|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. April 2007 23:43
I give up!
Enjoy.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 11. April 2007 00:20
Smith:No one is postulating that an "eternity" passed before the universe came into being. By definition, we are still in the midst of "eternity".
So what are you saying, then? Only a finite amount of time occurred before the universe was created? Explain that.
By definition, the phrase "in the midst of eternity" equates to "in the midst of talking bollocks".
Try to think before you disagree with me in future, Daniel. You will always lose, and it saddens me to think that anyone has a desperate need to be shown wrong so regularly.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. April 2007 05:27
Also sprach Zarathustra.
I'm with Nietzche myself. "God or gods are dead but must have once existed." That was the title of my one and only (60,000 plus viewed) thread over at the "Dawkins fan club."
I'm also with Daniel Smith if that is allright that is. What do you say Zar baby? Is that OK with you?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. April 2007 11:19
I have provided here a mathematically and scientifically rigorous and precise definition of intelligent causation. As stated earlier, the ultimate validity and usefulness of the proposed definition depends on its usefulness in formulating non-trivial predictive theories that are superior to competing predictive theories. However, based on posted comments, it is apparent that we need to first consider how intelligent causation is observed and studied, and we need to understand what intelligent causation ‘looks like’ before we can hope to understand predictive theories involving intelligent causation.
OBSERVING THE BEHAVIOR OF INTELLIGENT CAUSATION
As will be recalled, I define intelligent causation in terms of changes in information processing where the changes result in goal compatible (GC) responses (R) or output. The starting point for observing and analyzing intelligent causation is to observe and model the information processing behavior after the transformation from NGC to GC.
The first important feature to note when we look at the result of the NGC to GC change, is that the end result can be and often does involve fairly simple information processing. If the goal is ‘to find the sum’ and the inputs are A=2 and B=3, and the processing algorithm is expressed as (A+B=) then the end result is information processing that produces output or R =5.
The end product of intelligent causation can be extremely complex like a living animal, but it can also be something very simple like a process that calculates the value of 2+3. Although it is likely that we will eventually be interested in analyzing complex forms of intelligent causation, the best starting point for developing our understanding and skills will be simple examples of intelligent causation.
Once we have observed and modeled the end result of intelligent causation, the next step is to identify and model one of the instances of the preceding forms of information processing where R was NGC.
If we assume that the ‘system’ that produced the goal compatible response R=5 was some type of calculator, we can readily visualize a number of preceding forms where the R produced was NGC (not goal compatible). If for example either input A=2 or B=3 had not yet been inputted, or if the processing algorithm (A+B=) had not yet been inputted the R=5 is GC output would not have been generated.
The reader may find it somewhat more difficult to visualize, but if the ‘goal’ of the calculator had early been to obtain the value of A*B, then the output A+B=5 would have been NGC. Thus by changing the goal of the process, the output of the device could have switched from NGC to GC with no physical change in the device or the input to the device.
Three important aspects of intelligent causation can be learned from this simple example. First, the changes produced by intelligent causation can be quite simple. Intelligent causation does not require generating some extremely complex change. Second, and more critical, the ‘causes’ of intelligent causation can be quite ‘simple’ and will always involve some combination of 1)change in input, 2) change in processing algorithm and/or 3)changes in goal.
The third aspect of intelligent causation to be learned from this example is that intelligent causation is best viewed as a phenomenon or abstraction ‘in the mind’ of the group of competent scientists performing the analysis. A lot of people seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between formal scientific analysis and naïve realism. Gravity and intelligent causation, as studied by scientists are abstractions that fit or connect observed data. Gravity and intelligent causation as studied by science are not ‘real world phenomenon’ that just anyone can go out and observe.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. April 2007 12:28
L. E.
I want a translation as I have no idea what you are talking about.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. April 2007 14:36
John,
The reality is that very few people interested in evolutionary biology and ID actually have a working knowledge of basic mathematical modeling and can't follow even a rather elementary discussion involving mathematical modeling. Since the formulation and testing of predictive theories requires a fairly detailed working knowledge of mathematical knowledge, it follows that most people interested in evolutionary biology are not capable of understanding or discussing predictive theories of evolution.
You just happen to be more honest about your knowledge level than most of your compatriots.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 11. April 2007 14:44
aiguy:
quote:
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".
By that rationale we cannot even define human artifacts as intelligent designs then - since the Intelligence these people can't define is human intelligence.
Can you see the absurdity of taking the "definition game" too far?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 11. April 2007 15:01
Zarathustra:
quote:
So what are you saying, then? Only a finite amount of time occurred before the universe was created? Explain that.
An eternity can never "pass" and time is not calculated in respect to it. Since an eternity has no beginning, it cannot be said that a finite amount of time passed before the universe appeared either. However, for those of us who are bound by time, it would appear as if that was the case.
quote:
By definition, the phrase "in the midst of eternity" equates to "in the midst of talking bollocks".
By definition, there is no other place we can be but "in the midst of eternity".
quote:
Try to think before you disagree with me in future, Daniel. You will always lose, and it saddens me to think that anyone has a desperate need to be shown wrong so regularly.
You're a god Zarathustra, and I bow before your almighty intellect! (I don't know what possessed me to disagree with your holy edicts.)
Please forgive your humble servant.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 11. April 2007 15:14
Daniel,
quote:
By that rationale we cannot even define human artifacts as intelligent designs then - since the Intelligence these people can't define is human intelligence. Can you see the absurdity of taking the "definition game" too far?
This is exactly the point, Daniel. Nobody can explain anything by saying that "intelligence" is responsible, since as your own reference makes clear, that is a circular explanation.
Q: What enabled the human being to design the watch?
A: Intelligence.
Q: Why do we believe that intelligence caused the watch to be designed?
A: Because that is what we call anything that can do something like designing a watch!
Now, contrast this with a non-vacuous explanation of something:
Q: What caused the apple to fall to the ground?
A: Newtonian Gravity.
Q: Why do we believe that gravity caused the apple to fall?
A: Because Newton carefully defined gravity to be a force that acts instantaneously between any two bodies with a force that is proportional to the universal gravitational constant times the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, and we can measure this force in multiple ways, and we can measure the masses in multiple ways, and we can measure that the motion of the apple precisely matches what this characterization of gravity says it will be...
Psychologists, cognitive scientists, AI researchers, and philosophers of mind all know that we can't use the concept of intelligence to explain anything. It is only ID folks who seem to think this says something non-vacuous, but they never can put their finger on what it is supposed to mean.
[ 11. April 2007, 15:15: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. April 2007 17:58
Daniel Smith
"Don't you love a bargain?"
Motto of the Christmas Tree Shops
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 12. April 2007, 09:36: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. April 2007 09:40
Stephen Jay Gould dispensed with "intelligence" when he procalimed that, like everything else, it was an "evolutionary accident." Now don't you ever forget it.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 12. April 2007, 09:41: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. April 2007 12:08
Life Engineer
My limited knowledge about evolution allows me to make the following prediction with a great deal of certainty. Since creative evolution is finished and has been for a very long time, it is extremely unlikely that it will ever resume. Those that think otherwise better be prepared to support their conviction. I also predict that they will not because they cannot. How is that for prediction? I am still not able to understand what you are getting at. I never have been. Sorry about that.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. April 2007 12:16
Life Engineer
I taught an advanced course in Quantitative Biology for over 30 years and implemented mathematics in several of my earlier papers which you would know if you were familiar with them. Please do not lecture me about my ignorance of mathematics as it makes you look foolish.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 12. April 2007 21:25
Smith You're a god Zarathustra, and I bow before your almighty intellect! (I don't know what possessed me to disagree with your holy edicts.)
We always have a jolly time here, Daniel, but you are being far too kind in this case. One must spare a charitable thought for the backward "nosivad", who is probably kicking himself over his lack of similar due recognition. He is, no doubt, lying awake thinking: "I could get respect like that, if only I didn't sound like a nutter on the bus."
The term "eternity" means an infinite period of time. You cannot change that meaning to suit your purposes, Daniel. Use a different word if you mean something other.
Were there to have been an infinity of time prior to the universe's creation, then all possible things could have happened. The creation of the universe is one of those things. This suggests that the universe has necessarily been created more than once.
Were one to go with the "eternity is outside of time" mysticism, things are even more difficult. If there was no "time" before the universe, it is impossible to say that it was "created", for such a notion relies on an earlier state in which it did not exist. A statement such as "the universe has always existed" becomes indistinguishable from those that suggest it did not.
What exactly do you mean when you glibly use the word "eternity", Daniel?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. April 2007 01:07
Zarathustra
Since you insist on insulting me I am sure you will understand why I encourage Daniel Smith to polish you off and put you out of your self-inflicted mysery. I will not dirty my hands with you or others like you. I will be surprised if your comment is allowed to stand without at least a reprimand. This isn't "After The Bar Closes" you know. This is "brainstorms," the official forum of the ISCID, far and away the most civilized of the major internet forums. That is why I post here.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
