|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 10. April 2007 14:23
2ndclass,
You wrote:
quote:
Dembski's equations don't characterize design any more precisely than his natural language arguments.
I agree.
You wrote:
quote:
If that's a mathematical model of design, then what predictions does it make?
I see it much like the screenings medical scientists set up to detect disease. The only problem that I see with Dembski’s filter is that it could give false positives. So, when we run some event through the filter it may detect design where there is none. It is not perfect. But it is usable to predict where design is likely to exist and where it is not likely to exist. The accuracy of the filter is testable, with respect to human-like designs anyway. Why would anyone ignore the obvious merits of Dembski’s baby? Is it only because he overstates, in my opinion, its accuracy? Or, as is the case for aiguy, is there a more deep seated personal reason?
I must add that if you 2ndclass retain such personal reasons, and it would be fine if you did [everybody does – even scientists], I have not detected them in your posts thus far.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 10. April 2007 14:37
It appears I am way over 3 posts today. Sorry, but please include this one so I may set some things straight with aiguy.
Hi aiguy,
Well your last post explains much. It appears I may have misconstrued some of your motives; spoke too soon and all that. I will rethink some things and get back to you if I have anything to contribute with respect to intelligence in a positive [not negative] light.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 10. April 2007 14:40
aiguy:
quote:
quote:You tell me. Are human beings capable of programming the kinds of biological complexity we're talking about?
I'm not sure what type of biological complexity we're talking about,
Let's say - the biological complexity of protein synthesis in the simplest cells.
quote:
but I'd say no, since no human has managed to create a living thing. I'd say that is all the more reason to reject ID's claim that the same thing that humans use to think is what created life.
It shows evidence of requiring the 'same thing' (intelligent rational thought), except that the design of the biological 'machinery' involved in protein synthesis would require an intelligence far beyond that of humans. To attribute such immense complexity (working complexity - not random complexity) to unguided natural causes is beyond folly IMO.
quote:
DANIEL: What else can "cause" a program?
You tell me - I'm not the one offering a "programmer" as a purportedly scientific explanation for the creation of life. In my view, nobody has the faintest idea why the laws of the universe are what they are. But offering "that which can create life" (which is what ID's explanation boils down to) really doesn't help.
It seems pretty obvious to me that you are not really interested in the evidence that supports ID, but rather are only interested in discrediting the movement by pointing out vagaries of terms.
Do you subject the theory of evolution to the same level of scrutiny?
For instance, can you describe the intermediate steps in the formation of the avian lung? The bat wing? The reproductive system of the dragonfly? Can you describe for me a detailed theoretical pathway of minute variations that could produce any known organ from something else? You probably accept the theory of evolution without skepticism, yet you completely ignore the similarities of protein structures and functions to man made machines. You also ignore the similarities of the genetic code to human programming languages - both in it's coding structure and in it's transcription and translation methodologies. The truth is, we could learn a lot from biological "technology".
quote:
quote:You have no choice. Unless you are prepared to argue that "Nothing" is a cause, there can be no other uncaused first cause - can there?
Like many philosophers, I believe that both of the options are beyond our comprehension.
I'd say that both are entirely reasonable and definable concepts.
quote:
DANIEL: The AI programs that write other programs are not "uncaused" - they are written by people. If you want to discuss first causes, you must come up with something that fits the description.
Uh, fits what description??? That is the whole point of this thread! What description are you talking about?
The description "first cause".
[ 10. April 2007, 14:41: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 10. April 2007 14:42
nosivad,
Twin studies do not bear on the issue of free will, since nobody can say whether twins simply choose to act the same way, rather than are physically determined to do do. Now, as it happens, I agree that libertarian free will does not exist! I simply wish to point out that we have no way to scientifically demonstrate this conclusion. I am an equal opportunity opponent of people who try to use science to support their particular philosophical positions.
The rest of your arguments are fallacious, as they are all arguments from authority.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 10. April 2007 14:50
Daniel,
quote:
It seems pretty obvious to me that you are not really interested in the evidence that supports ID, but rather are only interested in discrediting the movement by pointing out vagaries of terms.
Rather, I am interested in pointing out that the vagaries of these terms preclude the possibility that any evidence could possibly be construed as supporting ID. We must actually say what hypothesis we are attempting to support before we can claim evidence in support of it.
quote:
Do you subject the theory of evolution to the same level of scrutiny?
As it turns out, I don't happen to believe that evolutionary theory provides a complete explanation of biological complexity; I think that something fundamental is missing from our understanding there. Many people (Stuart Kauffman, Brian Goodwin, etc) are looking for additional principles of organization that may be in play in origin of life and speciation, but do not attempt to equivocate on the meaning of "thought" or "intelligence" in order to come up with a specious alternative "theory".
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 10. April 2007 14:53
Zarathustra:
quote:
This "uncaused first cause" is simply a word-game that creationists play in order to sound clever. It is an impossibility, obviously. Had there been an eternity prior to the universe's being "caused", it would have occurred too late, since such an event must have already happened by that time, and even Daniel is not suggesting that the universe is being "caused" repeatedly.
No one is postulating that an "eternity" passed before the universe came into being. By definition, we are still in the midst of "eternity".
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 10. April 2007 15:05
aiguy:
From MSN Encarta:
quote:
I
Intelligence
Intelligence, term usually referring to a general mental capability to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, learn and understand new material, and profit from past experience. Intelligence can be measured by many different kinds of tasks. Likewise, this ability is expressed in many aspects of a person’s life. Intelligence draws on a variety of mental processes, including memory, learning, perception, decision-making, thinking, and reasoning.
II
Defining Intelligence
Most people have an intuitive notion of what intelligence is, and many words in the English language distinguish between different levels of intellectual skill: bright, dull, smart, stupid, clever, slow, and so on. Yet no universally accepted definition of intelligence exists, and people continue to debate what, exactly, it is. Fundamental questions remain: Is intelligence one general ability or several independent systems of abilities? Is intelligence a property of the brain, a characteristic of behavior, or a set of knowledge and skills?
The simplest definition proposed is that intelligence is whatever intelligence tests measure. But this definition does not characterize the ability well, and it has several problems. First, it is circular: The tests are assumed to verify the existence of intelligence, which in turn is measurable by the tests. Second, many different intelligence tests exist, and they do not all measure the same thing. In fact, the makers of the first intelligence tests did not begin with a precise idea of what they wanted to measure. Finally, the definition says very little about the specific nature of intelligence.
Whenever scientists are asked to define intelligence in terms of what causes it or what it actually is, almost every scientist comes up with a different definition. For example, in 1921 an academic journal asked 14 prominent psychologists and educators to define intelligence. The journal received 14 different definitions, although many experts emphasized the ability to learn from experience and the ability to adapt to one’s environment. In 1986 researchers repeated the experiment by asking 25 experts for their definition of intelligence. The researchers received many different definitions: general adaptability to new problems in life; ability to engage in abstract thinking; adjustment to the environment; capacity for knowledge and knowledge possessed; general capacity for independence, originality, and productiveness in thinking; capacity to acquire capacity; apprehension of relevant relationships; ability to judge, to understand, and to reason; deduction of relationships; and innate, general cognitive ability.
You are asking the ID people to do what those who have studied intelligence for their entire careers are incapable of doing. You are then completely dismissing all evidence set forth by the movement - based on their inability to perform the impossible.
The truth is, there will never be a universally accepted definition of Intelligence - and you know it.
If you really want to discredit the movement, try discrediting the evidence it relies on, not the definition it doesn't rely on.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. April 2007 15:33
aiguy, whoever that is.
The identical twin studies were done with monozygotic twins reared SEPARATELY, often in drastically different environments. Got that? Apparently not. Of course my conclusions are from authority. Aren't all properly reached conclusions? What or who are your sources? Do you even have any or are you, like Richard Dawkins, a power unto yourself, a self declared, self-appointed pontificator? So it seems at least to this investigator.
The authority in this case has been carefully controlled interviews and psychological studies carried out with monozygotic twins that had been separated for years. They turn out to be more similar than twins reared together because when together they establish differences so others can tell them apart. You are obviously either oblivious to this very important literature or, more likely, have dismissed it for ideological reasons, over which, according to Einstein you have no control anyway.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 10. April 2007, 15:43: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 10. April 2007 15:38
Daniel,
quote:
You are asking the ID people to do what those who have studied intelligence for their entire careers are incapable of doing.
Thank you for that nicely written entry. Yes, that is my point - we cannot offer "intelligence" as an explanation for biological phenomenon, since we can't decide what we are talking about. People who study intelligence know this, and would never explain behavior of any sort by simply saying "that was caused by intelligence".
quote:
You are then completely dismissing all evidence set forth by the movement - based on their inability to perform the impossible.
If it is impossible to define the concept offered by ID as its explanation of biological complexity, that really isn't my fault. ID either needs to provide a specific operationalized definition of intelligent causation that suits its needs, or be content to remain in the realm of philosophical or theological discussion until they can.
quote:
The truth is, there will never be a universally accepted definition of Intelligence - and you know it.
That's probably true, but not necessarily so. What I know is that we certainly lack one now.
quote:
If you really want to discredit the movement, try discrediting the evidence it relies on, not the definition it doesn't rely on.
If the evidence you refer to is evidence that you believe discredits evolutionary theory, then that is something else entirely. I happen to be interested in that sort of evidence, since I suspect our current theories of evolution are missing something important. However, there cannot be evidence for this thing called "intelligence" until ID says what that is. If it is a vague theological notion of a cosmic mind, then of course there is no scientific evidence for this at all.
[ 10. April 2007, 15:48: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 10. April 2007 15:47
quote:
aiguy, whoever that is
Again, you are obsessed with who makes arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. Did nobody teach you, in all your years in academics, that arguments from authority are fallacious?
quote:
The identical twin studies were done with monozygotic twins reared SEPARATELY often in drastically different environments. Got that? Apparently not.
I'm quite familiar with the twin studies, thanks. There is simply no study that can possibly confirm or deny the proposition that human beings can transcend physical causality. You need to study up on the literature of free will rather than twin studies.
quote:
Of course my conclusions are from authority. Aren't all properly reached conclusions?
You are confused. argumentum ad verecundiam, nosivad. It is a fallacy. Nothing is true simply because somebody famous says so.
The issue of free will is irrelevant to the topic at hand unless one is attempting to characterize the "intelligent causation" of ID by appeal to this notion. Since you are not doing this, we should not be discussing it.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. April 2007 15:55
There is as yet no evolutionary theory. Theories are verified hypotheses. Neither Lamarckism nor Darwinism qualify. EVERYTHING at present points to both a "prescribed" phylogeny and ontogeny in which chance has played no role whatsoever.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
Amen.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 10. April 2007 16:15
nosivad,
The topic of this thread is, as the title states, "The Characterization Of Intelligent Causation". Your views regarding evolution are not relevant here. I would ask that either you address the topic or post elsewhere. Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 10. April 2007 16:50
Melvin: quote:
The only problem that I see with Dembski’s filter is that it could give false positives.
If that were the only problem, you would think that he would have tweaked it by now and that people would be using it. But it ain't happening.
The real problem with Dembski's filter is that it's logically bankrupt right to the core. I don't make that assertion lightly. I've read all of Dembski's relevant work carefully and given his advocates every opportunity to explain why its problems aren't really problems.
quote:
The accuracy of the filter is testable, with respect to human-like designs anyway.
Then you must be puzzled by the fact that, after nine years, nobody has tested it.
Regardless, the question is not whether Dembski's filter is accurate. In fact, the question of accuracy doesn't even make sense outside of the human context. Is it accurate to say that Saturn's rings were designed? The question is too ill-defined to answer.
The real question at issue is whether "design" can be usefully characterized by the filter. What would we accomplish by slapping the label "designed" on everything that passes through the filter, as if they all had something in common other than our ignorance of their respective causes?
quote:
Why would anyone ignore the obvious merits of Dembski’s baby?
A good question, seeing that everyone does ignore it, including IDists, who use it for nothing other than a talking point. Could it be that it simply doesn't have any substance to it?
quote:
Or, as is the case for aiguy, is there a more deep seated personal reason?
aiguy has made his reasoning clear, and I don't see how it's personal.
quote:
I must add that if you 2ndclass retain such personal reasons, and it would be fine if you did [everybody does – even scientists], I have not detected them in your posts thus far.
I appreciate that, but I'm not any less biased than other ID opponents, just less informed.
[ 10. April 2007, 17:28: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 10. April 2007 17:22
Daniel,
Quote Daniel : It seems pretty obvious to me that you are not really interested in the evidence that supports ID, but rather are only interested in discrediting the movement by pointing out vagaries of terms.
Quote aiguy: Rather, I am interested in pointing out that the vagaries of these terms preclude the possibility that any evidence could possibly be construed as supporting ID. We must actually say what hypothesis we are attempting to support before we can claim evidence in support of it.
It should in fairness to aiguy be pointed out that he objects even more to mathematically precise definition of intelligence that lead to testable predictive ID theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 10. April 2007 17:47
THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENT CAUSATION
Science, as most people involved recognize, is an iterative process or a process of successive approximation. Anyone who has spent any serious time studying intelligent behavior and intelligent causation knows that you start by trying to identify or isolate what you believe to be a relatively simple and easy to analysis form of intelligent behavior. I started with information processing in individual neurons and then, quite by chance, changed my focus to human decision algorithms.
Once you have identified a likely ‘simple’ form of intelligent behavior, the next step, at least the next step if you have a working knowledge of mathematical modeling, is to attempt to develop a mathematical model of the behavior. Following standard practice, this involves defining and quantifying input and output variables and finding mathematical algorithms to fit observed values of input and output variables. As anyone who has actually attempted to develop such models knows, there are an almost unlimited number of different models that can be developed. The overwhelming majority of models developed are not useful for performing scientific analysis.
Once a potential model or approach to modeling has been developed, the next step is to determine how the model addresses the various philosophical issues surrounding the analysis of intelligent behavior (mind-body, free will, consciousness, etc.). Finally, you begin to evaluate how the proposed model/approach fits the formal requirements of the scientific process or paradigm.
The reality is that anyone seriously attempting to address the issue of intelligent causation will go through hundreds or thousands of iterations of this process in an effort to find a model and an approach that fits all the requirements involved. Part of this iterative analysis involves determining which of the requirements for real and material and which supposed requirements don’t really need to be satisfied. Part of this iterative analysis involves finding innovative methods of satisfying the requirements that must be satisfied.
THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A PROPOSED DEFINITION
In theory, the process of testing or reviewing a proposed definition intelligent causation and a proposed approach to the scientific analysis of intelligent causation should be far less complex than the process of developing a definition and approach. Again, in theory, a reviewer would start with some standard or criteria the reviewer was interested in, and then the reviewer would look at either how the proposed definition met the requirement or the reviewer would evaluate the argument presented for not satisfying the requirement.
In theory, or in an ideal world, if the reviewer did not agree with the proposed definition or approach, the reviewer would demonstrate a clear logical inconsistency or ambiguity in the definition or approach, and/or the reviewer would show that the proposed definition fails to meet a criterion all agree is essential and/or the reviewer would present an alternative definition or approach that can be shown to be superior in satisfying some recognized essential criterion.
The unfortunate reality is that reviewers of formal proposals, instead of performing the type of analysis required, simply offer unsupported subjective opinions or they impose personal a priori conditions with no solid support for the claim the a priori conditions are material.
This leads to the conclusion that the only acceptable methodology for evaluating and rejecting/replacing one formal definition and approach is to offer an alternative and then to show that the alternative approach produces superior testable predictive theories. This standard or criterion, however, puts academic life scientists at a severe disadvantage since they refuse to recognize or accept teleological theories and the only non-trivial predictive testable theories that can be produced for intelligent behaviors are teleological theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
