|
Author
|
Topic: Why Are Humans So Intelligent
|
Daniel S. Rose
Member
Member # 84
|
posted 02. October 2002 11:36
things to take into consideration when discussing the baldwin effect.
its theoretical. It has many uncertain and questionable aspects. advantageous local plasticity can compete and interfere with global traits (plastic or non plastic). Priorites can nullify learning behavior. You have to weight he costs of learning vs local and global benefits, so that they can actually offset large expenses involed with learning. and there is research that simulates plasticity and notes that it hinders in many areas of a potentially evolving landscape and evolving creatures.
just stuff for thought
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 02. October 2002 11:39
Daniel,
I agree but the Baldwin effects also shows that in principle neo-Darwinism and collective knowledge should not be incompatible.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 02. October 2002 15:01
Response to Eland,
Quote: This is a rather amazing claim, suggesting that individuals are not intelligent
I am saying the it is useful, and consistent with the facts, to view ‘human intelligence’ as ‘group or social phenomena’ rather than an ‘inside an individuals brain phenomena’. This is not saying the individual is not intelligent. It is saying the individual acting alone would have a greatly reduced ability to generate intelligent, creative or adaptive solutions.
Most people I have talked to seem to agree that although the viewpoint is unconventional, it is both reasonable and reasonably compatible with what we know of human intelligence.
The distinction between nervous system intelligence and social or human intelligence is partly ‘perspective’ and partly technical. From a technical perspective, it will be recognized that ‘social intelligence or information processing, must involve processes and mechanisms not involved in ‘within brain processing’. These technical differences justify treating the two types of intelligence differently. There are other less obvious technical differences that are beyond the scope of the discussion here.
As a practical matter, it is useful to view or look at social intelligence or information processing as separate from nervous system intelligence because there are different types of processes and mechanism involved in controlling and changing social intelligence, than the factors influencing or controlling nervous system intelligence. Note that both types of processes are operating in a cooperative fashion in the individual.
Quote: It would be really interesting if you could give us some examples of such sets of selection processes, not based on death or preventing reproduction. As far as I remember NS is in fact a resultant of a set of more specific selection processes.
Thanks for asking, that is what I am working on at the moment. Hopefully I will have something to post in a few days.
Quote: I think evolution or GAs for that matter are in fact quite widely considered as parallel processes.
GA’s are viewed as operation in parallel on different individuals. What I am talking about is parallel processes operating on the individual. Rather than a process for finding Nx a member of Nf in N, I am talking about a set of parallel processes involved in finding 1)nx1 a member of Nf1 in N1, 2)nx2 a member of Nf2 in N2, ….. and g)nxg a member of Nfg in Ng where the final result of these parallel processes is to Nx a member of Nf in N.
One of the keys to this type of parallel processing is a force of selection which is stronger in total that ‘let the individual die or not reproduce’ or ‘let the individual live and reproduce’.
Response to Frances:
Quote: Perhaps the terms were a bit too simplified for me since I fail to see how
Complexity is only a problem for evolutionary theory if there is no process which can break ‘finding the complex solution’ into a number of simple steps. The absence of these small steps is not the result of logical necessity but the result of the existing theory of evolution. I am suggesting that the ‘problem’ identified by IC and SC might be explained by parallel evolutionary processes the same way this problem appears to be ‘solved’ in the nervous system.
Quote: I can understand that people may have difficulty with neo-Darwinism but to then conclude that there is an incompatibility would require some additional effort to show that this is the case.
I have suggested and presented arguments supporting ‘the appearance of incompatibility with a reasonable non-technical interpretation of neo-Darwinian models’. Specifically, I suggested that if something continues to change or evolve long after genetic changes occurred, then that process of change would appear incompatible with neo-Darwinian theory. Maybe you can explain in detail where my arguments don’t support my conclusion.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 02. October 2002 15:13
Warren:
Complexity is only a problem for evolutionary theory if there is no process which can break ‘finding the complex solution’ into a number of simple steps. The absence of these small steps is not the result of logical necessity but the result of the existing theory of evolution.
Hence complexity is NOT a problem for evolution and Darwinian mechanisms and in fact there are some very good papers out there which show that this is indeed the case.
I am suggesting that the ‘problem’ identified by IC and SC might be explained by parallel evolutionary processes the same way this problem appears to be ‘solved’ in the nervous system.
Does this mean that you withdraw your simplified terms analysis steps 1 to 3?
I have suggested and presented arguments supporting ‘the appearance of incompatibility with a reasonable non-technical interpretation of neo-Darwinian models’. Specifically, I suggested that if something continues to change or evolve long after genetic changes occurred, then that process of change would appear incompatible with neo-Darwinian theory. Maybe you can explain in detail where my arguments don’t support my conclusion.
Are you suggesting that all change should be due to Darwinian mechanisms? I find that hard to believe. If however that is your argument then I suggest that your version of Darwinism is perhaps too simplistic. If you are not arguing this then there is no real problem. Perhaps rather than incompatible with Darwinian theory, Darwinian theory is neutral about it?
I have shown examples of learning being compatible with Darwinian mechanisms (Baldwin effect). So far I have yet to see any evidence of incompatibility. You have not even shown an appearance of incompatibility nor have you provided us with your version of Neo Darwinism.
I am looking forward to your arguments.
[ 02. October 2002, 15:19: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 03. October 2002 09:31
I have proposed that the ‘dramatic differences in ‘creative intelligence between humans and any other animals’ is explainable primarily as a ‘social intelligence feature’. There are three features of this interpretation which are worth considering in more detail. These are 1)change in identity from the individual to the social group, 2)evolution of a new evolutionary process, and 3)parallel processing in evolutionary processes. There are other well documented examples of evolutionary change involving each of these features.
CHANGE IN IDENTITY/ENTITY
The proposed explanation of ‘dramatic increases in creative intelligence’ assumes a ‘change in unit, identity, or entity’ from the ‘individual to the social group’. Evolutionary change processes, the proposed explanation suggests, are operating on the ‘social group’ rather than the individual organism. Entity or identity changes are ‘rare’, but by no means unknown in evolution. The development of multi-cellular organisms meant a change in entity from the cell to the group of cells. Even earlier, there were changes from the ‘individual cell’ to the ‘species’.
Entity changes from the individual to the ‘social group’ are, of course, not unique to humans. Most animals involve packs, schools, or some such social organization. Humans seem to differ from other animals in our ability to simultaneously belong to large numbers of different groups, and in our ability to rapidly form and reorganize the groups to which we belong.
It is useful to note that creating a new entity does not eliminate the prior ‘entity’. The creation of new entities means the creation of a new ‘level’ of organization. This in turn suggests the creation of new processes and mechanisms of ‘evolutionary change’ and new ‘processes and mechanism’ for coordinating the changes at different levels.
EVOLUTION OF NEW EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES
The proposed explanation of human creative intelligence suggests that ‘the evolution of human creative intelligence is the result of the evolution of new evolutionary process that makes it possible for evolutionary changes to occur without changes in genetic code’. It is generally recognized that evolutionary processes evolve. It is also recognized that evolutionary processes and mechanisms interact with processes and mechanism other than those directly associated with genetic change. It is therefore logically possible that new evolutionary processes could evolve which are not dependent on genetic change.
The interaction among ‘learning’, ‘genetic change’, and ‘evolutionary change’ is a partial example of this ‘evolving away from dependence on genetic change’. Clearly ‘adaptive solutions to the problems of survival’ can be learned as well as ‘genetically evolved’. The interaction of genetic change and learning gives animals a greatly increased ability to find adaptive solutions. The ability to learn, for example, means that animals can adapt to cold weather (by migrating), forest fires (by moving), etc. by ‘learning an adaptive solution’ rather than by evolving some physical/genetic change.
If ‘the ability to learn adaptive solutions’ evolved as an alternative/supplement to genetic change as source of adaptive solutions, then logically ‘an ability to increase creative intelligence’ could have evolved as al alternative to genetic processes for increasing creative intelligence.
The evolution of evolutionary processes is a recognized phenomena. Current theory does not appear to provide clear guidance on the exact nature and extent of this phenomena. Would ‘evolving evolutionary process not dependent on genetic change’ be compatible with current theory?
PARALLEL PROCESSING
It is, apparently, conceded by the individuals participating in this discussion that parallel processing can or does play a role in human intelligence, nervous systems processing and evolutionary change. The questions which remains to be addressed are the technical/mathematical issues of how does this parallel processing work, what is processes, and how are the pieces coordinated to produce an adaptive whole.
APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES AND APPARENT INCOMPLETE EXPLANATIONS
As I stated earlier, the ‘creative intelligence as a social rather than individual’ phenomena ‘appears’ with some reasonable interpretations of existing TOE. It also appears based on reasonable interpretations of existing TOE that the current explanations of ‘entity changes’, ‘evolution of evolutionary processes’, and ‘parallel processing in evolutionary processes’ is incomplete and/or imprecise. Current TOE recognizes multiple entities or multiple entity levels, and thus the ‘creation of new entities’. But current theory does not appear to offer a precise detailed explanation of the subject. Current TOE recognizes ‘evolution of evolutionary processes’ but does not address precisely and in detail the limits and magnitude of the phenomena. Current TOE recognizes parallel processing in evolutionary processes, but does not offer a precise, complete mathematical description of
what the phenomena does. IMO, the apparent inconsistencies and the apparent incompleteness are obvious.
[Note: Claims that "EB has explained that", "If you look in the literature you will find an explanation", or "To make that assertion you must first demonstrate..", involve what I call ‘theory of knowledge issues". I am told that theory of knowledge issues are not appropriate subjects for discussion here (I am in agreement on this). It is therefore not appropriate to respond to general unsupported claims of the type listed. Right?]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 03. October 2002 12:01
Warren
It pleases me to see your latest posting in which your argument about TOE seems to have changed from incompatible to incomplete. I would be the first one to agree with you that our knowledge of matters in incomplete (complicating an ID inference btw). While Neo-Darwinian theory in principle can explain learning (Baldwin effect), there are still many unknowns to be studied. I am also not arguing that in order to argue something you first need to show. Hypotheses are not always based on pre-existing knowledge but claims of falsification do need some support imho since they are the foundation of scientific inquiry.
To Daniel:
Whether or not Darwinism is inadequate was not the issue here. Warren was claiming that it was incompatible. Science is always looking for expanding its understanding and adequacy will have to be determined by the facts. So far Darwinism seems to have performed quite well. Is there a better theory? Maybe. So far though we do with what we have since it's the best we have.
[ 03. October 2002, 13:19: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel S. Rose
Member
Member # 84
|
posted 03. October 2002 13:01
preface: i didnt read all the ins and outs of this threads discussion, just the part that pertained to the baldwin affect , so take this with that grain of salt. ( in other words, you might working away at some specific philosophic/scientific point aside from it, so this might be tangential or whatever)
This phenomenon may be compatible with Darwinism in whatever form, but regardless, that doesnt mean that we should adopt an inadequate hypothesis as an explanation for this phenomenon.
Rather i think it serves to push us to look somewhere else. compatibility != justification for its adequacy.
[ 03. October 2002, 13:17: Message edited by: Daniel S. Rose ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel S. Rose
Member
Member # 84
|
posted 07. October 2002 12:12
Francis,
I agree. incompatible and adequate are distinct. and its important to make that distinction in discussions. im glad you want to keep those terms clear when evaluating possible explanations. Its important in saving time and keeping terms straight so that discussions dont contain people working away at demonstrating something to differing sets of criteria. incompatible is harder to demonstrate. adequacy wasnt the main thrust of the point however i think it should be a prominent criteria. Whatever the merits of dariwinim in other domains, it is weak and seemingly inadequate in regards to the phenomenon the badlwin effect scenario is posited to explain. so i think at least , we should not be content to rest on it for the explanation , but continue onward in our search.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 07. October 2002 12:49
I am not sure if Darwinism is unable to explain the Baldwin effect. But there surely seems to be some confusion that the effect is Lamarckian for instance. I found the following paper useful:
Myths and legends of the Baldwin effect by Peter Turney
quote:
This position paper argues that the Baldwin effect
is widely misunderstood by the evolutionary
computation community. The misunderstandings
appear to fall into two general categories. Firstly, it is commonly believed that the Baldwin effect is concerned with the synergy that results when there is an evolving population of learning individuals.
This is only half of the story. The full story is more complicated and more interesting. The Baldwin effect is concerned with the costs and benefits of lifetime learning by individuals in an evolving population. Several researchers have focussed exclusively on the benefits, but there is much to be gained from attention to the costs.
This paper explains the two sides of the story and
enumerates ten of the costs and benefits of lifetime learning by individuals in an evolving population.
Secondly, there is a cluster of misunderstandings about the relationship between the Baldwin effect and Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics. The Baldwin effect is not Lamarckian. A Lamarckian algorithm is not better for most evolutionary computing problems than a Baldwinian algorithm. Finally, Lamarckian inheritance is not a better model of memetic (cultural) evolution than the Baldwin effect.
In short the Baldwin effect helps smoothing the fitness landscape which helps facilitating evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 07. October 2002 20:30
Just a "little" point I heard about creativity.
Highly creative people, which includes great scientists, artists and sages, are creative not because they think well but because they know how to STOP thinking. They know where the OFF switch is and use it for getting their creative impulses. Thinking is used after for mere elaboration.
At least that's what they say.
IP: Logged
|
|
John 3
Member
Member # 269
|
posted 08. October 2002 01:22
"Evolutionary change processes, the proposed explanation suggests, are operating on the ‘social group’ rather than the individual organism...
It is generally recognized that evolutionary processes evolve...
The creation of new entities means the creation of a new ‘level’ of organization. This in turn suggests the creation of new processes and mechanisms of ‘evolutionary change’ and new ‘processes and mechanism’ for coordinating the changes at different levels."
By Warren Bergerson
I think what we are seeing is that cooperation is the direction of evolution. Organizations of destinct entities, through NS, evolve into a cooperative symbiosis. And you know the expression, 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.' There must be a syncronicity mechanism in parrallel NS that solidifies a symbiotic organizations into an single autonomous entity. This mechanism would drasticly accelerate the path to higher order cooperation, would it not?
As far as I can tell, the evolution of a system goes as follows: first entities grow and reproduce; then they compete, differentiate, and specialize; then certain combinations of different entities happen upon cooperation while still self-serving; then only the entities in the organization necessary for survival will unify into a closed system. This new entity then grows, reproduces, and competes at a higher level of reality.
These principles may scale down to particle interactions.
Its a rough and nonmathmatical layman's decription right now, but I think it runs along the lines of what your getting at.
One question though. When you say this type of intelligence must exist outside the brain, I understand it only to mean that cooperation can manifest itself systemicly, in a top-down manner, into the group (whos individuals know only self-servedness). I have yet to fully grasp what you mean by "outside the brain". Are you implying the intelligence is in the ether or the astral plane or in a series of physical interactions between individuals?
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 08. October 2002 05:28
John,
Your description of higher level cooperation is a good starting point. It is useful to think of these processes in terms of sequential steps, but keep in mind that the different stages are actually ongoing processes not completed processes.
Quote: One question though. When you say this type of intelligence must exist outside the brain, I understand it only to mean that cooperation can manifest itself systemicly, in a top-down manner, into the group (whos individuals know only self-servedness). I have yet to fully grasp what you mean by "outside the brain". Are you implying the intelligence is in the ether or the astral plane or in a series of physical interactions between individuals?
‘Intelligence’ or ‘the ability to generate creative and adaptive solutions’ can be viewed as 1)a property of a system, or 2)as a compound/complex process. Think of ‘intelligence’ like the property ‘car’. Part of ‘carness’ is located in the engine, part in the steering wheel. In a similar manner, intelligence is in part located in an individual brain, but also partially in the communications between brains and in the physical aids, like computers and books, which are important components of the system which exhibits intelligence.
There are at least three important practical aspects of ‘human intelligence as a group or social system’. First, it provides an explanation of why ‘human creative intelligence is vastly greater than the creative intelligence of apes, even though our individual brains are only modestly larger than those of apes’. Second, because the ‘processing’ associated with human intelligence is ‘dispersed and communicated’ it is easier to ‘observe, segment, and analyze’ the processing associated with human intelligence. [This benefit is not widely recognized.]. Third, it means that in evaluating the products of human intelligence, products such as scientific theories, it is important to recognize that the relevant knowledge is not necessarily contained in a single brain. [It is often erroneously assumed that while only creative genius’ can generate theories, anyone with an appropriate PH.D. can understand and interpret a scientific theory. Human intelligence as a social system suggests complex knowledge is in fact dispersed among a variety of experts, and only ‘components’ of the knowledge exists in an individual nervous system at a point in time.]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel S. Rose
Member
Member # 84
|
posted 08. October 2002 12:51
Francis,
I hear ya. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
theories of acquired and retained learned traits like the Baldwin Effect(BE), are definately a highly contended topic, for many reasons. So i acknowledge there is definately much disagreement on it.
One of those like you pointed out in the reference, is its relatedness to Lamarckianism. Also, its controversial for the aspects i mentioned in my first post. Negative interferences from competing local and global priorities and pressures, play into whether or not the fitness fcn smoothing happens and is relevant or advantageous. also this is further compounded by the type of each behavior, plastic or non plastic, in each competing potential trait. the costs of plasticity compete with non plastic population traits(global and local), and in many cases the non plastic trait is sufficient enough or superior to plasticity at that certain point in the landscape(and vice versa). and these along with variable conditions of landscaping and its effects on any potential smoothing over the duration of the process while traits are being aquired.
So plasticity and its smoothing affect theoretically may have some advantages, but its highly dependent and restricted on the things i mentioned. So , theories like this , are weak, and i think inadequate since any real successful retention would involve 'turning on' the (BE) in this one situation of the landscape for a small amount of time, then turning it 'off' in all the ways it would be restrictive and a hindrance. turning it on again here , but then 'off' there to avoid losing whatever is in the process of being retained ,. . . , over the life of the population. In order to have potential of retaining that trait. So to be succuessful it becomes too contrived and choreographed to be probable and adequate i think.
research that highlights some of these areas:
http://www.santafe.edu/~ancel/PAPERS/TPB.pdf
However, your welcome to disagree. I think though, theres enough warrant to see the limits and inadequacy of these theories and focus efforts in other areas.
[ 08. October 2002, 12:55: Message edited by: Daniel S. Rose ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John 3
Member
Member # 269
|
posted 09. October 2002 15:29
"Your description of higher level cooperation is a good starting point. It is useful to think of these processes in terms of sequential steps, but keep in mind that the different stages are actually ongoing processes not completed processes."
Warren Bergerson
Yes. Novelty is always emerging. But the point is that the form and function of collective intelligence/learning derives from the individual’s intelligence/learning. So to understand the former, we must understand the latter.
Going along with the model I suggested: An individual will observe a given system; differentiate and break it down into all its relevant parts; define each parts properties and capabilities; and then begin reassimilating these parts (by analogy, for example) into methods that reach the desired end-state. Ideally, the longer we live, the more accurately we will define the parts of our system/universe. Much of the human brain (?50%) is probably taken up to do this task by using symbol maps/models and evaluation systems. What constitutes the self, I suspect, is a small migrating aggregate of synchronous neuron computations and it's probably similar to the self that exists in most mammals.
Collective intelligence/learning is when: individuals share the same goal; when those individuals differentiate and specialize their knowledge bases; when one individual communicates by teaching of their personal knowledge or when two learn from each other; and when individuals of specifically different knowledge bases come together to achieve a goal. For instance, a submarine's crew will involve a number of separate specific tasks: the cook, the engine workers, sonar readers, navigation, steering, the captain, etc. So just like no one neuron could perceive the brain, no one individual could perceive all of society and the intelligence it delegates to make itself work.
In terms of the evolution of bodies of knowledge, it seems most conducive to specialize a branch of science, history, or art and then practice multidisciplinary integration of the material back into the body of knowledge. So while the topography of knowledge spreads, it still gets reconnected into a cohesive whole and is not lost in terminology.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 09. October 2002 16:15
John,
Quote: Yes. Novelty is always emerging. But the point is that the form and function of collective intelligence/learning derives from the individual’s intelligence/learning. So to understand the former, we must understand the latter.
The above view is a good starting point, but it does not appear to be a good description of what actually appears to happen.
To begin, social learning/intelligence are applied not to knowledge, but to ‘creating and modifying complex patterns of social behavior’. I starting by studying market behavior, but the mechanisms appear to be the same for other types of social behavior. The key or controlling unit or element in social behavior is the ‘decision’ or ‘decision process’. Even relatively simple social behavior can involve millions and billions of decisions and decision processes.
A decision process can be viewed, perceived or defined as a combination of an 1)input- out or S-R process, and 2)a program controlling the input-output processing. Using this perspective, ‘human social learning/intelligence’ can be described/defined as the processes responsible for changing, evolving or reprogramming decision making programs. This, it must be admitted, is a very boring technical definition of human social behavior. My analysis, however, suggests this boring technical approach makes it possible to both 1)identify/model/simulate the programs controlling human ‘social’ decision making and 2)identify/model/simulate the processes responsible for reprogramming the logic controlling decision making.
One of the ‘interesting’, IMO, features of this approach, is that it suggests human social behavior/intelligence parallels the logical structure of animal or nervous system behavior/intelligence. The nervous system, can be described as a set of information processing or decision making units connected by communications channels. The processing or decision making performed by the individual neuron can be described in terms of ‘input-output’ processing and a program controlling the processing. Animal/nervous system learning/intelligence can thus be described as the processes responsible for reprogramming neurons.
It is also interesting to note that programs controlling processing in both human social decision making and neuronal fit the definition of design. A program controlling human decision making or neuronal information processing can be described as a form Nx from a set of N possible programs. The intelligence or learning which reprograms neurons or human decision logic is a process which finds an Nx in N which is adaptive, functional, or teleological.
Using the approach I suggest, learning in neurons, and human social learning are ‘design processes’ similar to the processes responsible for changing genetic designs.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic