe and living systems is best explained by something that can produce CSI. There are no details in that statement. There is not even any information in that statement: Of course whatever created this CSI must have been capable of creating CSI!!!
Telling somebody that the CSI in the universe was created by something that can create CSI is not giving an account, is not giving details, and is not enabling them to understand anything about anything.
This car was produced by something that can produce a car! This mountain was formed by a process capable of producing a mountain! If only explanations were this easy, we could all explain everything!
So no, FMM, ID really, truly doesn't explain the CSI in the universe or anything else. Not scientifically, and not even in this easy-breezy everyday sort of explanation you are thinking of.
As ID is presented by the authorities we've cited, ID is utterly, completely vacuous – it says nothing at all.
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 8:44 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Daniel,
OK, that's fine. We all know what consciousness is, so that is a perfectly meaningful definition.
"Thinking", I'd say, is much more problematic semantically. For example, when confronted with the world chess champion computer program Deep Blue, some people (including the grandmasters that Deep Blue defeated) say that the computer thinks, while other people say it doesn't think. This prompted AI researcher Drew McDermott to famously quip "Saying Deep Blue doesn't really think about chess is like saying an airplane doesn't really fly because it doesn't flap its wings."
I assume this is because you don't believe computers are conscious. Is that right? (I don't believe that our current computers are conscious either, in case you're wondering). However, I would not agree that computers don't "think", because that term isn't defined in a way that we can decide if, say, designing a novel electronic circuit, or devising a mathematical proof, or playing championship chess constitutes "thinking" or not.
These are difficult topics, and clarity requires great care.
So at this point, if you're willing to drop the semantically nebulous "thinking" part of your definition, your claim seems to be:
1. Intelligence is inextricably tied to a conscious mind.
2. Nature has to have a conscious mind behind it.
Right?
Now, in order to evaluate your first claim, we still need to settle on what we mean by "intelligence". In this case, it would be perfectly valid to use "ability to produce CSI (complex form and function) as a working definition, because we aren't attempting to explain CSI by reference soley to "intelligence" (which obviously would produce the circularity that FMM has been struggling with here).
That leaves us with this:
1. The ability to produce CSI is inextricably tied to a conscious mind.
2. Nature has to have a conscious mind behind it.
If we agree that nature contains CSI (and I am willing to do that), then two is superfluous, and your critical claim is one (that is, if CSI requires conscious mind and nature contains CSI, then nature requires conscious mind).
So, do you agree that the point at issue is "The ability to produce CSI is inextricably tied to a conscious mind."?
I certainly believe that this is the critical issue underlying all of these debates. I disagree with this statement, and believe I can muster arguments against it, but let's first see if you agree this is the central issue to debate.
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 9:07 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
This is like pulling teeth
OK here we go again. as slowly as I can
consider the following number set
(0630244864426320448248401620462)
I can make the following true statement
The 3rd and 14th and 24th digit Are best explained as being produced by process X
This statement provides an important detail. It tells you a something about the number set. namely That 3rd and 14th and 24th digit number were produced by a different process than the rest.
This is fully analogue of the claims of ID.(Notice that there is absolutely no need for a definition of process X ).o make the statement meaningful and true
Now if you ask me to define process X and I tell you that it is a process that produces odd numbers.
It does not change at all the details that were provided in the claim.
You still know that The 3rd and 14th and 24th were produced in a different fashion than the rest of the set .
Now get over it
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2012 @ 10:18 pm
September 8th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
FMM,
No, because you neglected to say "The rest of these digits were not produced by process X." If you had said that, then we would have learned something about those digits, which would be that those three digits were produced by a different process than the rest of the digits.
No, sadly, you're wrong here too, because ID makes the same mistake you did above: While ID says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent process, it does not say that other features of the universe are not best explained by an intelligent process. For all ID tells us, everything about the universe and living things is best explained by the same process, whatever it is.
Since you argue that it is not important for ID to define the term "intelligent", then obviously it would make no difference if we replaced that term with another undefined term, such as "process Y".
And you are really trying to tell me that ID provides a non-vacuous explanation???
Where are the details??? What are we supposed to clearly understand in a detailed fashion?
Come on, FMM – give it up. ID provides no explanation of anything as long as you insist on using this circular definition of intelligence ("that which creates CSI") to explain CSI.
You're having a hard time here, I know, so here's a hint: Use a different definition for intelligence and ID will no longer be vacuous. How about defining "intelligent cause" as "conscious agent"? Don't you believe that it requires consciousness in order to design things? We all know what consciousness is – that is a perfectly meaningful, non-vacuous description that could be used as an explanation for CSI.
Get over being right all the time? Sure, I don't let it go my head.
Comment by aiguy — September 8, 2012 @ 11:33 pm
September 9th, 2012 at 1:34 am
aiguy:
Sure. Occam's razor and so on. But science does not then go on to say that it's "not due to god". That's akin to saying "goddidntdoit" which is not science but metaphysics. Scientism, to be more exact.
Really I'm a little shocked that you can't simply say "I misspoke" or "I'd like to amend my statement". Trying to defend such a ridiculous statement is stupid.
Why are you being so silly? This is like Science 101 stuff. It would be just as easy to say "Now we understand God's handiwork a little better" as it would to say "it's not due to God". But neither statement is under the purview of science.
Do you understand?
Comment by chunkdz — September 9, 2012 @ 1:34 am
September 9th, 2012 at 2:54 am
chunkdz,
Of course science does not say it's not due to god!!! Science doesn't say it's not due to dragons or spirits or elves either!!! The way scientific theories have shown these phenomena are not proximally caused by gods is by providing better explanations, not by attempting some scientific disproof of gods!!! What part of that is not clear???
Not only is what I said true, it is obviously true, and it is uncontroversially true. You seem to be the only person who wants to believe that scientific theories have not displaced animistic and theistic explanations of the weather, tides, seasons, and so on. You are all alone.
You do not understand, because you don't read what I write and respond to it.
HERE IT IS, EVEN SIMPLER FOR YOU:
1) Lightning hits church steeples with disturbing frequency – more often than it hits saloons or brothels!
2) Folks believe God is aiming the lightning at the churches, try to figure out why God doesn't aim the lightning at the saloons instead
3) Scientists explain that lightning is electricity, and they explain why lightning preferentially hits church steeples, and use their theory to invent lightning rods
4) Folks say "Wow! All this time we thought the lightning hit our steeples because God was aiming at them, but now we know it wasn't God doing that – it was just the high electrical ground and the way electricity works! Gee, thanks, scientists!"
See? Science isn't doing any metaphysics, they don't even mention God, and there's no scientism involved. Still, the fact that lightning hit steeples was no longer thought to be due to God, but rather it was found to be due to electromagnetic conduction. In this way, scientific theories displace theistic explanations.
Read. Weep. Repeat.
Comment by aiguy — September 9, 2012 @ 2:54 am
September 9th, 2012 at 7:54 am
And I guess I’ll have to pull another tooth
The implied (sometimes explicit) part of the ID claim is that other things in the universe are not best explained as being the product of intelligence but instead can be explained as being the product of chance and necessity .
Recall that this is precisely Daniel’s beef with ID.
ok I'll repeat myself again more slowly
We are supposed to understand that numbers in the set originated to more than one process. “Process X” for the 3rd and 14th and 24th digit and “not process X” for the rest of the numbers.
Is that detailed enough for you?
Ah ha now you finially have revealed yourself.
You do believe that the first computer to pass a Turing test should be given human rights. You think that intellegence equalls conscious. Don't you?
I on the other hand have a much different criteria for determining if an entity has a soul (is conscious) than you do.
My criteria is much more objective and concrete than yours.
I believe that the soul (consciousness) is nothing less than the divine light/image of God shining in men. It has nothing to do with whether or not a man is intelligent or can design anything at all.
quote:
In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it………………The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
(Joh 1:4-11)
The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD.
(Pro 20:27a)
end quote
My phone or a computer or a dolphin or e coli might verry well be intelligent they might even design things but they are not conscious because they are not made in the image of God.
Of course none of this trip down the theological/philosophical rabbit hole has anything whatsoever to do with the claims of ID.
Why must you always try and mix philosophy with science.
peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 9, 2012 @ 7:54 am
September 9th, 2012 at 9:37 am
Aiguy to chunkz
I and everynone I know believe that scientific theories have not displaced animistic and theistic explanations of the weather, tides, seasons, and so on.
How could they?
So in my circle of aquantence it is Aiguy who is alone
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 9, 2012 @ 9:37 am
September 9th, 2012 at 10:33 am
If there is one thing I learned from this, then it is that in some cases 'discissions' are simply a waste of time and effort. It's not even the case that some people speak two languages, but that there is disagreement on even the most basic points in logic and reasoning. In that light I am not at all surprised that chunk does not stand alone or that FMM and everyone he knows agrees with him.
This teaches a sad but powerful lesson. Unless absolutely necessary there is no reason to attempt to engage somebody in a discussion unless these unless there is agreement on these most basic points. Fortunately, in most realms I commonly frequent I have found such shared understanding.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 9, 2012 @ 10:33 am
September 9th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Aiguy:
Aiguy, previously:
Irrational. Self-contradictory. The hallmarks of scientism.
I must reach my previous conclusion that you are a scientismist since you seem incapable of seeing the irrationality of holding two conflicting opinions simultaneously and vehemently defending both.
Fascinating, isn't it folks?
Comment by chunkdz — September 9, 2012 @ 12:15 pm
September 9th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Actually, the probable theistic response is more like "Wow, so that's the mechanism that God uses to send lightning! Gee, thanks scientists!
Does that help jog you out of your irrational stupor? Probably not. From my experience is just causes more bloddflow to be diverted from your reasoning frontal lobes to the emotional pleasure centers of your brain. I await your cognitively dissonant, emotionally charged response.
Comment by chunkdz — September 9, 2012 @ 12:21 pm
September 9th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
chunkdz wrote:
It is.
He is completely incapable of introspection and self-critique. This is absolutely congruent with your earlier observations of atheists.
It's like they are trying hard to be the meat robots they claim to be, and they believe there's nothing better to aspire to.
hrun0815 wrote:
And yet you keep coming here. It's almost like you can't control yourself. Like you're driven by neurochemistry and DNA to spasmodically shuffle into a place you hate.
Darwinism has been short-circuited. A quarter of a million years ago or so, you would have been weeded out because of your uncontrollable wandering into bear caves and sabre-toothed tiger dens.
Hell, Darwin's ghost may still get a chance at you. There are two-legged meat robots gradually taking over who "select out" robots like yourself. And the weaker DNA and neurochemistry is forcing your ilk to have fewer and fewer children and to be as submissive as possible to the stronger sub-species.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 9, 2012 @ 5:44 pm
September 9th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
BEIJING — Survivors of a series of earthquakes that killed 81 people and injured more than 800 in a mountainous area of southwestern China were desperately waiting for more aid to arrive Sunday as jolting aftershocks kept fears high and hindered rescue efforts.
The latest victim was a 2-year-old child who was hit by a falling wall as an aftershock struck Saturday night, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported.
Wow ,so that's the mechanism God uses to drop a wall on a two year old
Comment by velikovskys — September 9, 2012 @ 5:52 pm
September 9th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
aiguy:
Well thinking was only part of it – the full quote was "something that thinks by its nature". So it's not just the act of "thinking" but the fact that a true mind has thoughts by its nature. And, a thinking being has a mind by its nature. That is why I disqualify computers and such because, even if they do think, that process is artifactual. Like I said before, it is not in the nature of silicon, plastic, and copper to form thoughts – that ability has to be imposed upon those things from the outside (by a conscious mind).
I can agree to that.
I don't want to tie "intelligence" to CSI. Like I said before, intelligence is the correct working of the mind. I think the basis of intelligence must be inextricably tied to the mind. I think it is a mistake to try to define intelligence apart from the mind. (A computer can produce CSI!) We can make something that acts like it is intelligent, we cannot make something that IS intelligent (if "intelligence" is tied to real minds that is).
You must realize that the reason I push for these things has to do with the Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) metaphysics I have embraced. In A-T metaphysics everything is about forms and causes, natures and essences, etc. A true mind is a mind by its nature and a mind is part of an essence of a being – it is not something separate. A computer is designed to imitate the mind – but a computer is an artifact (made by a being whose nature is to design things!)
I would argue against #1. I would agree with #2.
No. I want nothing whatsoever to do with CSI. My argument for a mind behind nature is inextricably tied to teleology – NOT to CSI. I would prefer to stick with my argument.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 9, 2012 @ 7:01 pm
September 9th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
(Luk 13:1-5)
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 9, 2012 @ 7:02 pm
September 9th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
velikovskys wrote:
THEOLOGY BY VELIKOVSKYS:
God must not exist if gravity works. God also does not exist ifshoddy engineering and construction causes buildings to fall over.
When the apotheosis of Velikovskys occurs, he will turn off gravity and will hold all buildings up with his god-hands no matter how they're constructed. And then he will consign 1,000,000,000 Chinese to oblivion so the remainder can have lebensr… I mean, living space.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 9, 2012 @ 7:37 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 2:02 am
FMM,
Since you've neglected to define "intelligence", and you've denied any need to do so, how in the world do you conclude that "intelligence" is somehow different from "chance and necessity"?
I've already suggested something that would help a great deal to eliminate this confusion. What you need to do is stop using this one undefined term, "intelligence", and begin to use a different undefined term (such as "process Y") instead. (This is actually a very helpful practice in philosophy; David Chalmers calls it the "elimination method" which helps eliminate confusion over contentious terms).
