|
Author
|
Topic: Intelligence -- what is it?
|
complex
Member
Member # 259
|
posted 29. April 2002 03:24
If intelligent design falls under scientific investigation as opposed only to a philosophical, and it is assumed that scientifically, design can be described as intelligent, what is a valid definition of "intelligence", understanding of which is a necessary condition for a scientific investigation of design which is intelligent?
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence to exist? For example, what makes intelligence different than material causes?
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 29. April 2002 09:05
Dear complex,
You may want to familiarize yourself with our board before making any more posts. Asking a question is not sufficient for starting a thread. At a bare minimum you need to begin a thread with an hypothesis, intuition, etc.
I'll give you until the end of the day to enhance this topic (via positive suggestions).
IP: Logged
|
|
complex
Member
Member # 259
|
posted 29. April 2002 12:38
Dear moderator. Is there a reason why posing a question is not a valid way of beginning a brainstorm? Is that part of the rules or simply accepted procedure in this discussion group. Do you mean one has to give a view of something as a necessary pre-condition to asking a question, or are questions never allowed at all?
In my long experience in the scientific enterprise, asking the correct questions can be the necessary condition for clarity. I have often found that we can be spending a lot of time in interesting discussion but answering the wrong questions.
You are welcome to remove the post, but I would appreciate a little more clarity as to why questions are not allowed in a brainstorming discussion (at least not allowed to begin them), whereas they are allowed on every discussion group that I know of (internets and intranets).
thank you.
IP: Logged
|
|
complex
Member
Member # 259
|
posted 29. April 2002 12:59
I just surveyed the postings and there are several threads that are begun by questions. In fact one (Jules) admits ignorance of some issue and asks a simple question.
I hope this rule of not beginning with a question is applied even-handedly.
thank you.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 29. April 2002 14:22
Dear complex,
Sorry for not being clearer.
First of all, Brainstorms is NOT intended to be like other discussion boards that you have visited in the past. It is NOT a general discussion board. The intention of brainstorms is to develop hypotheses, intuitions, etc. related to complex systems.
Second of all, questions are welcome for clarifying already existing threads. Also, questions can be raised when creating a thread if the questions are in reference to some positive hypothesis/information that you have already explicated.
Third, I'm not so sure I understand what you mean by:
"I hope this rule of not beginning with a question is applied even-handedly."
This type of warning is actually the number one warning that I give out. If I think that a new thread lacks substance or that the originator does not provide enough original material, I post a warning. If you look closely throughout the board you will find plenty of instances of this.
Finally, to apply this to you, your thread would have been approved if you had given us an answer to some of your questions or at least given us some ideas of your own that relate to the questions. We do not want this discussion board to be flooded with what I refer to as "leading questions": questions that are intended to win a debate, or corner someone against a wall. Brainstorms would like to move beyond petty debate toward constructive dialogue. When I sense that this is not the goal of a post, I make it known. I'm making it known to you.
[ 29 April 2002, 14:33: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 29. April 2002 16:11
I would like to attempt a reply to Complex's question, What is intelligence? My views are perhaps idiosyncratic, but I think it is an important question, and maybe my take on it can serve as a point of departure for others to jump in.
In my view, intelligence is the ability to act rationally, which in turn may be defined as applying means adequate to attain a particular end.
What could this possibly mean, in relation to the cell? Well, from the ID perspective, it means that the myriad structures and processes in the cell are all being coordinated in accordance with the plan of the Designer.
From my self-organization perspective, I believe there has to be some sort of presently unknown physics going on that is capable of fulfilling the following three conditions:
(1) A conative or striving tendency, probably related to nonequilibrium thermodynamics. This may then be modeled in terms of a nonlinear oscillator which spontaneously strives to remain within its basin of attraction.
(2) An internal energy store component, which allows the system to work against local thermodynamic gradients.
(3) A cognitive component, which allows the system to adjust the timing of its oscillations (powered by the energy store) in such a way as to maintain its dynamical stability (remain within its basin of attraction). I have speculated that all biofunctions do this by comprising within them as a subsystem a low-energy trigger (in the enzyme, it is the active site).
In summary, a biofunction (intelligent agent) may be thought of as a nonlinear oscillator whose oscillations have become coordinated with the external conditions that support its continued dynamical stability by means of the low-energy trigger (which is a generalization of the notion of sense perception).
This is kind of complicated, but I submit that something like this is at the root of all higher forms of intelligence. I use the low-energy collisions of photons on my retinas, which do me no harm, to steer my body through space so as to avoid the potential high-energy collisions that would do me harm. In the same way (so I maintain), a protein molecule is able to undergo its conformational change (i.e., its oscillation) in the presence of the correct substrate by means of the low-energy interaction at the active site that triggers the oscillation and in effect correlates the oscillation with the correct substrate. Note that enzymes can be in error---they can sense that a molecule is the correct one at the active site, undergo their conformational change, only to discover that they were mistaken and that the molecule will in fact not allow the function to "go through". In that case, the enzyme cannot detach from the substrate-ringer and it will lose its dynamical stability (that is, its oscillations will cease---it will "die"). This is the way in which most drugs actually work---by essentially fooling enzymes and protein receptors.
[ 29 April 2002, 16:16: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 29. April 2002 17:47
I think that James Barham's post is sufficient for keeping this thread alive. However, I will be paying close attention, and if the thread digresses, it will be closed. Digression includes talking past each other, rehashing worn out debate, etc.
From this point on, feel free to answer complex's questions and use J. Barham's post as guidance.
IP: Logged
|
|
complex
Member
Member # 259
|
posted 29. April 2002 21:08
Thank you moderator. I think it is helpful to try to understand a posting such as James' and see whether it makes sense, and if not, propose something more in line with what we understand about intelligence.
James, I read your post with great interest and fascination at the level of detail. However, I could not see why what you said describes intelligence.
In your definition, you described intelligence as "applying means adequate to attain a particular end." A dung beetle applies means adequate to attain a particular end and yet no one would describe it as intelligent.
Further, in what way is a purely mechanical system, that consists of oscillations or other movements, intelligent? If I have understood you correctly, the system that you describe is no better than a well-functioning car that consists of parts, but I don't consider a car intelligent. There is no "I" to a car. So in what way does your system different from a car? Or in other words, how do I upgrade my car so that it will have an "I" in it and function intelligently?
Please correct me if I have not understood your post properly.
regards,
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 29. April 2002 22:00
Complex:
Yes, you understood me. I realize that what I am saying is controversial (to put it mildly). But let me just reiterate a point or two, and we can either go on from there, or shut the thread down, as others see fit.
First, since I believe that individual cells meet the criterion of intelligence (rational agency, or fitting of means to ends), then a fortiori I consider the dung beetle intelligent.
The car is not intelligent because it has no inherent or intrinsic tendency to maintain itself in a functional state. We put inert matter into a state we consider functional. The second law takes it apart. We maintain it for a while, then finally give up and buy a new car.
Well, living things aren't immortal, either, but the difference is that they spontaneously strive to maintain themselves in existence (as entities out of thermodynamic equilibrium) as long as they can, and in order to do so they must adjust means to ends. I see this as intelligence, quite literally. The great zoologist H.S. Jennings once remarked that if an amoeba were the size of a dog, no one would hesitate to attribute to it the same mental states as we attribute to the dog, because it acts in such a patently rational manner.
Obviously, there is a scale here. More intelligence (and freedom) derives from more capacities for interacting cognitively with one's environment. Obviously, a dog is smarter than an amoeba, just as we are smarter than dogs. But the only way to understand human intelligence is as an outgrowth of the intelligence of living things further down the scale (or so it seems to me).
There is perhaps one other important point to make. The reason the cell is not just mechanical is that it is not just minimizing energy. It is rather marshalling its resources in a continuing effort to oppose the second law. It does not violate the second law, of course, because it is producing heat which, when you add it in to the equations, balances the books. But that is cold comfort to the physicist, who looks at this fantastic coherence and coordination, all aimed at holding the second law at bay, and is agog. The biologist has trained himself not to see the amazing thing staring him in the face. I believe Darwinism is a kind of anaesthetic, by which biologists and philosophers blunt the pain of perplexity that they would feel if they allowed themselves to look the fact of the intelligent agency of life in the face.
Whether physics is really any help here remains to be seen. But one thing is sure---Darwinism simply begs the question of intelligence, it is no solution. As for an outside intervention, I personally don't see how that helps, because it is simply positing intelligence instead of explaining it.
IP: Logged
|
|
mturner
Member
Member # 190
|
posted 29. April 2002 22:33
**
Complex,
You say:-
quote:
In your definition, you described intelligence as "applying means adequate to attain a particular end." A dung beetle applies means adequate to attain a particular end and yet no one would describe it as intelligent.
**
Well, actually, I would. Why wouldn't you? Evidently our definitions of 'Intelligence' differ greatly. Since you began this thread with the question, just what is *your* definition of intelligence? I resent, (like the moderator), that you ask a question in order to denigrate the answers you get back. Stick your own neck out and make a statement we can critique.
mturner
IP: Logged
|
|
Mister Pamboli
Member
Member # 175
|
posted 30. April 2002 00:32
quote:
Since you began this thread with the question, just what is *your* definition of intelligence? I resent, (like the moderator), that you ask a question in order to denigrate the answers you get back. Stick your own neck out and make a statement we can critique.
I concur. But even better, complex could state their definition of intelligence and then "brainstorm" that intelligent design doesn't meet it. That would at least give us some meat to chew on.
IP: Logged
|
|
complex
Member
Member # 259
|
posted 30. April 2002 12:52
Thank you for your comments. I will make some comments about intelligence and was trying to stay objective. However, I need to address the comments that were made by mturner and Mister Pamboli with fears that I will be drawn by their digression and will digress myself causing a possible shutdown of this thread. There is not need for resentment or assumption of motives or using emotive terms like “denigrate an answer”. I am new here and I am in the face of experts that understand intelligence more than me since this group centers around intelligent design. If I point out a fallacy of a statement, I am not trying to denigrate the answer but only to point to a potential or real fallacy. To denigrate an answer means to use an emotive term like “stupid”, or “silly” or even “denigrate”. It is also denigrating to ask me to stick my neck out, implying that I need to be taught a lesson. I suggest that we avoid those kinds of terms and stick to whether a point a made about a fallacy is correct or not. If it is a real fallacy then who cares why it was said? It would make a things a lot simpler by not assuming evil motives on the part of me or anyone else – and it would prevent unneeded resentment. And it would also allow for good will in the discussion. [Note to moderator: I will not continue on this point in the future so as not to be shut down]
As to the topic of intelligence, I actually don’t fully understand the term. I think that it is used in a loose and unclear sense intuitively but it is very difficult to pin down. I was hoping that I could be shown wrong which is why I asked the question. I gave an example of what a typical person would respond to. If I went out on the street and asked a typical person “is a dung beetle intelligent?”, most people would say “no” while affirming that it did clever things in a mechanical way. I am therefore very interested in mturner’s reply that he considers a dung beetle intelligent. I would like to ask if he would consider a car intelligent as well? Or a computer? And if not, why they would differ from a dung beetle. I would not consider them intelligent and I explain why below.
I think that a necessary but not sufficient condition for intelligence is that there be a cognitive, aware, “I” in what we are talking about. An “I”, by the nature of our linguistic reference to it, cannot consist of mechanical parts. I have not seen that in any of the examples given.
If there is no cognitive, aware, “I” then how is that system, no matter how clever of a machine, no matter how self-sustaining (I can built very good self-sustaining machines that can run for months or years), or even if it is a perpetual motion machine, nor how many goals it achieves. I do not consider a body lying in a hospital bed, pumping blood, taking in fluids, etc. but in a vegetable mental state as intelligent.
So I know what I don’t consider intelligent, and I know a very important necessary condition for intelligence, but I don’t know all of the sufficient conditions for intelligence to exist. If someone thinks that I have the wrong sufficient condition for intelligence, then please explain why you think so.
regards,
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 30. April 2002 14:12
Some Definitions of Intelligence
(you can ignore the references-they are notes to me)
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
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
Harry J. Jerison, The Evolution of Intelligence (Handbook of Intelligence page 216)
Intelligence is the behavioral consequence of the total neural-information processing capacity in representative adults of a species, adjusted for the capacity to control routine bodily functions
Intelligence is contained in the meaning of four terms: comprehension, inventiveness, direction, criticism (Handbook, 30)
A system has intelligence just in case it exploits the information it already contains, and the energy flux through it (this includes the energy flux through its sense organs), in such a way as to increase the information it contains. (Churchland, 173)
Rational, human-like thought (Pinker, 61)
Acting rationally by some set of rules (Pinker, 61)
Intelligence needs to care about something-> want, desire, pursuit
Intelligence meaningless without a specification of goals
Intelligent beings find a way to reach their goal, even if circuitous (William James)
The ability to attain goals in the face of obstacles by means of decisions based on rational rules (Pinker, 62)
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 30. April 2002 14:26
Complex,
I'm doing some research on the nature of intelligence and one of the more interesting tidbits that I'm trying to develop is the distinction between real and derived intelligence. Here are some of my notes as this is a work in progress:
Real or Derived Intelligence
A distinction that arises in our discussion about intelligence is between real intelligence and derived intelligence. Real intelligence can be defined as follows: the ability to choose between options in the service of one’s goals, beliefs, and desires and to occasionally introduce novel specified complexity through contingency and pattern. The distinctive feature of real intelligence is its ability to create novel complex specified information. Derived intelligence, on the other hand, is the capacity for expressing and/or processing inputted information based on a set of rules. In the case of derived intelligence, information is either preserved or lost.
Pinker’s definition of intelligence is really a definition of derived intelligence. The problem of real intelligence, is far from being solved. Unless we equivocate real and derived intelligence, the problem still looms before us. After all, only real intelligence is capable of producing such things as mathematical axioms and specified complexity.
There is an interesting paper called Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will, and the Turing Test by Douglas S. Robertson in Complexity Vol 4 No. 3 1999 which discusses the relationship between GÖdel's incompleteness theorem and the ability of computing machines to generate new information. In particular, he discusses the creation of new mathematical axioms (versus the processing of information).
In any case, complex, I would say that things like computers and cars have derived intelligence. On the other hand, I think that humans, dolphins, great apes, and many other species (perhaps even your beetles) have real intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 30. April 2002 15:20
Perhaps this might help.
There is already a group of scientists searching for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). How do they define intelligence?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic