|
Author
|
Topic: Can intelligence be described scientifically?
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 09. March 2003 02:02
Erik:
You said that in science simplicity is an end in itself and that we assume nothing more than the existence of the external world. I contended that your assumption of simplicity constitutes a metaphysical assumption which is beyond merely assuming the existence of the external world. You disagreed, and presented what you think are two fatal flaws with my contention.
In your second alleged flaw, you point out that "Not everything that is outside science is metaphysics." Yes, I agree. I didn't mean to make such a hard distinction. You point out, for example, that "what is time?" and "does Bill Clinton like cigars?" are both non scientific, but they are metaphysical and not metaphysical, respectively. Yes, of course. But surely you're not saying that the question of whether simplicity is a virtue in science is closer to the latter than the former. So what's the point? I don't see how this is a fatal flaw as you claim.
You try to clarify your point with the example of quantum mechanics. You point out that "metaphysicians have not managed to reach any non-trivial consensus regarding the metaphysical issues surrounding QM (which are not part of the scientific model itself)." Your point being that, as exemplified in QM, science marches on despite metaphysical puzzles. It is aloof of those puzzles. But your point is flawed, as the QM example does not make the point which you intend. First, if certain areas of science end up producing unresolved metaphysical puzzles which do not directly affect the science itself, it simply does not follow that science is free from *all* metaphysics. Secondly, the metaphysical issues do not surround QM so much as they surround the observations. In other words, there are observations which QM in particular, and science in general, are unable to explain satisfactorily. Hence the metaphysicians come into play. This hardly makes the case that science if free of metaphysics, though, of course, I appreciate your point that QM works well where it works, in spite of its inability to explain all the observables.
As for your first alleged fatal flaw, you say we need to distinguish between goals and assumptions. Simplicity is a goal, not an assumption. You give an analogy of a stock broker whose goal is to makes lots of money and whose assumption is a model of the market. It would be absurd, you say, to view his assumption as being to make a lot of money. Yes, indeed. It would also be absurd to think that this analogy clarifies or proves your contention, which is that science is free of non scientific ideas beyond merely that the world exists. You say simplicity is a goal, not an assumption. OK, for purposes of discussion I can go with that. I used the phrase "metaphysical assumption" but I can cut/paste "goal" in there. OK, here it is: "Simplicity is a metaphysical goal of science."
My contention is that there are metaphysical ideas imbedded in science. Whether you want to call them goals or assumptions, or whatever, is mere wordplay. It makes no difference [Of course I'm not saying goals and assumptions are identical, merely that the distinction is not important to the point at hand]. In fact, if you'd like to get rid of the word "metaphysical" we can do that too. How about "a priori" or "non scientific" instead?
You concluded: "We have now exchanged a few posts on this topic and you are no closer to providing an argument for your claim that doing science requires that we have (i) a scientific model of intelligence, and (ii) that we make metaphysical assumptions about intelligence."
My contention is, I think*, that the question "What to IDers use for a scientific model of intelligence" is ill posed. Research done under the ID banner is usually not going to be profoundly different from that done under the evolution banner. In fact, the claim that there is no successful ID research in the life sciences is simply false. Look through any life science journal, you'll find plenty.
Under the evolution paradigm, when function is found it is ascribed to the design of natural selection. When we fail to discover a function, then it is ascribed to the vagaries of the contingent, historical process of evolution. Then, years later, when function is finally discovered, the "design by natural selection" explanation is invoked.
Under ID, when function is found there is no further explanation. When we fail to discover a function, then we say we have not yet figured it out. Actually, ID does not explicitly rule out the possibility *some* biological designs may lack function, period.
But in general, a good way to distinguish evolution from ID and vice-versa, is that where ID looks for function, evolution looks for contingency and the historical process behind the design. The history of biology is one support after another for the idea that function predominates. All sorts of supposedly "vestigial" organs and structures have been found to have function.
I brought up simplicity and uniformity to argue that scientists, no matter whether what their paradigm, are incorporating non scientific ideas, and that these ideas are about as far as ID need go in modeling intelligence.
Now you might say evolution is better because it provides a fuller explanation. If ID doesn't provide a model for the "I" then we can't reason things out as far. True, evolution fulfills our intellectual necessity. I like to say ID is not a theory of everything as evolution is. ID does not venture into metaphysics as evolution does; it is more limited. Evolution, on the other hand, gives an all-encompassing explanation. So choose your theory: the more limited version which is generally in accord with the evidence, or the more encompassing theory which is not supported by the evidence.**
--Cornelius
* This is brainstorming after all
** A good example, though there are many more, is the [universality of the] DNA code which evolution neither requires nor explains (beyond speculation), yet it is supposed to be a strong, compelling evidence.