So now your argument reads "The implied (sometimes explicit) part of the ID claim is that other things in the universe are not best explained as being the product of process Y, but instead can be explained as being the product of chance and necessity". This is obviously a non-sequitur, since there is no reason to think that process Y is not itself the action of chance and necessity.
Now you have said that there are at least two means by which these numbers have been produced, one of which you are calling process X. You have provided precisely zero information regarding process X. You have provided absolutely no reason to think that you have identified particular numbers that were produced in one particular way and that the other numbers were produced differently. Moreover, it will be impossible for you to do so, since you have stated nothing at all about the process you are attempting to associate with some numbers and not others.
So no, FMM, you have provided no details, no understanding, and therefore no explanation of how any of these numbers were produced. But yes, it is quite analogous to ID in this way.
You are a laugh riot. You (and chunkdz too) act as though I am for some unfathomable reason hiding my true beliefs, or saying things I really don't believe, and you wait for me to "reveal myself". The fact of the matter is that I am saying exactly what I mean, which is exactly what I believe, and I have no reason whatsoever to hide my true beliefs!
Stop telling me what I believe – you are consistently wrong. I never said this, and I've already corrected you once about this in no uncertain terms.
What is wrong with you? Why do you insist on lying about what I believe in order to try and win this argument? Don't you think there is anything immoral about that?
By that I take it you mean that I think any computer that replicates (some portion of) human mental abilities will be conscious. Anyone who has read what I've written here ought to know by now that I do not believe that at all! I completely reject that idea – you have misunderstood my statement entirely.
What I was asking you was if you believe that anything without a conscious mind could ever design anything (that is, produce complex form and function, or "CSI"). If you believe that something without a conscious mind is capable of designing things, then that's fine – we can wrap up our argument quite quickly.
Stop wasting our time by putting words in my mouth and lying about what I believe. You have no idea what my criteria for determining if an entiry is conscious or not, because you have never asked me, and I've never told you. I do have ideas about how to answer this question (known in philosophy as the problem of other minds) but you certainly have no understanding of my position on this issue, so stop pretending that you do.
We agree completely that consciousness has nothing to do with intelligence or the ability to design. I have never implied otherwise, and you can't find a single thing in this entire thread that I've said to the contrary.
Pulling teeth? Arguing with you is like shoveling quicksand.
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 2:02 am
September 10th, 2012 at 2:03 am
chunkdz,
I've explained that science cannot disprove gods or any other supernatural being.
I've said even though science never deals with gods, by providing superior explanations, science has convinced most people over time that the proximal cause of lightning, tides, seasons, and so on is explicable by chance and necessity, rather than divine intervention.
In fact, FMM has just advocated exactly the same position:
Science explains things by chance and necessity. The more science has explained via chance and necessity, the less people explain things by divine intervention. And that is why progressively more phenomena are seen to be due to chance and necessity rather than the intelligent actions of gods. That is exactly what it means when I said science has shown that various things in nature are "not due to gods".
Science has been a long progression of advances in understanding, and at each step of the way people have realized that things that used to be attributed to gods can now be understood as the result of chance and necessity. This makes some people, such as yourself, very frightened. But as I explained before, you needn't worry: There will never be a time when science explains everything, and there will always be profound mysteries that science can't begin to address. I accept this happily, and feel no need to fill in these mysteries with faith in supernatural beings, but I certainly have no problem with people who do. The only thing I object to is when those people attempt to claim the imprimatur of science for their supernatural beliefs.
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 2:03 am
September 10th, 2012 at 2:06 am
Daniel,
I assume you agree that it is not in the nature of lipids and proteins to form thoughts either, and I also assume you believe that humans are artifactual (having ourselves been designed by a conscious mind). So in your view, even though both computers and humans can think, and both computers and humans are made of physical substances that do not naturally form thoughts, and both humans and computers are the products of conscious minds, you still maintain that humans have minds but computers do not. Why?
Ok, you agree that computers can produce CSI, and agree that they behave as though they have intelligence, but you deny that they do have intelligence. I find this way of using the word "intelligence" confusing, but let's focus on the formulation we agree on:
Nature has to have a conscious mind behind it.
I don't understand how to figure out which things are minds by their nature and which things aren't.
Say there's a box, and you don't know what's inside. You can write questions on cards and put them in a slot in the box, and whatever is in the box will write down the answer and push it back, and the thing-in-the-box is as good at answering questions in science, art, literature, and so on as you are. How can we go about figuring out if this thing in the box has a mind by its nature?
Again, I was under the impression that you believe we humans are also made by a being whose nature is to design things. Why then do you consider humans to have minds while computers can only imitate minds?
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 2:06 am
September 10th, 2012 at 3:29 am
All,
In hopes of lessening the rampant misunderstandings in our arguments here, below are what I believe, stated as clearly and explicitly as I can:
1) I call "mental abilities" those behaviors like designing machines, or playing chess, or doing math, or writing a novel, that have less to do with physical acts. It is a fuzzy category, because all "mental tasks" require certain physical abilities (to play chess you still have to move the pieces) and all physical tasks require "mental abilities" (coordinating motor movement requires sophisticated planning).
2) "Intelligence" is a concept that refers to performance on some unspecified collection of mental abilities
3) In order for "intelligent cause" to be used as an explanation, the mental abilities comprising intelligence in question need to be specified, because otherwise the explanation provides no information about the proposed cause. This means that when ID offers "intelligent cause" without qualification as the explanation for some phenomenon, it is a vacuous explanation.
4) Currently, computers have very limited intelligence compared to humans – that is, they have far fewer mental abilities, and even for many of the abilities they do share with humans, they perform worse
5) There is no particular mental ability that we have good reason to think is impossible in principle for a digital computer to accomplish
6) Nobody knows the necessary and sufficient conditions for an entity to experience consciousness
7) Nobody knows if consciousness is causal, perceptual, or epiphenomenal
8) We solve the problem of other minds only by making an inductive inference: I know that I myself am conscious, and since you are so similar to me and you report your conscious experience like me I am compelled to believe you have inner experience like me as well. Additionally, identifying physical correlates of consciousness gives other reason to attribute conscious minds to others that share certain neurological features.
9) These reasons don't apply to digital computers, so we have no reason to think digital computers will ever be conscious
10) We ought to extend moral status, human rights, and empathy only to those entities we believe have conscious experience.
11) We may some day build computers that are fundamentally different from the digital machines of today, and we may some day gain better understanding of the conditions of consciousness, so we may some day build a conscious machine. Or maybe we won't – we just don't know.
12) Science has nothing to say about supernatural entities; neither their existence, non-existence, nor about their action or inaction in the world. This follows from the meaning of "science" and of "supernatural".
13) Scientific explanations displace supernatural explanations as the direct causes of phenomena are explained in terms of chance and necessity.
Now each time y'all put words in my mouth and misrepresent my views, I can simply give you the number of the statement that you have misrepresented.
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 3:29 am
September 10th, 2012 at 7:14 am
I thought you did when you said
I took that to mean that you were suggesting that we define “Intelligent cause” as “conscious agent“.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you but I would hardly say that my actions constituted lying about what you believe. I’m glad you agree that intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness.
Us fundies might need your help when the singularity folks demand we submit to our new computer ovis no reason to think that process Y is not itself the action of chance and necessity.
erlords.
It has been clearly stipulated in the claim that Y is not the action of chance and necessity often explicitly.
Have I proven that the claim is true? of course not.
That is where the science comes in. We can conduct experiments and observations to see if chance/necessity is capable of producing the same features as process Y.
If not ID’s claim is not falsified.
If on the other hand you can show that chance/necessity is capable of producing those features then ID is falsified and you have won fair and square.
See how easy that is problem solved no politics no philosophy no theology just science.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 10, 2012 @ 7:14 am
September 10th, 2012 at 7:17 am
my third sentence should read
Us fundies might need your help when the singularity folks demand we submit to our new computer overlords.
blasted cut and paste
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 10, 2012 @ 7:17 am
September 10th, 2012 at 7:30 am
aiguy said
What about archeology?
There is no reason the God can not intervene via chance and necessity. You may choose to think that he does not but that is an opinion not science.
Actually for us Christians necessity is just another way to say (God's law) and chance is just another way to say (God's secret provedence). So to say anything was caused by chance and necessity is just to say Goddidit
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 10, 2012 @ 7:30 am
September 10th, 2012 at 7:49 am
I think I finally get it, so let's do some ID research:
I got this intelligent agent. It turns out it acts solely through chance and necessity. Hmm, turns out I disproved ID.
I also have a process that is clearly not intelligent. It turns our it produces CSI by the truckload. Hmm, turns out I disproved ID.
I guess I shouldn't say that ID cant be disproven.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 10, 2012 @ 7:49 am
September 10th, 2012 at 10:44 am
aiguy:
Only an irrational scientismist would think that scientific discovery = goddidntdoit.
You've basically said that because science discovered static electric discharge that means that God has nothing to do with static electric discharge. Science discovers gravity? God has nothing to do with gravity.
In other words, ANYTHING we discover automatically means god had nothing to do with it. This is scientism – assigning to science the power to falsify God's power. It's irrational poppycock.
I love that in nearly every response you tell me how SCARY it must be to live in my world – the rational world where science does not possess the power to falsify God's power.
I wonder why you cling so tightly to the idea that science somehow magically makes God go away?
Comment by chunkdz — September 10, 2012 @ 10:44 am
September 10th, 2012 at 11:38 am
ROFL!
Comment by chunkdz — September 10, 2012 @ 11:38 am
September 10th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
fmm,
I was asking you if you believe that, in order to accomplish mental tasks such as designing complex systems, one must have a conscious mind. I assumed that you would answer "yes", because otherwise you would be saying that an unconscious process (such as evolution) could have the capability of producing complex systems, which is something I assume you do not believe.
Yes, and I thought you would agree, because you believe that any Intelligent Designer would also necessarily be a conscious agent. Since in my view the word "conscious" has a well-defined, specific meaning and "intelligent" does not, we could actually make progress toward a meaningful debate if we dropped the problematic term "intelligence" and focussed on the meaningful term "conscious" instead.
And I apologize for my overly harsh response, but I had already tried to explain once that this wasn't what I meant.
Yes, absolutely. This cuts both ways, though. First, the point you are concerned about is that even if we built a machine that could act in ways that seem very intelligent (like the computer that won the "Jeapardy" game show championship last year), we have no reason to think it would be conscious, and it would be silly to extend human rights to such a machine.
But there is another implication of the disconnection between consciousness and intelligence that is not atractive to ID proponents: Even if the Cause of Life (what you call "God") seems very intelligent because it (He) created complex biological systems, we have no reason to think it would necessarily be conscious.
Obviously you will disagree with this, because I assume you do believe that there is a God who has a conscious mind. But in my view, the evidence does not support such a conclusion, even if we say that whatever caused life should be called "intelligent".
I think the singularity folks have no grounds on which to base their beliefs about machine consciousness.
What? "Process Y" is a completely undefined term! We have said absolutely nothing about "process Y" except that it was responsible for producing certain features of the universe and living systems. This doesn't say anything about "chance and necessity!" "Process Y" is a term without a definition, just as you say "intelligence" does not need to be defined.
But how can you tell if process Y is "chance and necessity" when you have no idea what the term "process Y" refers to? All it means is "that which produces certain features of the universe"!
You are still not getting the point here. In order to make sense about these claims, you actually do have to carefully define your terms. If you are talking about something that transcends chance and necessity, you have to say "Process Y is a process that produced certain features of the universe, and it is a process that operates outside of chance and necessity".
You can't do the science until you provide scientific definitions of your terms.
Yes, what about it?
We are miscommunicating about these things because of a certain assumption you are making. You don't think that archeology explains things in terms of chance and necessity, because you believe that archeology studies artifacts created by human beings, and that human beings operate outside of chance and necessity. In other words, you believe that as humans, our thoughts and actions are freely determined by our conscious minds, and we are not subject to physical cause-and-effect that "natural" chance-and-necessity processes are.
This assumption of yours (usually called libertarian free will, or contra-causal free will) may be true – it is defended by a plenty of philosophers and theologians. However, it may also be false – it is rejected by plenty of philosophers and scientists as well. It is a question that I claim we simply don't know the answer to.
That is why I was trying to get you to see that you can't assume "intelligence" (or "process Y") operates outside of chance and necessity – because for all we know, chance and necessity underlies everything that happens, including human behavior.
What I would like to get you to concede is that even though you disagree with this materialistic viewpoint (and in fact I am not a materialist myself!), it remains in philosophical debate (as it has been for thousands of years without resolution). And that means you're wrong when you say you can support ID with "no philosophy no theology". Without this philosophical/metaphysical claim of libertarian free will, ID is not a coherent hypothesis.
We know that chance and necessity do operate, but although we intuitively feel as though we have libertarian free will, it isn't possible to demonstrate it. This is why in science we restrict explanations to those that do not depend on the assumption of libertarian free will.
You are 100% correct about this.
Again I agree 100%, and I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to get chunkdz to understand this too. Science has nothing whatsoever to say about God's existence or non-existence, action or inaction.
Still, because science explains things without reference to God, adding God to the explanation (by saying He operates via chance and necessity) is an extraneous postulate, and is God is left out of the explanation because of Occam's razor: The concept of "God" complicates the theory without adding explanatory power.
And so that is how scientific explanations displace theistic explanations. You have said yourself that some things are best explained by (divine) intelligence, and other things are best explained by chance and necessity. As science progresses, some things move out of the first category and have moved into the second category. This is what I've tried to explain to chunkdz.
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 12:54 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
chunkdz,
from my reponse to fmm:
But of course chunkdz is too scared, angry, and defensive to allow himself to read and understand my point.
Another brilliant counter-argument from chunkdz. We must now assume that you think we ought to extend human rights to entities who do not have conscious experience. I hope you are treating the rocks in your garden with dignity and respect!
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 1:00 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
aiguy:
Now this is perfectly rational. Science leaves God out of it's theory of lightning.
But then you turn around and defend the opposite idea – that we can now somehow conclude that lightning is "not due to God" – as if science has this kind of mystical magical power.
Two contradictory views residing in one very confused head – and the head is absolutely incapable of realizing it.
Fascinating. Utterly fascinating.
Lol! Since chunkdz doesn't agree with aiguy's views on human rights he must think that rocks deserve human rights??
You're not really helping to disprove my "aiguy is irrational" hypothesis with this kind of stuff.
Comment by chunkdz — September 10, 2012 @ 1:59 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
What aiguy is unwittingly proposing is a "God of the gaps" approach to science. If every scientific explanation displaces a theistic explanation then we must logically grant the theistic explanation for every scientific gap.
Scientism is such poison. Look what it's done to our poor friend. He can barely think straight any more.
Comment by chunkdz — September 10, 2012 @ 2:25 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
chunkdz,
Yes, I know.
Science leaves God out of everything, because the concept of God is not defined scientifically, and we can't determine anything about God one way or another. Science leaves out magic, too.
I just got through saying science leaves out magic. You are confused.
Anyway, science doesn't conclude anything about God – I guess I've told you that about a hundred times by now. So how do scientific theories displace animistic and theistic explanations? Come on, you can do it – I've explained that to you a hundred times too. Remember? When science provides an explanation for something in terms of chance and necessity, people stop explaining explaining it in terms of divine intervention. Yes, even FMM knows this, and he is a self-described "fundie".
Science has nothing to do with God.
Science has nothing to do with God. Science leaves God out of everything, because the concept of God is not defined scientifically, and we can't determine anything about God one way or another.
So, when there is something that science has no explanation for, the scientific answer is "we do not currently know the explanation for this". It is religious folks who sometimes insert God into that gap.
Also, not every scientific explanation displaces a theistic explanation; that only happens when there is an existing explanation that involves gods (such as people's belief that god preferentially aimed lightning at churches). Sometimes scientific explanations displace other scientific theories (such as when general relativity displaced Newtonian gravitation).
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 3:48 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
What scientific evidence could you possibly point to that says that the designer of life is not conscious? Have you discovered a way to solve the problem of other minds empirically? If not you are just sharing your opinion and opinions are like belly buttons.
Actually over and over again ID has said that process Y is not chance and necessity.
It needs to be defined operationaly and the operational definition in this particular context is “not chance and necessity”.
Agreed and that is what is always implied and often explicitly stated when it comes to ID.
I don’t believe this at all. As a compatiblist I believe that a person acts freely while his actions are subject to physical cause-and-effect that "natural" chance-and-necessity processes are.
Just because something is entirely constrained by physical process does not in any way mean that it can be best explained as being the result of chance and necessity.
Call it transcendence or paradox if you like. The freewill/determinism paradox like all paradoxes is only explained by the incarnation. Since you deny this foundational aspect of knowledge you must claim ignorance on this subject
Actually I’m a rock-ribbed Calvinist and I believe that libertarian free will does not exist
Why are you lying about what I believe.
If you want to declare that you possibly are a meatpuppet fine but don’t say "we" don't know.
I know for certain that man is a conscious moral agent. Because God has said so.
Wrong again ID makes no claims about consciousness so freewill is irrelevant. My phone is not conscious but it is smart.
Why must you always try and mix philosophy with science
The first category (intelligence) is divine providence. The second category is also divine providence.
Not sure how that has given God anything less to do.
Also not sure what the progress of science has to do with it theologians have recognized the two categories since the time of Moses.
quote:
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
(Deu 29:29)
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
(Pro 16:33)
end quote;
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 10, 2012 @ 6:33 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
fmm,
The point you're missing here is that there is no default answer to these questions; there is no burden of proof on science to show that any particular characteristic of how life originated is not true. On the contrary, it is up to anyone making the claim that there is something we know about how life started to show why we ought to believe it.
So, I think the answer to OOL is "we really don't know", because I don't think there is evidence that points to any particular characterization of the Cause of Life. If you believe that life was caused by a conscious entity (and I believe you do), then you are obligated to present some evidence as to why we should believe that to be the case.
So, while the problem of other minds is solved by a comfortably strong inference for other humans, it becomes more tenuous when we try to decide if other animals or conscious, and as for things which are even more different from us (such as hypothetical intelligent agents unknown types in scientific theories), we can say nothing at all about the likliehood that they are conscious.
No, ID doesn't say anything about "Process Y". Really – it's never been mentioned (before this thread).
You are making this up as you go along, because previously you said "intelligence" required no definition at all. That is why I substituted another undefined term. In all of my requests for a definition of "intelligence", you never once mentioned "not chance and necessity"… and now you're adding that. Is there anything else you'd like to add to ID's definition of "intelligence"?
No, ID doesn't say anything about "Process Y".
Again, the problem with ID is that it uses the word "intelligence" with no definition – and people even go as far as to say no definition is required! I think that is ridiculous, and that is what I'm arguing about here.
Since you claimed we didn't need to define "intelligence", I suggested that in that case, you could just use another undefined term instead, and it shouldn't make any difference in your "theory" of ID. But of course right after we started using the term "Process Y", you began to pretend that there were all sorts of things we already know about this made-up term "Process Y" – including that it was not chance+necessity!
If you were right, then you should have been able to state and defend ID without using this contentious term "intelligence" at all – simply substitute "Process Y" (or whatever) and go from there. But of course you can't do that, because I'm right: You really do need a definition for "intelligence", and not one that you make up as you go along.
So what about it? You finally want to tell us what the term "intelligence" means in the context of ID? I guess you can start with "Not chance + necessity". Anything else?
You've surprised me. Your position is compatibilism… and dualism?
I'm not following you.
I said that science explained things in terms of chance and necessity. What I meant was that whether a scientific explanation involved electricity, or air pressure, or tectonic plates, or mutations, there is nothing assumed to be operating at a fundamental level other than chance and necessity. That holds true for explanations involving bacteria, or bees, or human beings too. We have all sorts of explanatory constructs at various levels of abstraction, but as far as science is concerned, at root it is nothing but physical cause, chance and necessity.
You took issue with that, implying that archeology did not explain things in terms of chance and necessity. If you are a compatibilist, then while of course you will come up with various explanatory constructs at different levels of abstraction (such as beliefs, desires, and volition), at root you are still positing nothing but chance and necessity. Once you say that free will actually transcends physical cause you are no longer a compatibilist.
Obviously if you want to debate these issues, once you pull out the dogma card we can no longer engage in productive dialogue.
In that case are you saying that as far as you are concerned, ID does not claim that the Intelligent Designer of Life and the Universe is a conscious agent?
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 7:17 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Actually there is a default and correct answer you just choose to suppress it with all your might
No I don’t need to present evidence because I am certain you already know these things. You demanding evidence before you accept what you already know to be true is simply a dodge and a cop out
WRONG the problem of other minds is not solved by inference because that runs strait into the problem of induction.
The problem of other minds is only solved by the Word made flesh
Process Y is “an intelligent cause” I can say that because I know how the numbers were produced
Would you like me to show you where in this very thread multiple times I’ve said that the products of an intelligent design are not the products of chance and necessity
Cause I can do it.
When I say
“The products of an intelligent design are not the products of chance and necessity” I am not defining anything. I’m just saying designed things are designed
Yep, me and about a million Calvinists
What? How so? Nobody told that to the folks I learned it from
Bull’s eye!!!!!!
That is because it is science and not Philosophy. Now why did that have to be so hard
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 10, 2012 @ 8:37 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
What a silly thing to say.
No, aiguy, people tend to have myriad opinions about the things of God. When confronted with Ben Franklin's experiment many theists who believe that God is sovereign over every atom in the universe will conclude that God uses static electricity. Evangelicals who believe that "The Prince of the Power of the Air" (otherwise known as Satan) has been given temporary dominion over the earth will conclude that Satan uses static electricity. Deists will still say that God wound up the static electricity machine long ago, Calvinists will still say that God pre-programmed every lightning strike in advance, and atheists will say "I don't know anything about no static electricity but Ben Franklin or no Ben Franklin there ain't no God who throws lightning." There's also a guy in Virginia who was struck by lightning 7 times who is reading your posts and saying "chance and necessity my ass!", not to mention Henry Tucker of Fayetteville North Carolina who claims that this just confirms his theory that the CIA is controlling lightning strikes.
And of course, some people believe what you describe, although I suspect they are a minority. These are the people who say "Thanks to science I now know that God does not use static electricity." Of course, these people think that science has the ability to falsify the supernatural – hmmm, what do we call those people?….oh yeah…. SCIENTISMISTS.
Comment by chunkdz — September 10, 2012 @ 9:13 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
fmm,
ID authors (like Stephen Meyer) have taken to using a phrase from Darwin to convey that ID is not a religious argument, but rather a scientific theory. They say that ID is based on our uniform and repeated experience, which is a good way to express the foundation of science. Human beings all share a huge amount of uniform and repeated experience, and when we carefully document these observations, and independent researchers all agree on them, science can move forward.
Whatever experiences you have of God is outside of our uniform and repeated experience. Consequently, if you want to base your argument on your religious beliefs and experiences, we have nothing to talk about.
Your accusations are not only mistaken, but also rude and arrogant. I thought we had just begun to debate a bit more constructively, and now you become so insulting – too bad. I could just as well say these things to you, and our debate would degenerate into a stupid shouting match. If that is what you want, then I will leave you to your anger and insults and closed-mindedness.
We disagree. Most of our reasoning is inductive, like it or not.
I can show you where you say there is no need for ID to provide any definition for the term "intelligent"; for example,
I took you at your word, but as soon as we actually tried it your way you started complaining that intelligence has always been (explicitly or implicitly) defined as operating outside of chance and necessity!
To say "designed things are designed" is an empty tautology; in other words you are again saying nothing at all.
In my view, compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism, and if volition transcends physical cause, determinism is false. Perhaps you use these words differently.
Very well. In your view, we have no reason to believe that whatever caused complex form and function we observe in biology had a conscious mind.
Most of the problem is that you are a terrible debater, and I say that for two reasons. First, you do not put much effort into explaining your views fully and clearly. But mainly, the problem is due to your refusal to admit that the first and most important step in any scientific or philosophical discussion is to carefully define your terms.
chunkdz,
That's fine – you and your friend from Fayetteville can collaborate on a paper on these various theories of lightning. And you can pray to Satan, or Thor, or whomever your favorite god might be, and beg him not to throw some lightning at your house.
Me, I've put up a lightning rod
Comment by aiguy — September 10, 2012 @ 11:03 pm
September 10th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
I've got one too! Thank God for science!
Comment by chunkdz — September 10, 2012 @ 11:56 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 1:26 am
Looks like chunkdz talks a big religious game, but when it comes to protecting his house, he puts his faith where it belongs – in science. After all, the Bible tells us that God directs lightning, but it never mentions that you can protect your house (or your church) from it with an iron rod. Guess God didn't want folks to know about that, so he could zap 'em and burn their house down. No wonder so many people learned over time to ditch the Bible and grab the textbook when it comes to important things like keeping your house from getting burned down. Doh
No wonder the percentage of people who call themselves Christian is dropping so quickly in the U.S. (it's already happened elsewhere of course)… The rest of 'em are getting killed by lightning.
Comment by aiguy — September 11, 2012 @ 1:26 am
September 11th, 2012 at 4:33 am
Vol. 337 no. 6099 pp. 1159-1161
DOI: 10.1126/science.337.6099.1159
• NEWS & ANALYSIS
GENOMICS
ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA
.
This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online byScience, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes.
I'm sure many of us will be in mourning after hearing this. The demise of junk DNA who would have ever predicted that?????
Comment by themayan — September 11, 2012 @ 4:33 am
September 11th, 2012 at 7:06 am
Actually I’ve been informed by the only infallible source that knowledge of God’s power and attributes is universal uniform and repeatable.
You can rudely and arrogantly claim that this source is incorrect if you like but that says more about your disdain for him than your lack of experience
Fine I understand completely why you would not like to discuss these things. Intresting how when you eliminate discussion of philosophical things you feel that there is nothing left to say
It’s rude and arrogant for me to assert that a Holy God will not lie but not for you to claim that he does. Interesting
No I agree that a lot of our reasoning is inductive I just contend that you have no grounds to trust induction
We agree that is why I’m am not in any way defining intelligent design when I say it is not chance and necessity. Glad we cleared that up
Violation both transcends the physical and everything is determined by the Sovereign Lord. It’s a paradox and it is basically Calvinism 101.
Wrong again I know (and so do you) that the creator of life has a conscious mind. It’s just that ID is silent about the subject
Unlike you I see no need to delve into the theological and philosophical do discuss science. That is what Bible studies are for.
No I’m more than happy to define any terms that may be relevant and unclear
I just think that diving into the minutia of common everyday language is the last refuge of the scoundrel
Quote:
“That depends on what the definition of “is” is”
End quote
Bill Clinton
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 11, 2012 @ 7:06 am
September 11th, 2012 at 8:14 am
Well, it certainly can not have been ID, right? If there is one thing I learned from various blogs it's that ID does not and can not say anything about HOW a designer would design things. Bad design, good design, optimal design, suboptimal design, evil design, … all these things are designed and ID does not say a shred about it.
So, who was it that predicted these things? Is it maybe the people who spent years and years studying it and then writing up 30 articles on it?
And while we are at it: If this is supposedly vindication of ID, can we now stop using the silly argument that the Darwinian machinery suppresses all ideas about ID? 30 papers, 6 in Nature, dozens of research groups, millions and millions of dollars in funds can hardly be called a suppression of ideas, right?
Comment by hrun0815 — September 11, 2012 @ 8:14 am
September 11th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
It is perfectly obvious that God exists. It is also perfectly obvious that the earth is fixed in the center of the universe.
Comment by John Wendt — September 11, 2012 @ 12:39 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
The bottom line is that ID wants you to think it is talking about "intelligent" in the way it's used in common everyday language, but it hasn't actually established any link whatsoever to the common everyday meaning of "intelligent" from ID's highly specialized meaning which, in this discussion, at least, we've been saying involves something about the ability to produce CSI. One could say we're trying to nail down ID's definition precisely so we can confirm that there's such a relation.
Comment by don provan — September 11, 2012 @ 3:03 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Provan:
In a post which describes an exact definition of intelligence, Provan complains that ID has not defined intelligence.
Just another friendly reminder, folks – these are not rational people we are dealing with.
Comment by chunkdz — September 11, 2012 @ 3:41 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
1) Junk DNA predicted by ID? Joke. Do people forget that Dembski spent a long paragraph in "The Design Revolution" explaining exactly why junk DNA is perfectly compatible with ID? (As he explained, don't programmers leave dead code in their programs?). ID predicts precisely nothing, of course, because nothing – not one single thing – follows from calling something "intelligent". Anybody want to debate that?
2) chunkdz's stupid-beyond-belief attempt to define intelligence? While FMM has decreed that ID has no need to define "intelligence", chunkdz comes to the rescue by trying to do exactly that … with the most comically lame attempt yet. Can't you guys even get on remotely the same page?
3) FMM gives up the debate by playing the "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" card.
4) The final irony? ID folks complain about a lack of rationality.
Comment by aiguy — September 11, 2012 @ 4:39 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Lets evaluate the evidence
1) I said that everyone knows that God exists and in my 6th post in this thread on September 2nd and used a passage of scripture as proof of this.
2)I have repeatedly said the same thing numerous times
3) I never claimed to be debating anyone. I even called our discussion chit chat in my 5th post.
4) I have repeatedly chided aiguy for constantly talking about philosophy instead of science.
Somehow in the view of aiguy this equals me giving up the debate by playing the "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" card.
Perhaps we should ask aiguy to define rationality for us because I'm not sure it means what he thinks it means
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 11, 2012 @ 5:25 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
FMM, is just stunning that you believe you have been 'talking about science', yet you don't think it is necessary to define the term intelligence.
But I guess things get really complicated if on the one hand you are talking science and on the other you are only having a chit chat.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 11, 2012 @ 5:31 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
fmm,
That's like me proving to you that you believe in Scientiology by quoting L. Ron Hubbard.
Come on, FMM – everyone knows that Thetan spirits emerged from a volcano and inhabit the bodies of humans. You believe that, you just don't realize it. Pray to the Thetans, FMM, you know in your heart you believe Scientology is true. Stop resisting!
Sorry, but repetition does not make incoherent rants any more true.
That's a relief. You are an extraordinarily bad debater, but as a chit-chatter… well, you not so good at that either.
So while you're quoting scripture and insisting that I actually believe in God, you chide me for talking about philosophy. Chiding someone else is not evidence that you are not perfectly dogmatic about your religious beliefs and constantly telling other people that they actually believe in your version of "God". Yikes.
Comment by aiguy — September 11, 2012 @ 6:46 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
FMM #1: I’d like to hold off on the chit chat and concentrate on the arguments
FMM #2: I never claimed to be debating anyone. I even called our discussion chit chat in my 5th post.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Comment by aiguy — September 11, 2012 @ 6:57 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
aiguy:
The differences are intrinsic to A-T philosophy (which does NOT hold that humans are artifacts). The human form is one thing – it is not "lipids+proteins+fats+whatever" – so it is natural for the human form to have "mind" in its nature. Of course, one could argue that the "computer form" has a "mind" in its nature too. The problem, of course is that computers are not natural (in the sense that they require effort from non-computerized beings in order to exist). We're getting into the weeds here though!
I would dispute a few details in those points but the basic reason is what I spelled out above. Humans are not just compounds of parts thrown together – that are one entity and their parts are natural to their essence. (I'm probably losing you with all this "form", "nature" and "essence" talk though!)
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 11, 2012 @ 7:07 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
I feel like I should elaborate a bit on the "natural vs. artifactual" categorization.
The idea of "the form" – that every natural thing has its own form (nature or essence) and it is that form that informs the material substances that make up that thing – is central to the understanding of "natural vs. artifactual".
A human has the "human" form and it is because of that form that all the material elements of a human participate in (or are directed toward) "humanness". The constituent parts of a human quite literally take on the job of supporting and maintaining the human form. These elements participate to varying degrees – thus a healthy human is one whose elements are all (or mostly) participating in the form (i.e. they work to maintain that form) and a sick human is one whose elements (for whatever reason) do not participate as fully in the form.
Now a rock also has a form, and its constituent parts also participate in its "rocky" essence. So it's not just things with minds, or biological entities that this applies to.
An artifact, OTOH does not have a natural essence that all of its constituent parts work toward. A computer doesn't have a "computerness" that causes each of its parts to act the way they do – they do what they do because of artificially imposed design.
It's a fine line, I know (I've even argued in the past with thomists that natural objects are artifacts – so I'm not entirely committed to the above – it's just that the A-T philosophy makes a pretty big deal about this distinction so I assume there's more to it than I understand) and one could argue that neither an artifact nor a natural object do what they do because of their constituent parts. (To argue that, one would most definitely NOT be arguing for materialism though!)
Anyway, I've probably confused the matter even further, but it seemed like a good idea when I started to post this!
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 11, 2012 @ 8:05 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Pitty we never got to the arguments. That is why I was here and that is what I voluntered for.
I'd still like to hear them but Aiguy and chunkz decided to cancel the debate.
Instead we ingaged in way to much unorganized phlosophical chit chat
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 11, 2012 @ 8:18 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Sorry, I don't know what exact definition you're speaking of. In my post, there's a vague reference to a definition we've been kicking around, but I assume that's not something you'd consider exact. In the OP, there's your definition, but that hasn't been related to either ID's definition or any common, everyday definition, so I'm not sure how it's relevant to my comment. Could you clarify? If there's an exact definition on the table that can help us relate ID to the common, everyday meaning of "intelligent", let's get to it!
Comment by don provan — September 11, 2012 @ 8:50 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Provan:
I am an ID'er. My definition is ID's definition. It relates to common, everyday, essential traits of intelligence – problem solving, learning, and planning.
And now you do.
At least until you start your 'perennially obtuse' act.
Comment by chunkdz — September 11, 2012 @ 9:18 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Daniel,
If humans are not artifacts (i.e. God's design), how you do explain our existence? Did we arise spontaneously? Did we evolve?
Yes, I'm afraid I'm not able to understand these concepts as you use them. How does one decide if something has a mind in its nature or not?
OK, I get that. I guess I'm still stuck on the question about humans being designed by God. If you believe this, then it would seem to contradict your thinking about designed beings not having minds. And if you don't believe it, then how do you think humans came to be in the first place?
Moreover, you've made these statements without explaining why we should believe this is true. What reason do we have for thinking that constituent parts participate the way you say, or that things that are artificially designed lack a natural essence?
In that case I'll leave you to your musings. Thanks!
Comment by aiguy — September 11, 2012 @ 9:23 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
chunkdz,
This is great news! Finally we're told that ID does have a singular definition for intelligence! Praise be!
Interesting that ID doesn't think that using language is an essential trait of intelligence, nor is symbolic logic/mathematics, nor spatial reasoning….
Can you show where this definition has ever been used by anyone except yourself – on any other website, article, journal paper, book, video, comic book, graffiti… anything? I just googled "IP = (PS)(P)(L)", but I didn't get any hits. I'm sure if this is ID's definition it must be published in many places, and I'm just looking in the wrong places. Thanks!
Comment by aiguy — September 11, 2012 @ 9:30 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
aiguy, you got it all wrong (and chunk as well, of course). The fact is, ID doesn't need a definition of intelligence. Everybody knows intelligence when they see it and everybody agrees whether or not something is intelligent: if it does something that would be called intelligent, then obviously it's intelligent.
Comment by hrun0815 — September 11, 2012 @ 9:38 pm
September 11th, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Hello everybody, welcome to 4 years ago. Nobody says or does anything different, nothing changes, it's either Hell or Miami Beach, nobody knows which.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 11, 2012 @ 11:47 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 2:43 am
How does your definition relate to ID research? It has no obvious relation to CSI or front loading, for example, as far as I can tell.
Comment by don provan — September 12, 2012 @ 2:43 am
September 12th, 2012 at 11:24 am
aiguy:
It's no more the singular definition than any of the biological definitions of species are the singular definition.
Why? Do you think language is an essential trait of intelligence?
Provan:
When we know what intelligence is we can then define what an intelligent agent is.
Comment by chunkdz — September 12, 2012 @ 11:24 am
September 12th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
chunkdz,
EXACTLY! That is why biologists would be foolish to attempt to explain something by reference to "species". Perhaps you're beginning to understand.
There is nothing wrong with having one word with multiple definitions, and of course "intelligence" has multiple definitions even within human psychology. But what you'll see in scientific papers, invariably, is one particular operational (meaning actually measurable) definition specified.
Ok, you still don't get it. This is not a matter of discovery, as though there could be a right or wrong answer. There is simply no fact of the matter. It is purely a matter of whatever one happens to want to include/exclude in one's definition.
"Intelligence" is not some thing that exists that we can study and find out what abilities comprise it. It is just a word that refers to some unspecified set of abilities that we generally think of as more "mental" than "physical" (although of course "mental" tasks require "physical" actions and "physical" acts require "mental" actions).
So, when you want to use a word like that in a scientific context, you must actually specify just what abilities you are referring to, and how those abilities are measured – or else you're just not saying anything at all.
That is why ID says nothing at all – it is perfectly meaningless to say an "intelligent cause" is responsible for biological systems.
Comment by aiguy — September 12, 2012 @ 12:23 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Yes, but how will we know that ID's CSI production has any relation to an intelligent agent as determined from your definition of intelligence?
I think everyone here has already conceded that there are definitions of intelligence. The problem has always been how any of those existing definitions, including yours, are related to what ID research has discovered.
Comment by don provan — September 12, 2012 @ 12:59 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
That's like saying that any definition of species must relate to junk DNA.
Vacuous.
What has ID research discovered?
Comment by chunkdz — September 12, 2012 @ 3:04 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
So it's "foolish to explain something by reference to species", but scientific papers invariably do it all the time.
That's why I created a specific operational definition. But you knew that already so now you're just being stupid on purpose.
Comment by chunkdz — September 12, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
chunkdz,
In that case you need only show us a citation. Show us one single paper that examines some biological observation or phenomenon, and then suggests that it can be explained by naming the species that some organism belongs to.
Eureka! We've discovered how cheetahs can run so fast! It's because they belong to the species Acinonyx jubatus!
We'll be waiting…
Your definition is not operational, nor is it (as you claim) "the definition of ID". You are the only one who uses this definition, and for good reason: it is useless (both because your variables aren't measurable and because your concepts are arbitrarily chosen).
These insults don't really make people think I'm stupid, chunkdz. Rather, they make you look desperate and immature.
Comment by aiguy — September 12, 2012 @ 3:54 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Oh just look up any paper on plant speciation. They determine a new species based upon a specific operational definition.
Wrong!
It's an operational definition that works for ID.
I am indeed a trailblazer.
I've already used it.
That is true.
Comment by chunkdz — September 12, 2012 @ 4:24 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
chunkdz,
And what do you believe they are explaining by categorizing a plant into a new species? (hint: they are not explaining anything. they are categorizing something)
Instead of shouting wrong!, you need to address my point, which was that your variables aren't measurable. Tell us how to measure how many problems a human being can solve.
Comment by aiguy — September 12, 2012 @ 5:55 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Thomas Nagel writes in the new NYRB:
Looks like Nagel believes just what I do.
Comment by aiguy — September 12, 2012 @ 6:35 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Same irrational crap over and over. This is why I wanted a formal debate – so I can officially tell you to shut up.
Oh well. ID is obviously not ready for the IP REVOLUTION ™.
Comment by chunkdz — September 12, 2012 @ 6:37 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Angryold
THEOLOGY BY VELIKOVSKYS:
God must not exist if gravity works. God also does not exist ifshoddy engineering and construction causes buildings to fall over.
Not at all, God's existence has nothing to do with evil in the world. However if God's participation is necessary for an earthquake to occur,per Chunkdz, then He is "responsible " to a degree. Now the standard cathecism is that God's plan is unknowable, he has his own reasons.
The another view is God set up the initial conditions and doesn't meddle in the process.
When the apotheosis of Velikovskys occurs, he will turn off gravity and will hold all buildings up with his god-hands no matter how they're constructed. And then he will consign 1,000,000,000 Chinese to oblivion so the remainder can have lebensr… I mean, living space.
So God is the cause of earthquakes or not? Could God turn off gravity and hold up buildings no matter what? Why doesn't He?
Nice, birth control is the Holocaust. It is our duty reproduce to prevent the unborn from oblivion,maybe the govt should enforce a mandatory 10 child rule. Think of all the children saved from Oblivion.
And if I was God ,I wouldn't punish the descendants for the misdeeds of their ancestors.
Comment by velikovskys — September 12, 2012 @ 6:44 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Angryold,
it's either Hell or Miami Beach
As the joke goes,if I owned both,I'd rent out Miami Beach and live in Hell.
Comment by velikovskys — September 12, 2012 @ 7:00 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Velikovsky: "And if I was God ,I wouldn't punish the descendants for the misdeeds of their ancestors."
Hey, velikovsky just went pro-life?
Comment by chunkdz — September 12, 2012 @ 7:21 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
aiguy:
Because God gives everything its nature, humans are not considered "artifacts" under the A-T system. I don't claim to fully understand it (hence my comment about arguing for humans as artifacts) but I'm learning that it is pretty important to the philosophy.
These things are self-evident. We know from repeated observation that the parts of natural things actively work as if it's their job to sustain the thing they are a part of.
That too is self-evident. The parts of artificially designed things do not naturally work toward a specific goal. We take things that naturally do something else and manipulate them so they do what we want them to.
The simplest way to say it is: God is supernatural. He creates natures in everything. We are natural. We cannot create natures, but we can manipulate things that already have their own natures to work for us.
I feel that we are wandering away from the main point of my second argument though. Let's forget the distinction between natural and artifact and concentrate on the important part of the argument: that both cases involve discovering why 'little things' come together to do 'big things'. In the case of artifacts, we know that there is a mind behind this process. It was Aquinas argument that a mind is just as necessary to explain why natural 'little things' come together to do 'big things'. IOW, you've got to explain where the natures come from!
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 12, 2012 @ 7:29 pm
September 12th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Chunkdz
Hey, velikovsky just went pro-life?
As much as possible, tell me ,Chunkdz ,do you consider all sex a misdeed?
Comment by velikovskys — September 12, 2012 @ 9:55 pm
September 13th, 2012 at 11:37 am
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting this definition is useful for ID. I don't see how it can be useful for ID if you're denying it needs to be related to anything being done in the ID field.
As far as I know, ID research has discovered nothing, but I assumed you'd provide the examples I don't know about in order to show how your definition fit into the effort.
Comment by don provan — September 13, 2012 @ 11:37 am
September 13th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Don Provan:
What is "ID Research" ?
Comment by chunkdz — September 13, 2012 @ 1:06 pm
September 13th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
By "ID Research", I meant the diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into Intelligent Design in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.
But never mind what I mean. Let's get back on topic. Can you tell me what your definition of intelligence is useful for? Could you provide an example based on some of the typical Telic Thoughts discussions, perhaps?
Comment by don provan — September 13, 2012 @ 4:52 pm
September 13th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Provan:
Who's doing that?
Comment by chunkdz — September 13, 2012 @ 5:58 pm
September 13th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Ed Feser defines "intelligence" (ala Thomas Aquinas):
So, if I understand him right, he's saying that the ability to comprehend (grasp, understand) things outside one's own self = "intelligence". He goes on to argue that this shows that "intellect" must be immaterial and that…
Interesting take on the whole thing from the perspective of Thomism (I don't know how useful it is to this discussion but…)
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 13, 2012 @ 7:49 pm
September 13th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
I assumed you knew someone that was doing that and that that's why you were trying to provide a definition of intelligence for them. If no one's researching ID, then I guess we'd be wasting our time discussing your definition.
Comment by don provan — September 13, 2012 @ 8:42 pm
September 14th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Provan:
Why would I provide a definition for someone else's research?
Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2012 @ 10:23 am
September 14th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
One would provide a definition for someone else in order to help that someone else. Since you reintroduced this definition in a recent thread discussing ID's lack of a definition for intelligence, I naturally assumed you were proposing it to fill that need. From these comments, I gather that's not the case. There's no point in discussing your definition unless we know what the actual purpose of the definition is, so this might be a good time to make the purpose clear.
Comment by don provan — September 14, 2012 @ 12:04 pm
September 14th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Provan:
I've provided a definition. If it helps someone else that's great.
You seem interested. Why don't you volunteer to judge the debate then maybe you can learn.
Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2012 @ 1:45 pm
September 15th, 2012 at 3:38 am
I won't waste time on it, then.
I was interested, and I think I gave you very friendly encouragement to make your case, but your comments have made it clear there's not really anything here to discuss.
Comment by don provan — September 15, 2012 @ 3:38 am
September 15th, 2012 at 6:05 am
Provan:
I figured as much. Culture warriors are all ears when they think you are part of some ID/Wedge movement, trying to get ID in schools, or opening a Noah's Ark Theme Park.
But when you simply propose a reasonable approach to Intelligent Design inference they become bored and can't be bothered.
The only encouragement I need is 3 volunteers to judge the debate where I will make my case.
If I told you I was going to use my approach to open up an Intelligent Design Theme Park and hire William Dembski to hand out pictures of Jesus riding a T-Rex would you change your mind?
Comment by chunkdz — September 15, 2012 @ 6:05 am
September 15th, 2012 at 10:38 am
chunkdz,
I've been talking to you about your definition for several days. I've tried to get some insights that would help me see what you hope to accomplish. I haven't said anything negative about your idea or your comments. I've read your responses carefully and tried to clarify whatever you asked about.
You, on the other hand, have not said one thing to me about your definition in all that time. Instead you've spent all you efforts trying to make my reasonable questions appear errant.
Don't pretend I've lost interest because of some unfairness or prejudgement on my part.
Comment by don provan — September 15, 2012 @ 10:38 am
September 15th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Provan:
Yes, I'm sure that in your mind it is perfectly fine to dismiss an argument before the debate has even begun.
It's the Way of the Culture Warrior.
Comment by chunkdz — September 15, 2012 @ 12:05 pm
September 15th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
chunkdz wrote:
That's great, now I can't get this out of my head.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 15, 2012 @ 10:14 pm
September 15th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
velikovskys wrote:
See? This is why I can't stay mad at you. A man with this sense of humor can't be all bad.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 15, 2012 @ 10:19 pm
September 15th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
velikovskys wrote:
I can't speak for chunkdz, but as for myself I will say:
Only if you're doing it right.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 15, 2012 @ 10:22 pm
September 16th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
I tried to help you establish the groundwork that would help make this a reasonable debate. You refused. I didn't dismiss the argument, of course, since I haven't heard it. What I've dismissed is the statement to be debated because you have just told me that the critical term "usefully" has no meaning in the context of your definition. I tried very hard to help you fix that, but not only haven't you tried to fix the problem, you rejoice in it, and now you've started insulting me because I've pointed out it's broken.
The bottom line is that if a valid use for your definition is, "to open up an Intelligent Design Theme Park and hire William Dembski to hand out pictures of Jesus riding a T-Rex," then I no longer consider it worth discussing. Sorry, it's just a little quirk I have.
Comment by don provan — September 16, 2012 @ 2:04 pm
September 16th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Provan:
You don't even know my argument yet you say it's unreasonable.
You don't even know my argument regarding the utility of the IP.
And now you claim that my argument is "broken" before the debate has even gotten off the ground? Before you've even heard my side?
What? The argument you haven't even heard?
Have a nice day, oh unbiased one.
Comment by chunkdz — September 16, 2012 @ 5:27 pm
October 14th, 2012 at 11:43 am
This was an interesting debate although it never formally happened. I have heard many different definitions of intelligence, some better than others. The best ones are lengthy, like a page of descriptives, but here is Merriam-Webster's definition:
"1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also: the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)"
This sounds a bit like the chunkdz definition, but I would be remiss not to say that Webster's also has a second definition sounding more like Daniel's and their fifth of 5 definitions sound a bit like aiguy's. (Refers to computer intelligence). A dictionary publisher realizes that two or more people can refer to the same word but mean different things.
I am new to the site, but I am willing to be a judge if it isn't too late. I'll put my opinion on defining intelligence in a separate post.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 14, 2012 @ 11:43 am
October 14th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
We could debate specific wording of any definition of intelligence, but I think the big chasm is between those who believe that intelligence is an immaterial thing that DOES something to manipulate matter in a way seen to be purposeful (ID and about 90% of adults) and those who believe that intelligence is a characteristic of certain types of materials that do something that appear to be purposeful, but are really just chance and/or necessity.
I will make my position clear: The idea that anything complex can function consistently purposefully as a matter of chance, standard chemistry -or worst of all – selection, is absolute nonsense.
I agree with FMM that if CSI exists, then only intelligence could have caused it. Therefore the existence of any CSI anywhere in the universe is proof that the ID version of what constitutes intelligence is something that does exist. I do not agree that no definition of intelligence is needed, but I understand his frustration in dealing with those who belabor a term nearly everyone understands. Even if you came up with a perfect definition of intelligence that all agree to, many intelligence deniers would pretend they don't know what the word "is" is. Still, we must define any terms where there is disagreement in order to make our case.
I agree with daniel that the mind and consciousness are self-evident, as almost everyone I have ever known would agree. In fact I consider this the most undeniable fact in all science, because self aware consciousness is personally experienced by all of us and to deny it we may as well deny all observational data. If we can't be aware of our own consciousness then we can't accept anything as factual because we need to accept our intelligent awareness to accept literally anything else we experience. To deny intelligent awareness is like posing a mathematical argument by claiming there is no number 1. It is too axiomatic to proceed in any direction without this most basic of starting points.
I disagree with aiguy and FMM, who claim that after a certain level of complexity, an electrical device becomes "intelligent" and I would defy them to pick that demarcation between "smart" and "dumb". A phone that remembers numbers and documents time, is dumb, but a phone that determines location is smart? How so? Is location more important than time? Smart phones are just using words like "smart" and "intelligent" to sell phones, but no man-made device is intelligent. As daniel said, it can "act" intelligent, but it really isn't, any more than if they paint a smile on Barbie's plastic face she is really happy. A computer is no more intelligent than a toaster. Both are functional circuitry, created by intelligent cause, which differ only in a matter of degree.
On to chunkdz's definition, the good and the bad of it, in another post.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 14, 2012 @ 3:41 pm
October 14th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
As to chunkdz' definition of intelligence, it is good but could be more complete, in my opinion. Actually any definition that does not include willfull intent struggles. Chunkdz could argue, however, that planning denotes intent. Still, it is best to come right out and specify volition as imperative to intelligence.
Anything accidental isn't really intelligent, even if it seems as if it is. If an action appears to be intelligent, but is in fact accidental, then we must expect that from that point foward, further action will be random and non-purposive, as phenomenal luck gives way to what random chaos really always creates: destruction of order.
For example, materialists claim that even the chemo-electric data transmissions in our brains are accidental, not driven by intelligence, but causing the illusion of intelligence. This is ridiculous as there is literally nothing known to man that is less random, but if it were true, then it could not last. The law of averages would turn on us quite quickly as electrical firings would no longer correlate with conscious thought or willfull need.
Can we build a machine that does the same thing as intelligence? Only to an extent, but at no point does the tool itself become intelligent. If you pull the string on the back of a doll, it may say it loves you, but we know why it is saying that, and it doesn't really love you. In fact, it has no conscious thought at all. It may even be mechanized to move its mouth, but it is not intelligent.
I suppose you could make the doll more and more advanced, but at no point does it make the leap to conscious intelligence.
One of the best (albeit too simplistic) definitions of intelligence I read on this thread was "an act according to an end". This denotes a purposeful movement of matter, planned to accomplish something.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 14, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
October 15th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Intelligent Animation:
Two problems with including volition in a definition of intelligence:
1) It cannot be measured empirically.
2) It can be construed as affirming the consequent.
Thanks. If interest in ID for ID's sake ever picks up we might do the debate.
Comment by chunkdz — October 15, 2012 @ 7:24 pm
October 15th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
I never knew, but my irony meter does to go 11.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 15, 2012 @ 8:45 pm
October 16th, 2012 at 1:33 am
hrun:
I've read many dozens of people try to define intelligence, and they each come up with maybe two or three attempts, each of which is easily seen to either fail to capture what they want, capture a great deal of what they don't want, rest squarely on indemonstrable metaphysics, or be so vague as to mean nothing at all.
With apologies to IntelligentAnimation, this one ranks among the most bizarre descriptions I've come across:
It's hard to see where one could start in debugging this. It does, however, provide an illustration of how all of these metaphysical concepts – especially dualism and libertarian free will – are integral to people's vague, inarticulate, incoherent concept that they label "intelligence".
Comment by aiguy — October 16, 2012 @ 1:33 am
October 22nd, 2012 at 11:14 pm
aiguy, I have also read many versions of definitions of intelligence, most of them quite good yet anyone can debate them as long as a mere bland contradiction ("no, they don't") constitutes a "debate".
BTW, exactly what DO materialists claim causes intelligence in living beings if not happenstance?
Your quote of me was NOT a definition of intelligence, but a description of the failures of materialists who deny it. It isnt my fault that their belief system is bizarre. Intelligence is VERY evident, and they are trying to deny it.
Variances in the wording of different definitions do not constitute incoherence or vagueness. Either you are faking being so lost in such a basic concept or you are perhaps one out of a thousand people who truly are perplexed by something most people understand clearly without picking up a dictionary.
Is it just me or is it the same people who used to be so impressed with SETI seeking signs of patterns coming in from outer space as a sign of intelligence, are the same folks who now bat their eyes and claim they have no clue what intelligence is?
aiguy, either you are being obtuse and pretending not to understand what the average joe considers an elementary concept, or you honestly are not sure what we are saying. If it is truly the latter, then we can take the time to delve further. On the other hand, if you know what we are saying but have a different belief about it, then say so without acting baffled.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 22, 2012 @ 11:14 pm
October 23rd, 2012 at 12:09 am
chunkdz, you see "Two problems with including volition in a definition of intelligence:
1) It cannot be measured empirically.
2) It can be construed as affirming the consequent."
Either something is intentional or it isn't, so it can't be measured on any sort of sliding scale, but purposeful intent can be detected. Homicide detectives do it all the time. Even if it couldnt be, I see no logistical problem with including something in a definition if it is indeed a part of the description.
Problem-solving is a part of your definition. Yet, problems can be solved by lucky accident. Say a man has to walk 10 miles to work and back because he has to walk to a bridge 5 miles away, but then a tree falls across the river, forming a bridge and solving his problem. No intelligence was involved as it was a lucky accident, not intentional. Yet most would agree that intentionally contriving the solution to a problem is a trait of intelligence.
Still, I like your definition and it would seem as if intent is already in it anyway. How can any intelligent agent plan (planning is another part of your definition) without an intent to do so?
That was intended as a rhetorical question, but if anyone feels they have an answer to planning unintentionally, feel free to describe how that could happen.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 23, 2012 @ 12:09 am
October 23rd, 2012 at 1:22 am
aiguy, materialists do believe in "accidental intelligence", an oxymoron if ever there was one. One of the biggest debates in neuroscience is whether the brain causes the mind or the mind causes the brain. It is a fascinating debate, and you seem to not even understand the question.
Physical things are happening when we think. Chemical reactions carry a data signal through a neuron and electrical energy carries it across a synapse to another neuron in the pathway. Yet this physical transmission of data has a clear pattern, not the least of which is the very fact that it contains coherent data. Even if you would argue that there are less random matter and energy movements, these functions are certainly not random. What causes it to be so consistently functional? To always happen when needed or willed and yet retain itself otherwise? Luck? Genetics? Selection? Standard chemistry?
None of those make any sense at all. Please answer that question, rather than ignore it or cop out. Something is causing these reactions and whatever it is, they are happening according to a clear functional usage.
The only possible answer, whether it fits your religious beliefs or not, is that something immaterial and intelligent is causing it. Scientifically, this is the only viable answer. Immaterial intelligence is fact.
Darwinists see it as lucky accident. At some point, there was the very first such reaction, either with chemicals, electrical signals or both. A Darwinist calls it a fortuitous accident that is somehow inheritable, because somehow all of these chemicals and tissues are in the right place precisely because of an adenine nucleotide or something. To them, instincts are a complex set of genomically encoded info causing thought and inherited learning is further lucky breaks that keep on happening predictably yet having no actual correlation to the training.
If you agree with these materialists that the first ever data transmission for the first rudimentary thought was an accident that repeated itself through genetics, and stayed around due to selection, was there a time where these unintentional transmissions became intentional? If so, when and how? If not, then they are still unintentional luck.
Please exlain what is causing chemo-electric data transmissions in the brain, if not intelligent agency.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 23, 2012 @ 1:22 am
October 23rd, 2012 at 4:13 pm
IA:
I might go so far as to say it can be probabilistically inferred. Even a positive reading on Dembski's filter is still a probabilistic inference.
Comment by chunkdz — October 23, 2012 @ 4:13 pm
October 27th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
chunkdz, I would agree to calling it probablistically inferred, but I would use stronger wording when refering to our own volition.
I dont know how you could have planning without intent, nor does it make sense to have intent or purpose without agency of some sort.
Is intelligence a thing that demonstrates traits such as planning, learning and reasoning or is intelligence the traits themselves? I suppose you could define it any way you choose, but any definition that fits electrical devices would be a new definition, I would say, and a poor one.
I heard the analogy that a computer is thinking every bit as much as a plane is flying. I disagree. Computer circuits are a conductive pathway for electron flow, and they can be used to simulate SOME aspects of intelligent thought, but a better analogy would be a flight simulator that isnt really flying.
The enormous space station on 2001 A Space Oddysey used centrifugal force to simulate gravity. The used terms like "fall" and "up" and "down" while engineers used the term "gravity". But it wasn't really gravity. As a special effects designer, my job is to create the illusion of magic. We even call it magic and use the term "magician" for those creating illusions, but we all know it is not really magic, especially those of us who make it.
Circuitry that simulates intelligence is not real intelligence as I define it.
There is a reason that no computer chess game can beat the best chess players in the world. Because the best chess players helped with the programming. The fake intelligence can not think abstractly and conceive of novel concepts not already wired in by their programmers.
In fact, they dont really think or conceive of anything.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 27, 2012 @ 7:08 pm
October 27th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
IA, there is also a reason why we don't just make up random facts in our head because the fit our preconceived notion.
top ranked chess player's FIDE ranking in history: 2851 by Garry Kasparov
current best computer ELO on 4CPU computer: 3283 by Houdini
Yes, FIDE and ELO are not the same, but they are definitely comparable. And not that the scale here is not linear. Somebody with a rating of 100 points better than their opponent is expected to win the majority of individual matches played. So, to put it bluntly, currently, the best chess player in the world has exactly 0% chance to win a tournament against any of the top rated chess programs.
And the legendary match when Kasparov lost to Deep Blue was in 1997. While that was a supercomputer playing with human intervention between games, now there are free and open source programs that would win world championships when running on your laptop.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 27, 2012 @ 10:30 pm
October 28th, 2012 at 7:52 am
I don't either. It should suffice to measure planning then.
Both are measured the same using the IP. That's all I care about here.
As I remember the Deep Blue/Kasparov match, there was an audible gasp from the audience when Deep Blue sacrificed materiel to gain a strategic advantage. Perhaps not novel, but certainly abstract.
Comment by chunkdz — October 28, 2012 @ 7:52 am
October 29th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
hrun, I didnt make it up. I was refering to aiguys claim earlier in this thread that only 300 chess players in the world can beat the best computer programs. I have played against highly rated computer programs and against highly rated humans. The humans can beat me but the computers I have played cant and dont. I have lost to the NY State Chess champion, who I felt was far better than any computer I have played (and far better than me). Perhaps they have upgraded, but where do you get that 0% figure?
If a computer thinks up something novel, how does it do so? To put it concisely, we tell it what to "think", and we cause it to do so. I could certainly believe it works faster, that it has a better memory or that it makes fewer mistakes, but anything it does is a product of intelligence, not intelligence itself. Speed isnt necessary in chess, but it is a valued skill to assess all (or as many as possible, never really ALL for humans) possible outcomes of a move in advance, and this might be accomplished better by a computer because it could remember what options it had already reviewed and it possibly COULD assess ALL possible outcomes of a move.
I could believe that a computer could be better at chess than the best human, though I have not seen it demonstrated. I would also add that human evolution isnt finished yet.
Still, it would be no more than saying my binder notebook has a better "memory" than me. It is a tool, capable of doing some of the things intelligence can do, but it isnt intelligence.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 29, 2012 @ 6:59 pm
October 29th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
I am baffled, IA. I gave you a link to the top ranking of chess software that runs on a common desktop computer. These programs are shareware, open source, and commercial, most of them available to the layperson for less than $100.
These programs have rankings that FAR EXCEED the best known chess players to have ever played the game.
Both Chunk and I referred you to matches between Kasparov and Deep Blue where Kasparov first lost a single match and in the consecutive year the whole competition.
And all your subsequent comments do not just show a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding chess software and basic facts that are available on the web for anyone who looks. But they also show willful ignorance, since the error of your comments has been pointed out by two people.
If you would have chosen to inform yourself you would have realized that most of your comment is simply nonsense that does not match the facts on the ground:
Fact is: A computer beat the world's best chess player fifteen years ago. Subsequent programs have soundly beaten the world's best chess player. Now, even if the computers play on convectional desktop computers, no human player stands a chance against a computer.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 29, 2012 @ 7:09 pm
October 29th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
And I actually went ahead and looked up what aiguy said, since I am convinced he would not say something stupid like you suggest he said.
aiguy said:
Comment by hrun0815 — October 29, 2012 @ 8:38 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
hrun, you have convinced me upon further thought that an advanced enough computer is capable of playing chess better than a human.
chunkdz, I think I remember that gasping audience reaction. I'd bet the programmers would have gasped if it DIDN'T sacrifice the piece. It didnt come up with the idea on its own.
So computers decades ago couldnt beat good humans, but they are better now. I can guarantee you they didnt improve by their own deduction and learning, as a human does. Programmers laboriously added information to the computers memory, causing it to improve. Humans improve by playing chess a lot and learning and you say learning is a facet of intelligence. My computer chess game will never improve.
Some may say it is "learning" when we add programming, but it is really just being forced to send electrons to their positive pole by different routes. If I cant train my dog to stop chasing cars and mailmen, would he be "learning" if I leash him or close the gate? No, I forced into staying put. We can also force electrrons to flow differently. The computer will never do anything it is not forced to do.
That isnt learning. Its electrical current.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 30, 2012 @ 6:17 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
hrun, can you calm down a couple notches? I misunderstood aiguys post, fine. You say you left me a link, but I dont see one. He mentioned one loss, not a subsequent year nor any further losses. So you are making a few (gasp) mistakes yourself.
I used to play chess competitvely, but not anymore, so I dont really keep up with it.
No need to be stunned nor baffled nor any other hyperbole. I had already conceded that computers could be better than the best humans before either of your TWO rants.
You're right. I read it wrong and I see that. Move on.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — October 30, 2012 @ 6:48 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Not true. It's a discipline known as "machine learning". Computers are able to learn behaviors that are not explicitly programmed into them.
Comment by chunkdz — October 30, 2012 @ 7:37 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
So rather than looking into the facts, you just had some further thought and I convinced you. Rather than you simply looking up the facts? And you are talking about an 'advanced enough computer' as if any special computer is needed. The desktop or laptop or tablet or probably even phone you write these posts on is advanced enough to beat you. And a run-of-the-mill desktop is advanced enough to beat every single grandmaster in the world.
It is not a matter of what anybody mentions. These are simply facts you can find out yourself with a few keystrokes. Indeed I didn't give you a link, but I pointed you to the ranking of computers and humans and I mentioned specifically the pairing of the first time a computer beat a human. You could have informed yourself after that. But I guess you simply decided to stick to your guns and double down.
And there you go again: you have no idea about this topic as you have yourself admitted and amply demonstrated. Yet, you simply make new assertions that are simply wrong. Chunk already corrected you, but I guess you will now invent a new reality about chess computers to fit your views.
I guess that explains why you don't think that computers that can play chess well need to be intelligent.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 30, 2012 @ 8:27 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
*And a run-of-the-mill desktop is advanced enough to beat every single grandmaster in the world.*
I don't know what's the big deal. The cheapest trash car from India, Tata Nano is faster than the fastest human.
These things are machines designed to be very good in one particular task.
Comment by Eugen — October 30, 2012 @ 10:49 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
The big deal is that AI is making grandiose claims about chess computers that turn out to be flat wrong.
The error of his ways is pointed out and rather than inform himself, he admits he is ignorant and doubles down on his non-sense but making more grandiose claims about chess computers that turn out to be flat wrong.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 30, 2012 @ 10:55 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
OK,
IA YOUR COMMENTS WERE BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!
There, he is properly chastised.
Hrun wins 8 internets, but 7 internets have been deducted for gloating and general shenanigans and tomfoolery.
chunkdz wins 5 interwebs, but the exchange rate with internets has devalued his winnings to 1 internet.
Score is even, now….
FIGHT!
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 30, 2012 @ 11:20 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Oh yeah, and Eugen gets 1 free internet with his "Indian automobile reference" coupon.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 30, 2012 @ 11:22 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Well played, AOFM. Let's get back to just making up random facts to support our preconceived notions.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 30, 2012 @ 11:35 pm
October 30th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
hrun0815 Says:
Well played, AOFM. Let's get back to just making up random facts to support our preconceived notions.
Belgians have tried to deliver mail using cats. It didn't work. Therefore cats can beat a computer at chess.
Comment by velikovskys — October 30, 2012 @ 11:57 pm
October 31st, 2012 at 7:55 am
AOFM
…aod get 1 internet for being gentleman and keeping the score. Is there a cash value to internets? 1 rupee?
Velikovsky
How was the Orionids for you?
Comment by Eugen — October 31, 2012 @ 7:55 am
October 31st, 2012 at 11:03 am
IA, pay no mind to hrun. He's an incorrigible dickhead.
Comment by chunkdz — October 31, 2012 @ 11:03 am
October 31st, 2012 at 5:08 pm
hrun0815 wrote:
Penalty for roughing the scorekeeper. 1 internets deducted. You now have no internets.
*mournful trumpet sound*
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 31, 2012 @ 5:08 pm
October 31st, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Eugen wrote:
Is there a cash value to internets? 1 rupee?
My spreadsheet says it's about half of a Zimbabwean dollar.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 31, 2012 @ 5:14 pm
November 1st, 2012 at 12:20 pm
*My spreadsheet says it's about half of a Zimbabwean dollar.*
Comment by Eugen — November 1, 2012 @ 12:20 pm
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Let me take this quiet moment to remind everybody it's Movember.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Ready, set, grow!
Comment by Eugen — November 2, 2012 @ 6:25 pm
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:19 am
hrun says: "But I guess you simply decided to stick to your guns and double down"
That is precisely what I did not do. I immediately retracted and said "You're right."
hrun, the fact that you mistakenly thought you gave me a link is human error on your part. Its ok. I am not "stunned" or outraged. Just making the point that we all slip once in a while. I spend plenty of my limited free time informing myself on topics I find important, not what you think I need to spend time with.
He said 200 people and I said 300, misquoting him. At my age, 2's sometimes look like 3's. He also said these 200 can beat "one of" the best computer programs in the world, and I misread it as THE best. The latter of these two mistakes is more significant, and I apologize for the error.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 3, 2012 @ 7:19 am
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Whatever, AI, I'm a dickhead and you still don't get it:
Confusing 200 with 300 is a simple mistake.
Taking the description of a hypothetical situation that some guy on the web quotes as factual basis for what chess programs can and can not do is simply silly.
And what's even more silly is that when the error is pointed out, and you essentially admit that you don't know squat about chess computers you double down on your nonsense and flat-out state things about chess computers that are patently untrue (which is easy to find out with just a few key strokes and five minutes of reading).
But do carry on. It is, if anything, amusing.
Comment by hrun0815 — November 3, 2012 @ 9:42 pm
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Uhhh, hrun… IA already apologized – TWICE – for being wrong. It's very telling that you feel compelled to keep beating him over the head for his mistake.
It's almost like you consider such a mistake to be a deadly sin, and IA must be punished for it, and you're the church (or possibly deity) who does the punishing.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 3, 2012 @ 10:16 pm
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:52 pm
AOFM, I admittedly know nothing about Belgians, mail delivery, or chess computers. But let me state here unequivocally, there is no better way to deliver mail in Belgium than using cats. There is simply no other way possible to deliver mail there.
And if I am wrong, I apologize, but I am sure I will then think of some equally stupid to say about Belgian mail delivery by felines.
PS: Funny thing to be called a dickhead and possibly a deity within a few posts.
Comment by hrun0815 — November 3, 2012 @ 10:52 pm
November 4th, 2012 at 9:49 am
hrun, mail-delivering Belgian cats, really? A few years ago the best computers couldnt beat the best humans at chess, and I was unaware that the situation has since changed. That isnt as ridiculous as your cat analogy.
Rather than argue on about what we agree on, lets focus on what we seem to disagree on, which is really the important part of this subject.
I say a computer may be able to do things we cant do and faster, but they cant do anythng other than what they are programmed to do, neither more nor less. I may be misunderstanding you or aiguy, but I get the impression that you are claiming that there is a point where the computers can go BEYOND their programming, and think independently.
If I misunderstand you, don't get mad. I'm just trying to clarify.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 4, 2012 @ 9:49 am
November 4th, 2012 at 11:37 am
On a larger scale, I think it important to identify just how different simulated intelligence is from actual intelligence. To me, the most crucial scientific differentiation is the causal forces behind it.
A computer falsely appears to "think" because the hardware and software causes it to do things it MUST do, as a matter of necessity, because of standard electromagnetic force. The electrons have no choice but to seek their opposite pole, and they will always do so in a computer, barring a glitch. Intelligent humans can use tricks such as voltage modulation to send data, intelligently causing an unintelligent assemblage of plastic and metal to accomplish a function we pre-determined it must do.
Everything the computer does is the result of intelligence – but it is 100% human intelligence, and we can identify the cause of everything it does.
The intelligence evident in living beings, however, is not standard electromagnetic forces operating by chance or necessity. If it were by chance, it would be incoherent, and if it were necessity it would be simplistic. Our intelligence is neither, and it in fact opposes electromagnetic force when it needs to and is able to. It is a fifth force, easily and clearly identified by its unique and ubiquitous characteristics, as identified by chunkdz definition as well as Daniel and FMM. It is engaged into activity, not by a relay or a software command, but by volition, learning and purposeful movement with a favorable goal in mind.
No matter how close we get to simulating natural intelligence artificially, it never accomplishes intention or consciousness. It also never really learns beyond what we give it, by OUR intelligence. We simulate intelligence as a tool, but the machinery is no more intelligent than the toy doll that says "I love you mommy" when you pull her string.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 4, 2012 @ 11:37 am
November 4th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Hrun,
but I am sure I will then think of some equally stupid to say about Belgian mail delivery by felines
Let me be of service…..
"Thirty-seven plucky mail cats" were trained and employed to carry bundles of letters (and postcards) to nearby villages in and around Liège, Belgium in 1879 for saucers of milk.
The New York Times reported that, "Messages are to be fastened in water-proof bags around the necks of the animals, and it is believed that, unless the criminal class of dogs undertakes to waylay and rob the mail cats, the messages will be delivered rapidly and safely."
Not surprisingly the experiment was short-lived as the cats proved undisciplined.
Hrun,
PS: Funny thing to be called a dickhead and possibly a deity within a few posts.
An incorrigible dickhead to be precise, perhaps Chunk was just being ironical.
Comment by velikovskys — November 4, 2012 @ 1:16 pm
November 4th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Eugen
Velikovsky
How was the Orionids for you?
The meteors were a little sparse but the weather and sky were great.
Comment by velikovskys — November 4, 2012 @ 1:23 pm
November 4th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
IA,
A computer falsely appears to "think" because the hardware and software causes it to do things it MUST do, as a matter of necessity, because of standard electromagnetic force. The electrons have no choice but to seek their opposite pole, and they will always do so in a computer, barring a glitch
How is this different from how organic beings think?
Comment by velikovskys — November 4, 2012 @ 1:29 pm
November 4th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
hrun0815 wrote:
You have apologized for your Belgian cat mistake and I forgive you for that.
I won't continue to beat your past Belgian cat mistake into the ground in some misguided effort to make myself feel or look superior. I know that all you can do is apologize for past mistakes; I'd be a dickhead if I somehow implied you needed to do more to satisfy me.
Which one is the bigger insult, considering you're a staunch atheist?
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 4, 2012 @ 1:58 pm
November 4th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Sorry IA,missed your second post, so intelligence is separate from brain activity?
Comment by velikovskys — November 4, 2012 @ 4:09 pm
November 4th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Second part of your second post,sorry again for asking a question you answered.
Comment by velikovskys — November 4, 2012 @ 6:02 pm
November 5th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
velikovsky
Good for you..weather sucked here.Nothing new.
and
Good question. It's difficult to envision chemistry producing electrical potential, which in turn keeps shifting in patterns around the jelly blob is thinking, self awareness, emotions etc
It doesn't make sense.
Comment by Eugen — November 5, 2012 @ 7:08 pm
November 7th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
velikovskys, I guess you got your answer to your first question ("How is this different from how organic beings think?") reading further into my post, but I could elaborate further, and I loved Eugen's answer to your question. (and the question was excellent too.)
You had a related question, also very good: "intelligence is separate from brain activity?"
Intelligence is abundantly evident in every part of every organism, even those that have no brains, so yes, absolutely it CAN be separate from the brain. The brain will stop functioning if its intelligent causal forces leave it (upon death of the organism) so that is the only time the brain exists without intelligence.
A good way to describe the brain (AND the genome, for that matter), is as a file cabinet of stored data that can be utilized by intelligence to assist in accomplishing a task. The information in the files is created by intelligence so that it can be used for memory, expediency or other functional improvement.
We can see this formation take place by repetitive thinking, in other words by intentionally repetitively thinking the same thing. Brain scans reveal the formation of ever-thickening neural pathways that clearly activate upon this repeated thought process. Our intelligent will causes the neural pathway to form functionally, not genetics, selection or chance.
This is is a microcosm of how all of life forms, and it could not be further from Darwinistic luck and death slop.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 7, 2012 @ 12:58 pm
November 7th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Eugen says: "It's difficult to envision chemistry producing electrical potential, which in turn keeps shifting in patterns around the jelly blob is thinking, self awareness, emotions etc
It doesn't make sense"
You're quite right. The concept of accidental intelligence is a nonsensical and literally impossible oxymoron. No sane and honest person can understand the processes of the brain and call it standard chemistry. Materialists want us to buy into their beliefs but they really have no answers to anything biological, least of all intelligent thought and conscious self-awareness.
They try to deny that they see the patterns you mentioned, such as the obvious reality of learning, planning and problem-solving called out by chunkdz. They sound like phonies to most people for a good reason. Nothing they say has any resemblence to any observational knowledge.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 7, 2012 @ 6:22 pm
November 8th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Intelligent Animation
Interesting issues indeed.
It would be neat to invent a new term: chemical mechanics. We have classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, celestial mechanics so why not chemical mechanics.( You heard it here first
)
Therefore the question can be: does chemical mechanics induce consciousness?
(we don’t have to be serious about using this new term)
Comment by Eugen — November 8, 2012 @ 3:49 pm
November 10th, 2012 at 11:15 am
I'll go out on a limb and say No.
If it did, there would have to be a unique chemical process for each individual thought. Thinking about "grandma Helga" would require a different chemical process than thinking about "grandma Gertrude". I think you'll find that you run out of possible chemical reactions long before you run out of possible thoughts.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 10, 2012 @ 11:15 am
November 10th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Eugen, careful, they will adopt the term and use it to brag that they have explained everything through chemistry.
Materialists like to pretend they don't know what elementary words like "intelligence" mean, thus the need for this thread, but they have an even worse habit of coming up with a terminology and considering that an "explanation". They identify the name of a molecule or of a process, and then crow that they have explained it.
In thirty years of trying to make sense of their claims, I have become convinced that there is nothing in any aspect of biology that can be explained through chance nor any standard chemical reactions. Nothing.
They accomplish identification, not explanation.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 10, 2012 @ 10:28 pm
November 10th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Daniel, I dont see much risk to be out on that limb.
Besides the Gertrude chemical reaction and about 1 x 10 to the centillionth power other needed chemical make-ups that keep getting lucky and forming anew, they have to explain inherited intelligence as a material thing caused by luck. Wolves can routinely be domesticated in two generations, so how many lucky chemical reactions does that take and why does it keep happening only to the offspring of wolves that are trained? (with no mortality / selection)
Now they have induced evolution to explain, where organisms evolve to fit a changed environment predictably and purposefully. Luck certainly cant be causing it so they had better start finding chemicals that fall out of the trainers or something. Has any theory ever failed worse than Neo-Darwinism?
Was I wrong or were aiguy and hrun trying to claim that artificial intelligence goes beyond the electronics and form a consciousness? If so, I would love to see the schematics or the software code that says "ok, now be aware of yourself" or "have free will".
At this point, I would say that they lost the debate.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 10, 2012 @ 10:41 pm
November 11th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
IA, Daniel
I have to agree with you guys.
Consciousness may remain a mystery forever. It's hard to judge for me as a layman.
When I read on how neuron works on molecular level, all I see are molecules forming and breaking bonds causing tiny electric potentials. Scientists have to be given credit (and Nobel prizes) for their hard work on identifying all these processes.
Now that we know the details of a chemical process quite well I think we are not much closer to saying "aha! that's where self awareness forms"
Comment by Eugen — November 11, 2012 @ 1:15 pm
November 11th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Daniel,
If it did, there would have to be a unique chemical process for each individual thought. Thinking about "grandma Helga" would require a different chemical process than thinking about "grandma Gertrude". I think you'll find that you run out of possible chemical reactions long before you run out of possible thoughts.
Not sure if that is persuasive ,perhaps thoughts like words are combinations of processes.
Comment by velikovskys — November 11, 2012 @ 2:58 pm
November 11th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Eugen:
IA:
The underlying assumption of materialism is that consciousness "forms" from constituent parts – whether brains or electronics. This is reductionism. It is a failed philosophy and can only lead to failures in science.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 11, 2012 @ 3:00 pm
November 11th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Eugen,
Now that we know the details of a chemical process quite well I think we are not much closer to saying "aha! that's where self awareness forms"
Is self awareness limited to humankind?
Comment by velikovskys — November 11, 2012 @ 3:51 pm
November 11th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Daniel,
The underlying assumption of materialism is that consciousness "forms" from constituent parts – whether brains or electronics. This is reductionism. It is a failed philosophy and can only lead to failures in science.
Do we have any evidence of consciousness without constituent parts?
Comment by velikovskys — November 11, 2012 @ 3:55 pm
November 12th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
velikovskys:
YES!!! (see Aquinas' Fifth Way)
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 12, 2012 @ 8:55 pm
November 13th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
velikovskys:
I think my previous answer was pretty inadequate so I'd like to expand on it a bit.
First off I need to clarify my arguments.
My argument is against consciousness forming from unconscious things.
My argument is for consciousness being immaterial.
My citing of the Fifth Way was an argument for an immaterial consciousness at the core of Nature. (There are also many arguments for the immateriality of human consciousness, but I did not cite those as "evidence") The Fifth Way uses the tendencies of material things to act towards an end as evidence for a mind. This mind, by definition must be immaterial, else it does not explain all material things. Thus 'the mind behind nature' is not formed from constituent parts.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 13, 2012 @ 8:41 pm
November 13th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
velikovskys asks "Is self awareness limited to humankind?"
Not likely, v? Why would it be?
Of course, only a human can verbally confirm to us that they have a self aware consciousness as we each know for ourselves, but I would say it is essentially certain that other living beings and probably all living beings have a self aware consciousness. Perhaps it is duller or maybe more focused, but they have it.
If a rabbit ends up in the teeth of a wolf, they will squeal in horror and pain, letting all know loud and clear that they have self awareness, but what of plants or microbes? That isn't so hard to deduce with reasonable certainty.
Both plants and microbes seek nutrients, just we do. We know it isn't a chemical reaction dragging our mouths from the couch to the fridge. We choose to get up and walk to the fridge by our own intelligent will. By all observation, it is precisely the same for both microbes and plants.
Sure, plants move slowly, but they move, inexorably toward water, minerals and sunlight, all needed by the plant. Carnivorous plants take it a step further, but they all persue nutrients. It is all but certain that they also have a conscious awareness. Microbes will learn to escape from threats and choose wisely between seeking nutrients and avoiding threats.
And to think, neither plants npr microbes have brains. Imagine that.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 13, 2012 @ 9:13 pm
November 13th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Daniel: "If it did, there would have to be a unique chemical process for each individual thought. Thinking about "grandma Helga" would require a different chemical process than thinking about "grandma Gertrude". I think you'll find that you run out of possible chemical reactions long before you run out of possible thoughts."
Velikovskys: "Not sure if that is persuasive ,perhaps thoughts like words are combinations of processes."
Not persuasive??? I would say that at least 90% of the population would find this argument to be overwhelmingly powerful, if not rock solid proof of immaterial intelligence. In fact, it is quite easy to see that Mr Smith has teased us with a tip-of-the-iceberg style of persuasive power. He gives just one obscure example, notes how badly materialism fails even for such relative simplicity and then leaves us to think of countless other thoughts that are left quite literally unexplainable in material terms.
Even just thinking of the grandmas, with all of the memories and concerns, replete with audio, visual and olefactory recall, any small snippet of which would take an enormous amount of data storage, while being absolutely impossible to store by chance, genetics or selection. And it couldn't have been the usual "millions of years" excuse, as granny aint THAT old.
Sorry, but materialists have NO answer for this, which is exactly why nearly everyone rejects their pseudoscience beliefs.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 13, 2012 @ 9:29 pm
November 13th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
velikovskys, asks: "Do we have any evidence of consciousness without constituent parts?"
My studies have been in Biology, but I know there are those who promote the concept that intelligence (ID) beyond organisms is in evidence, such as what Daniel is describing. I realize there is a multitude of anectotal evidence for extra-organismal intelligence, but I don't feel this rises to the level of empirical scientific evidence. Arguments within the Biological realm for extra-organismal intelligence is much weaker than intra-organismal, IMO.
Sorry, that is the best I have as a direct answer, but I do have some comments, for a different post.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 13, 2012 @ 11:30 pm
November 14th, 2012 at 12:15 am
Some further comments on the subject of "consciousness without constituent parts" if I may….
What we have is A and B seeming to be always together, where A is intelligence (mind/consciousness) and B is living organisms or their brains. Knowing nothing more than that there is an A and a B in this coexistence does not clarify whether A causes B or B causes A. This means that, while your question is important, it does not prove, or even make most likely, the concept that B causes A, as you may (or may not) have been insinuating.
But is there anything that could glean some sort of answer as to whether A causes B or vice versa? I would say so, absolutely.
First and foremost is Daniel's point. There is no remotely possible way that the brain could form and operate as it does by any explanation other than intelligent control. The idea of accidental intelligence is an impossible oxymoron, that literally can never happen. On this point alone, A (mind) causes B (brain). B can not cause A, but A is the only thing that can cause B.
It should be noted, too, that the way we recognize the presence of intelligence is by its movement of matter. Because of this fact, we can only be aware of it where the moving matter is, so of course they seem to coexist. Also, this means that we really don't know the answer to your question, as to whether there is intelligence beyond organisms or not. We have no way to know, at this point, which means they may not uniformly coexist as it may appear.
If you look at a video of a tumbleweed blowing in the wind and it stops when it hits a fence, did the wind stop? We can't see it, so do tumbleweeds and wind coexist and is there any evidence on that video of wind existing outside of tumbleweeds? We do not know if consciousness ONLY coexists with an organism or not. We need further research.
One more point: While we don't know what you mean by "constituent parts", there is a diverse conglomeration of all sorts of "parts", from bone to fruit to cytoplasm that clearly is in that constituency. Yet intelligence is unquestionably present in every bit of all biota.
Moreover those parts are made up of whatever the intelligent agent chooses to imbibe. We could be a vegetarian or strictly carnivorous, yet the intelligence forms us the same.
I think you might have a stronger point if there was one distinct formation of one consistent set of materials, which was always present wherever there is consciousness. But this is far from the case. There is a VERY wide range of various materials affected by intelligence, some of which are not found in other organisms, in almost countless different formations.
So what ARE those "parts", velikovskys, that magically make intelligence come about? And how do they do this?
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 14, 2012 @ 12:15 am
November 14th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Daniel,
My citing of the Fifth Way was an argument for an immaterial consciousness at the core of Nature. (There are also many arguments for the immateriality of human consciousness, but I did not cite those as "evidence")
Certainly that is a possibility, what are the attributes of this consciousness? Is it a supercharged version of human consciousness? Must it be the Christian God?
The Fifth Way uses the tendencies of material things to act towards an end as evidence for a mind. This mind, by definition must be immaterial, else it does not explain all material things
I do not follow the jump from teleology to an immaterial mind, could not a material mind create the forces of nature,for example we could be living in a computer simulation. While it does not answer the ultimate truth it certainly could be accurate for our existence.
Comment by velikovskys — November 14, 2012 @ 11:11 pm
November 15th, 2012 at 10:58 am
velikovskys, what do you mean by "material mind"? Would that not be an oxymoronic term?
After all, we are learning through biology that the mind does not require any particular materials. An intelligent mind or minds create life, while all time, space, energy and matter came into existence at once. These are known scientific facts in the 21st century.
Materials themselves, by the arguments of some scientists, require intelligece for their existence. Again, this is not my area of expertise, but of what benefit are any materials to the existence of anything other than other formations of those same materials? How could materials form intelligence without intelligence? There is no logical cause to effect process.
How did you jump TO materialism?
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 15, 2012 @ 10:58 am
November 15th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
velikovskys:
Well you're asking a very deep question – one that has been worked out metaphysically by philosophers and theologians over centuries. The short answer is – no – it is not a supercharged version of human consciousness.
All it does is push the explanation back one level. Yes a "material mind" (whatever that is) may be invoked to explain some teleology, but nothing material can account for all teleology in material things. Ultimately you must step outside material things to account for the existence of material things – or end up with an infinite regression.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 15, 2012 @ 9:01 pm
November 17th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Daniel,
Well you're asking a very deep question – one that has been worked out metaphysically by philosophers and theologians over centuries
I would think maybe " worked on" would be more accurate .
Ultimately you must step outside material things to account for the existence of material things – or end up with an infinite regression
But the fifth way, things acting as if for and end only requires a mind to exist,not a mind outside of a material things,correct?
Comment by velikovskys — November 17, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
November 17th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
IA,
Not persuasive??? I would say that at least 90% of the population would find this argument(not enough chemical reactions to account for the myriad of thoughts) to be overwhelmingly powerful, if not rock solid proof of immaterial intelligence
Sorry, it seems one dimensional view. DNA has only four nucleotides ,but by the location and sequence these chemicals vast quantities of effect are generated. Are intelligence and consciousness interchangeable for you?
Comment by velikovskys — November 17, 2012 @ 2:09 pm
November 17th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
IA,
with all of the memories and concerns, replete with audio, visual and olefactory recall, any small snippet of which would take an enormous amount of data storage
Perhaps,how does an immaterial mind store memories?
Comment by velikovskys — November 17, 2012 @ 2:15 pm
November 17th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
IA,
Sorry, but materialists have NO answer for this, which is exactly why nearly everyone rejects their pseudoscience beliefs
No reason to be sorry, I would be interested in any proof you have of that statement. As one of our aged populations my immaterial mind has more difficulties in storing memories than my younger immaterial mind, does age of the body affect the immaterial? If so how, thru what interface can the material affect the immaterial?
Comment by velikovskys — November 17, 2012 @ 2:31 pm
November 17th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
IA,
Moreover those parts are made up of whatever the intelligent agent chooses to imbibe. We could be a vegetarian or strictly carnivorous, yet the intelligence forms us the same.
Some vegans disagree, they believe that meat carries the immaterial consciousness of the animal. This transfers into the eater.
Comment by velikovskys — November 17, 2012 @ 2:39 pm
November 17th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
IA
Materials themselves, by the arguments of some scientists, require intelligece for their existence.
Interesting ,any reference?
How did you jump TO materialism?
I didn't,I only asked how you are so sure it is "immaterial" whatever that exactly means, perhaps it would be a good time to explain if,mind, consciousness and intelligence are essentially the same thing? Why do brain injuries affect the abilities of an immaterial mind,whereas breaking my foot does not?
Comment by velikovskys — November 17, 2012 @ 2:54 pm
November 17th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
velikovskys wrote:
I need to start eating smarter people.
What wine goes well with geniuses? Do the wines vary with IQ?
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 17, 2012 @ 8:23 pm
November 18th, 2012 at 9:51 am
AOFM: "I need to start eating smarter people"
And I've got to stop eating turkey.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 18, 2012 @ 9:51 am
November 18th, 2012 at 10:41 am
velikovskys, I challenged you for some support for materialism because it did seem as if we were spinning our wheels without it. A few of us were wondering aloud why on earth anyone could ascribe to materialism. We still do, I'm sure, but you do seem to be trying to make a case. You continue to focus on the location of the brain matter, with the following good question:
"Why do brain injuries affect the abilities of an immaterial mind,whereas breaking my foot does not?"
Breaking the foot can clearly impact the purposeful movement of that foot, but I will use an anaolgy to answer your question with elaboration.
A man keeps all of his file cabinets and documentation of various work and studies in the "office" room of his house, but leaves very little stored information in his bedroom. If he had a house fire in his bedroom, it is easy to see how that would have a different impact on data storage and acquisition of information, as compared to a fire in his office room.
Perhaps your brain (or "office") in the latter years of life has some wear and tear that isn't as traumatic as a house fire, but has impacted the data storage or some other functionality in a negative way.
I certainly am not claiming that the brain is irrelevent to any sort of thinking process. It is a tool utilized by intelligence, not the ultimate cause of intelligence. Both the man's bedroom and his office were created, maintained and utilized by intelligence, but the information storage and processing was concentrated in his office space.
Neither the bedroom nor his office could have formed by accident. Only intelligence can create complex coherent data. Yes his office could be damaged by bad luck, but could it form by good luck?
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 18, 2012 @ 10:41 am
November 18th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
velikovskys:
Actually – no. There are whole systems of theology, built up over centuries, that have remained unchanged for centuries. There may be different camps, but they're all pretty settled.
No, because the Fifth Way applies to all of nature. The mind, therefore, must be supernatural.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 18, 2012 @ 1:30 pm
November 18th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Velikovskys, you register a valid comeback to daniel's argument, (but it doesn't get you far.) when you note "DNA has only four nucleotides ,but by the location and sequence these chemicals vast quantities of effect are generated."
Those four nucleotides form, in combination, a 64 character alphabet. Quantities of possible combinations of those 64 characters are enormous yet finite, only because they are limited to the number of bits of information in a genome (about 3 billion in ours).
You jumped to genetics, rather than the brain, I suppose to make an analogy, but it is a little bit different in the brain, which is both chemical and electrical. Daniel's "number of chemical reactions" argument is flawed because it isn't really adding up different chemical reactions at all. The same chemicals that say "Grandma Gertrude" are the same ones that say "Grandma Helga". They differentiate more by electron flow than by completely different materials. It is the precise movement of those materials which regulate precision electron flow.
So I agree with you up to a point, but then, daniel's overall point stands. A vast assortment of material movements are required for each possible thought. You also used the word "vast" to describe the amount of possible combinations of bits that could be used for information.
I'll tell you what "vast" is.
Vast is the number of possible cominations of chemical movements and electron flows which are useless gibberish. The percentage of intelligible coherent data, as compared to random noise, is indistinuishable from infinite with even a small amount of complexity and specificity. Combine that reality with the understated but overwhelmingly powerful point daniel made about how much information we seem to be assembling every day, and you really can't hope to explain coherent thought through chance or standard chemistry.
Our thoughts (with their requisite chemical movements and electron flow) are different every day, conforming to need, free will and real life experiences constantly. Such a situation requires intelligence, unless you can perhaps explain how it could be something else?
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 18, 2012 @ 4:53 pm
November 18th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
velikovskys asks: "Are intelligence and consciousness interchangeable for you?"
Not interchangeable (since they have different, but related, defintiions), but they certainly go together. I can see no way that anything can be done intelligently without intention, agency, awareness and planning ahead to act according to an end. A consciousness is aware and is thus intelligent but must intelligence always have conscious awareness?
This raises the question as to how intelligent movements occur (and they clearly do) in living organisms, even when we are unconscious or when we are unaware of the movement of matter. One possible answer is that there is more than one conscious intelligent agency in each of us. Some have speculated that there is a "subconscious" that doesn't reach a level of awareness for us.
I can't rule out either as a reason for unconscious movement, but the movements in life forms are clearly purposeful, thus without question, the result of intelligent agency of some kind.
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 18, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
November 18th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
velikovskys, when I asked "How did you jump TO materialism?" your two-word answer of "I didn't" is exceedingly weak. Did you start with an assumption of materialism? Or do you have some reason for believing in it? If you do have any justification whatsoever, you certainly aren't sharing it.
v: "I only asked how you are so sure it is "immaterial" whatever that exactly means"
It means that this isn't a chunk of matter that somehow has intelligent qualities. The argument from the materialists is that materials cause the appearance of intelligence while ID says that intelligence moves matter.
If material A always moves in a purposeful way, yet other materials do not, I would logically conclude that the material, or some portion of it, is intelligent and materialism is strengthened. If material A is only moving intelligently while in living organisms, and all materials move intelligently while in living organisms, then it isn't the materials, but the organism that is the common denominator.
If it was a piece of matter that is the source of intelligence, then which piece is that? If a complex protein molecule that never forms in non-biotic nature is being formed in a living being, then which of the various atomic elements causes the intelligent formation? Obviously it is not the entire molecule that is intelligent, or else the molecule could not form. If it is an atom that is intelligent, which element is it, and why does it not have those qualities when not in vitro? Why do synthetic RNA molecules not animate if not in vitro?
This is all in addition to daniel's arguments refering to consciousness. Is there an atom that causes our consciousness and, if so, how does it do so and what is that atom? How does it get from the brain to the sperm? Does it forget to be intelligent when not in a living being?
Why do I consider materialism a farce? Logic and science. Now, why DO you believe it? Or don't you?
Comment by IntelligentAnimation — November 18, 2012 @ 8:34 pm