[ 09. March 2003, 20:25: Message edited by: Cornelius G. Hunter ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 09. March 2003 03:27
Rex:
You said that "the success of materialism has prompted many to favor materialistic approaches to science," and you cited as examples the "Motion of planets and the sun, nature of the earth, size of the earth, location of the earth, nature of matter, composition of life, origin of lightning and weather, etc."
It seems to me that these are not successes of materialism. I'm sure you're aware that materialism is the notion that there is no spirit world and that physical things like matter and energy are all there is. Our model of planetary motion and the solar system, for example, advanced and developed by people such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein has nothing to do with materialism. It certainly is not predicated on materialism. As an aside, it is worth noting that none of those individuals were materialists either.
I wonder why you think this model supports materialism or is materialistic? You note that there were previous "non-materialistic explanations" which weren't very accurate. True, but so what? I doubt that you are saying that models which replace non-materialistic explanations must be materialistic. There must be something about our model of planetary motion and the solar system which makes you think the model supports materialism.
The only rationale I can think of off-hand, would be a presupposition about the spirit world if materialism were false. IOW, if there is a spirit world, then planetary motion would not be as we find it. Since we find it this way, then the model argues against the spirit world and therefore supports materialism. Am I close? I'd be curious if you have an explanation.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 09. March 2003 03:50
Cornelus: ** A good example, though there are many more, is the DNA code which evolution neither requires nor explains (beyond speculation), yet it is supposed to be a strong, compelling evidence.
Some corrections: 1. Evolution does require a DNA code or a form of hereditary material which can be passed along. 2. The universal genetic code (the code of our common ancestor) strongly supports the common ancestry (fact of evolution) 3. evolution of the universal genetic code again supports the theory evolution.
It seems that Cornelus still has some confusions with these really simple concepts.
Evolution (Fact of): Common ancestry. Strongly supported by genetic, fossil and other data. Common ancestry predicts a common code.
Evolution (Theory of): Variation and selection, Neo-Darwinism. Predicts possible variations of the genetic code.
Common ancestry, the idea that all life shares a common ancestor is based upon the overwhelming evidence that supports this notion either through paleontological data, genetic data, embryological data and so on.
A common ancestor would have a common code which can be traced back to such an ancestor.
Theobalt makes the following excellent observations in 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
The need for a genetic code, and its (near) universality.
quote:
There must be a mechanism for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material; all known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for this. The few known exceptions are, nevertheless, simple and minor variations from the "universal" genetic code (see Figure 1.1.1) (Lehman 2001; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 967).
I also suggest R. Knight's excellent papers as well as Landweber's/ See for instance figure 2 in "REWIRING THE KEYBOARD: EVOLVABILITY OF THE
GENETIC CODE Robin D. Knight, Stephen J. Freeland and Laura F. Landweber"
quote:
Overall, we may conclude that the code is far from
frozen, and is still evolving in many lineages. The scope and extent of variation increases as new
sequence data accumulate, which underscores the
importance of related work in understanding how
and why the standard code evolved in the way it did reviewed in REF. 2). Furthermore, it provides the basis for asking important questions about the link between code structure and the process of molecular evolution. Increasingly, comparative genomics is moving beyond the analysis of individual gene sequences and towards the analysis of assemblages of genes and the common evolutionary mechanisms that govern their alteration and rearrangement. As more and more non-standard codes are discovered, and the mechanisms that underlie codon reassignments
are further clarified, it becomes possible to
explore these subtle relationships between coding
rules and genome evolution.
Much research has been published on scenarios that would explain both primordial pathways and post LCUA evolution of the genetic code. It is fascinating how we can formulate hypotheses hundreds of millions of years after the event that can be falsified and/or further refined to enhance our understanding of this fascinating topic.
Speculation? Sure, that's what science is all about, speculation, evidence, hypotheses forming, hypotheses rejecting, further refinements.
Perhaps Cornelius would like to share with us some of his ideas on how he believes the genetic code arose and varied? It may be interesting to see if we can define tests that would allow us to investigate such scenarios.
And really Cornelius... When you said the following "ID does not venture into metaphysics as evolution does;" did it occur to you how ironic this may sound?
Such assertions, unfounded as they may be, are not very helpful in helping us pursue a discussion in these matters. More importantly however is, does ID propose a scientific alternative? And so far I have not seen much evidence that ID can even deliver.
[ 09. March 2003, 03:53: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 09. March 2003 08:18
In order to keep this discussion on topic (i.e. what do ID advocates think about intelligence? can it be described scientifically? is the best we can hope for from science simply a list of empirical observations about intelligence?), I request that my fellow ID critics do not reply to Cornelius G. Hunter's claims about the (lack of) merits of evolutionary biology in this thread. I request that we simply let any such claims go unchallenged in this thread no matter how wrong they may be, lest the thread be taken over by that off-topic topic.
Erik
PS. Cornelius G. Hunter, in this thread I will simply ignore any claims/arguments you make about the (lack of) merits of evolutionary biology. However, if you want me to answer, I can do so elsewhere. DS.
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius G. Hunter
Member
Member # 81
|
posted 09. March 2003 12:55
Frances:
Respecting Erik's wishes for this thread not to get off-topic, I will not go further on the evidential problems with evolution, and in particular the universality of the DNA code. In fact we've already discussed the problem with the universality of the DNA code in another thread and you did not respond to my post. So I'm a bit surprised to see you show up here in this thread saying "It seems that Cornelus still has some confusions with these really simple concepts."
Perhaps more to the point of this thread, you write: "And really Cornelius... When you said the following 'ID does not venture into metaphysics as evolution does;' did it occur to you how ironic this may sound?"
Yes I realize this. It is practically the universal position amongst evolutionists that ID is a religious theory masquerading as science whereas evolution is "just science." In fact, the situation is closer to the exact opposite.
--Cornelius
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 09. March 2003 15:07
Cornelus: It is practically the universal position amongst evolutionists that ID is a religious theory masquerading as science whereas evolution is "just science." In fact, the situation is closer to the exact opposite.
So many generalizations, so many unsupported claims. I find such 'arguments' to be not very convincing. Hence my use of irony. Little did I know that you actually do seem to believe this.
Per Erik's request I suggest that you start your own thread to discuss this issue though. Personally I would love to see some evidence to support these claims but they do seem to add little to a positive discussion of ID.
[ 09. March 2003, 15:10: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Danpech
Member
Member # 163
|
posted 28. March 2003 06:35
'Can x be described scientifically?' It seems to me that we are still dealing with the question of what is x (and what is science).
But, I think it goes deeper than even the question of 'what is x?': I think there is more than one kind of x; I think there it is a real issue in distinguishing between human intelligence (i.e., your own intelligence) and the foundation of human intelligence. If the foundation of human intelligence is non-'intelligent', or, alternatively, if the foundation of human intelligence is 'intelligent', then the question in either case is whether we (i.e., you, individually) can truly understand that foundation. I don't think we can.
I think it is a question of our ability to understand the foundation of reality: if you are not the foundation of reality, then how can you truly-and-fully understand it?
So, my answer to the question 'Can intelligence be described scientifically?' is a firm 'Partially'. The same with every deep question.
[ 28. March 2003, 06:36: Message edited by: Danpech ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 02. April 2003 07:32
INTELLIGENCE DEFINED IN TERMS OF A PROCESS FLOW
Intelligence is applied information processing capability. Characterized as being a central point of reference, operating in an environment, it binds facts into semantic context with that environment. Intelligence could be either natural or artificial and is purposeful in creating and coordinating concepts focused on problem solving. Appending outside information with that of the central location’s viewpoint enables intelligence to achieve desired ends. This actual phenomenon is accomplished when fresh data or concepts are imported and reconstituted, now integrated with goal-oriented projections. The receptive and responsive localized information processor, acting as an agent, relates adaptive ideas to its larger field of interaction.
The root cause of intelligence is the transcendent nature of living things to observe and respond. These apparently separate modes of activity are actually one and perform as a singular utility. The observation/response methodology is a pre-perceptional unified principle of behavior, working as a dual phase function. The agent and its environment are both affected by intelligent behavior. The detection and manipulation of facts connects the centralized viewpoint with potential for transforming both itself and the environment. This potential exists not as an energy state but as an information state. Intent lies at the core of this two-way transmission of information.
Artificial intelligence works with intent, in terms of applied criteria and targeted focus, supplied from decisions made by an outside programmer. The natural intelligence of an organism or society of organisms is driven by intent supplied from desire for survival, health and emotional well-being. Any such binding of information into a creative solution, aimed at adapting to a real or perceived need, would be a design. The functionality obtained during unified observe and respond behavior connects the information contained in the central reference point to the potential for interaction with information contained in external fields of activity. A local intelligent agent transforms internal facts and external facts, into a structured working whole.
The process can appear to start with the observer or intelligent agent importing information. A subsequent determination must be made regarding whether to react and if so, in what manner. Equally it can proceed with a test signal or previous action from the centralized viewpoint and then evaluate and learn associated facts about what is observed in the environment. In actuality, living things are always doing both, simultaneously. The result obtained is perception of structured information, designed as intentional answers, which can be encoded as communication. Once encoded, an intelligent agent’s plan has an actual pathway to realization in the physical domain.
The common paradigm is to suggest that it is either natural selection OR intelligent design that created the structure of living things. It seems that both are incomplete in defining a proximate and traceable pathway for a process model that clearly realizes what is known and understood about livings organisms. The abundant complexity they exhibit has to have a process that imbeds intelligent work in their organized unfolding of life cycles. Natural intelligence, with its amazing ability to solve problems, selects successful designs by observing and responding.
The most significant information processed by organisms becomes encoded in the asymmetric crystals of DNA and RNA. Cells, the foundational unit of the organization comprising living things, retrieve and activate embedded process instructions in the course of metabolism and all other organic functions. Humans can use language or writing as carriers of symbolic instructions. The thoughts of people, in the information age, are encoded in discrete polarized patterns of metallic bit cells on dielectric media (or as electronics moves ahead, in new and better ways of digital storage).
Either way, bits are bound into patterns and become retrievable information that can be uploaded to command and control processes. I don’t see how the essence of the design capability attributed to people or computers can be any different than the design capability inherent in the natural processes of all organisms. We discover much of our knowledge through daily categorization of random occurrences, but complex design events happen when observation and response loops bind separate ideas into bigger concepts.
A process flow for intelligence to transform information can be seen as having five stages.
1. Discovery or mental contact with information existing as a fact or facts. A computer would simulate this as data retrieval.
2. A change of the informational state in the facts occurs when they are considered as potential leverage in intentional use. They become connected to the existing facts of the intelligent agent. This would correspond to data processing that appends and merges the two data sources.
3. A second change of the informational state in the facts occurs as they transform or transcribe into a message or communication ready for transmission. This process involves some form of encoding or the structuring of a model. The product would be the output of a program, where specified information is derived, as an answer. This solution or response should be in a format adapted for connectivity to both the outside environment and the agent’s own system.
4. An intentionally created form of adapted facts is realized when resources are assigned and physical existence achieved through implementation. A computationally derived answer from artificial intelligence is no different in its application than one figured out by the mental powers of an organism.
5. A realized design contains freshly interconnected information and therefore increased complexity. Intelligence is creative during the search, evaluation and selection of the components for an adaptive solution structured to solve a problem. AI would achieve this as part of the data processing between steps 2 and 3. However, with organic intelligence creativity happens at all four previous stages. The finding and coalescing of the “right” answer corresponds to the essence of the intent throughout each step of the process.
Erik asks about a sharp distinction, regarding the categorizing of intelligence and non-intelligence in the ID way of thinking. I may be over simplifying it, but the specifier for intelligence is intent. Physical processes; never mean to do it. Living things do, at least when they are showing some modicum of being intelligent. The trick is solving the question: how is organic information related to intent, manifesting as the drive to survive, which is universally exhibited by all critters?
[ 02. April 2003, 13:28: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 02. April 2003 13:26
Danpech,
Your point is well made regarding the “essence” of information (x) not being available to be fully comprehended, by our humble human minds. However, I think that the phenomenal aspects of information are real and measurable. Separating the “thinker” from her/his thought is the beginning of skeptical philosophy. It is the basis for a healthy pragmatic understanding of organic sensation and the actual events it represents. Calling them qualia or whatever doesn’t have to relegate them to the flimsy world of abstract or epiphenomena status.
The blueprint or model of construction that binds ideas together into integrated concepts can be fleshed out. Of course, the rules of formal logic and math are just this. Intelligence has a place in scientific thought as a functional capability, requiring the expenditure of energy, which increases complexity. Although random events do connect physical forces and/or physical structures, connecting them in a specified intentional manner can yield a clearly different result.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic