|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 13. April 2007 01:19
Well, I came to Brainstorms because I was hoping for good moderated debates too. However, I've noticed that nobody is even attempting to answer the questions posed in the original post.
Is there nobody who has an answer to these questions? Is nobody bothered by the fact that Intelligent Design Theory offers an explanation for biological complexity that means nothing at all?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. April 2007 01:28
aiguy, whoever that is.
You want real proof for intelligent design? Read my papers and the works of my references. They all demonstrate intelligent design far beyond our present powers to comprehend. What do you think the word "prescribed" means?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 13. April 2007 03:43
nosivad,
quote:
You want real proof for intelligent design?
Actually, before you give me that, you need to tell me what you mean by "intelligent design". Do you mean "what a human being does"? Do you mean "Something like what a human being does"? If the latter, in what way is it the same as what a human being does?
If you take a moment's honest reflection (and that would include actually reading the OP) you'll see the answer is neither obvious nor unimportant.
You seem like a smart enough fellow - give it good faith try here. Maybe you'll learn something!
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. April 2007 06:46
anonymous aiguy
I am a hopeless goner on such matters. I am a senile old fool don't you know. My work is published and I have never yet, over a span of 53 years, had to recant a single thing I have ever put in hard copy. Besides. there is no room for debate in science or even much discussion. I know of not a single contribution that was ever made through either consensus or reasoned argument. Neither does anyone else. Semantics is for semanticists of which you seem to be an excellent example. Carry on without me. I have better things to do with my remaining days. Sorry about that.
Now be sure to enjoy the last word. I have nothing more to say to either you or Zarathustra. I will leave you both in the capable hands of Daniel Smith.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
sanc olde
Member
Member # 1939
|
posted 13. April 2007 07:01
Me too aiguy, I want this thread to get back in the right track.
I would like to post a question regarding intelligent causation. I was mulling over chance and randomness and the mathematics which oversee these, statistics. And I realize that statistics should not be employed to intelligently caused events because for willed events, its probability is always 1. Am I correct in this realization?
For random events governed by pure chance, we employ statistics. Should we be using it if we are observing an event which is a direct opposite of chance? Is statistic a mathematics for chance and for willed events also? Or should there be a mathematics which should deal with willed events.
Example, should I use statistic whether my friend is going to have his lunch or not, knowing that he has willed to have his lunch? Now it's not all the time that somebody wills himself to have lunch, like its not all the time somebody willed himself to make a mousetrap.
Again, is there a mathematics for willed or intelligently caused events?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 13. April 2007 07:11
Zarathustra:
quote:
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.
The word "eternal" (the word I used) is not constrained by time and cannot be defined in terms of time. How do you define "an infinite period of time" anyway? It's an oxymoron. "Time", by definition, requires both a beginning and an end. How then can it be infinite? Without a beginning and without an end, "time" is no longer "time", it's "eternal".
quote:
Were there to have been an infinity of time prior to the universe's creation, then all possible things could have happened.
"Could have happened" does not mean "Did happen" though.
quote:
The creation of the universe is one of those things. This suggests that the universe has necessarily been created more than once.
Not necessarily. There is no necessity that any event happen or that it happen more than once.
quote:
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.
You have to realize that the concept of "time" exists solely because the universe exists. It is dependent on the universe. More than that, we are slaves to it, because we exist in this world where our bodies are programmed around the rising and setting of the sun, and where all things eventually get worn out and die or turn to dust. We know nothing else. Eternity is an abstract concept for us. Perhaps it's because of our own limitations.
There is no reason to believe that time has always existed - in fact (as I've already shown) - that's an impossibility.
quote:
What exactly do you mean when you glibly use the word "eternity", Daniel?
When I use the word "eternal", I am referring to the only possible first cause. So long as "time" exists, there must have been a beginning to it. Do you agree?
Unless you are prepared to argue that something can come from nothing, you must concede that any 'ultimate first cause' must exist outside the constraints of time - else it is bound by time and therefore must have a beginning, thereby requiring it's own cause.
What precisely are you arguing anyway?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 13. April 2007 07:39
aiguy:
We've already given you the fact that "intelligence" is undefinable. The sense with which it's used by the ID movement is the intuitive sense we all know and understand.
There's really no more to discuss on that topic. The ID movement does not rely on the definition of "Intelligence" anyway, it relies more on the definition of "Design". In fact, the whole movement goes out of it's way not trying to define what the intelligence is or was that designed life. We know that "intelligence" is too broad a term. "Design" on the other hand - isn't.
Let me ask you this though:
What working mechanism has been defined that can cause biological complexity of the kind we see in life?
What organ or organism can you point to for which a well defined evolutionary pathway exists?
Is there any mechanism that has been shown capable of producing such things as even the simplest parts of the simplest cells?
I work on complex machinery for a living. The machines I troubleshoot are huge, multi-axis, CNC mills, lathes, profilers, etc, with multiple closed-loop feedback motion control systems, as well as electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic systems. The thought and planning that went into these machines is immense! Yet, sitting here typing, I am performing much, much, much more complex multi-axis movements that any machine I've ever seen (and all without having to think about it).
I'm an industrial electrician. I've probably worked on hundreds of electric motors in my time. Yet none of them compare in operating speed or efficiency to the motor in the bacterial flagellum. That little motor is able to go something like 80,000 rpm, stop on a dime, and instantly go in reverse the same speed. Try doing that too many times with an electric motor and you'll burn it up in no time - believe me!
How do you explain that?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 13. April 2007 11:50
sanc olde: quote:
I would like to post a question regarding intelligent causation. I was mulling over chance and randomness and the mathematics which oversee these, statistics. And I realize that statistics should not be employed to intelligently caused events because for willed events, its probability is always 1. Am I correct in this realization?
For random events governed by pure chance, we employ statistics. Should we be using it if we are observing an event which is a direct opposite of chance? Is statistic a mathematics for chance and for willed events also? Or should there be a mathematics which should deal with willed events.
Example, should I use statistic whether my friend is going to have his lunch or not, knowing that he has willed to have his lunch? Now it's not all the time that somebody wills himself to have lunch, like its not all the time somebody willed himself to make a mousetrap.
Again, is there a mathematics for willed or intelligently caused events?
A very good question, sanc olde. If willed events occur with a probability of 1, then they're deterministic, i.e. law dictates what will happen given the antecedent conditions. The idea that free will can be deterministic is called compatibilism, and as far as I can tell, ID rejects it. But if willed events occur with a probability of less than 1, then there is an element of chance, but that's not what IDists have in mind either. I don't know how something can have a probability that is neither 1 nor less than 1, thus my comment to Melvin that I don't know of a logically coherent definition of libertarian free will.
Daniel: quote:
We know that "intelligence" is too broad a term. "Design" on the other hand - isn't.
What's the definition of "design"?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 13. April 2007 12:22
If we want to show that some agent was intelligent, then the following four items would be necessary:
1. The agent must have access to data. If it does not have access to data then it could not demonstrate intelligence.
2. The agent must be able to interpret the data. It must show that it assigns meaning to the data. Whether the meaning is true or false is irrelevant.
3. The agent must respond to the data based on the interpretations made. It must take some action.
4. The agent must have access to viable options for action. More than one response to the data must exist for the agent. Each option can have varying levels of success but they must all be viable.
Are these items necessary to demonstrate intelligence? Is this list sufficient?
-Mel
[ 13. April 2007, 12:23: Message edited by: Melvin H. Fox ]
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 13. April 2007 13:16
Daniel,
quote:
We've already given you the fact that "intelligence" is undefinable. The sense with which it's used by the ID movement is the intuitive sense we all know and understand.
Our intuitions about mind are just great, except they are so often wrong, contradictory, untestable, and distinctly unscientific.
quote:
There's really no more to discuss on that topic. The ID movement does not rely on the definition of "Intelligence" anyway, it relies more on the definition of "Design". In fact, the whole movement goes out of it's way not trying to define what the intelligence is or was that designed life. We know that "intelligence" is too broad a term. "Design" on the other hand - isn't.
Well, in that case, would you mind providing a good, clear, concise definition of the verb "design"? In what way can we scientifically establish that a human designing a watch is the same thing as whatever-it-was designing the flagellum?
quote:
Let me ask you this though: What working mechanism has been defined that can cause biological complexity of the kind we see in life? What organ or organism can you point to for which a well defined evolutionary pathway exists? Is there any mechanism that has been shown capable of producing such things as even the simplest parts of the simplest cells? I work on complex machinery for a living. ...How do you explain that?
Sorry, these questions belong in another thread. Let's see if we can keep this one on track.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 13. April 2007 13:37
Melvin,
quote:
If we want to show that some agent was intelligent, then the following four items would be necessary:
1. The agent must have access to data. If it does not have access to data then it could not demonstrate intelligence.
Can you suggest anything that does not have "access to data"?
quote:
2. The agent must be able to interpret the data. It must show that it assigns meaning to the data. Whether the meaning is true or false is irrelevant.
This is called the problem of intentionality by philosophers. (The word "intentionality" sounds like it has to do with "intentions", but it doesn't - it is a technical term that means "aboutness" or assigning meaning to something). Philosophers debate how intentionality arises, and how we can decide when something has it or not. There are no answers to the problem - we don't know. (see, for example, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality ).
quote:
3. The agent must respond to the data based on the interpretations made. It must take some action.
So when a flower decides to bloom based on its interpretation of the weather and season, that is an intelligent act? Or when the Earth decides there is too much tectonic stress and it responds with an earthquake in order to relieve it, it is responding intelligently?
quote:
4. The agent must have access to viable options for action. More than one response to the data must exist for the agent. Each option can have varying levels of success but they must all be viable.
I'm afraid we're back to free will again. How can we tell when something that does one thing (like the Earth deciding to quake, or a person deciding to watch a movie) could have done otherwise? We cannot. A thermostat has options for turning on or off, so at any given time it has more than one response. It bases its decision on its interpretation of the temperature data to which it has access. It just sits there thinking, Should I turn off now, or should I wait until it gets a bit warmer? Do you think a thermostat is intelligent? Why not? If you say it is only a mechanical device that can't think at all, please tell us how you know when something is thinking or not...
quote:
Are these items necessary to demonstrate intelligence? Is this list sufficient?
No, clearly not, as these sorts of requirements admit all sorts of processes that you really wouldn't want to call "intelligent".
IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Stone
Member
Member # 4845
|
posted 13. April 2007 14:38
AIguy,
It's clear that, nothing that could ever be said would satisfy your desire for a justification for the use of the word "Intelligent" by proponents of Intelligent Design Theory. I don't know why you don't just come right out and say so. But, no, you will continue to make silly analogous comparisons and present superfluous arguments, against a concept that the rest of the average people in the world considers an axiomatic postulate, as long as someone will indulge you.
quote:
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...blah, blah, blah(Detailed Argument from authority),blah,blah,blah...
The recognition of something is not predicate to a clear definition, characterization or understanding of it. Prior to Newton, everyone knew that gravity existed. Even goat herders understood the fact that objects fall toward the surface of the earth, long before Newton’s time.
There may have been a conversation between two goat herders and a guy that went some like this:
Q: What enabled the apple to fall from the tree?
A: Gravity.
Q: Why do we believe that gravity caused the apple to fall?
A: Because that is what we call that which causes things to fall to the ground!
AIguy: Well, that's the most vacuous explanation I've ever heard.
Galileo Galilei, without the help of Newton, was able to demonstrate that all objects fall to the surface of the earth with the same acceleration, and that this acceleration was independent of the mass of the falling object. His lack of Newtonian understanding didn't make his observations any less accurate.
Even with all the works of Newton and Einstein at your disposal, you do not understand, nor can you explain the actual mechanisms of gravitational force, but that does not, a priori, rule out it's existence or our ability to recognize it when we see or feel it's effects.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. April 2007 14:52
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
ibid, my emphasis.
Get it? EVERYTHING!! Somehow I don't think you do and probably never will.
So much for free will, like Darwinian, chance based evolution, just another figment of an overactive human imagination.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 13. April 2007 15:02
I can’t demonstrate that my shoe has access to data. Whether it does or not is not the issue. I can’t demonstrate that it does, therefore I can’t demonstrate that it is intelligent. I have access to data about my shoe. It is giving off an odor. I sensed the district combination of chemicals in the air and identified that event with the shoe. Therefore, I have demonstrated my access to data. I am not concerned (scientifically) about things for which no access is demonstrable.
Perhaps we here at brainstorms will do better than philosophers of the past. You requested a positive characterization of intelligence. We may not be able to demonstrate that an agent can interpret data. But, would you agree that such a demonstration is necessary in order to show intelligence? Is there an agent commonly referred to as intelligent that does not at least appear to interpret data?
Again, if we can demonstrate that the earth’s action was in response to interpreted data then the earth would qualify in item (3). I have not yet constructed any framework for demonstrating any of the items for a given agent. All I am suggesting so far is a positive way to characterize intelligence. Once a list is agreed on, then perhaps we can all discover a way to demonstrate each item in the final list.
In item (4) we may be forced to turn to freewill and thus away from science but why assume so early that this is inevitable. I made no demands on how the course acted on must be determined by the agent from the list of viable options in order to show intelligence. I only suggest that options are necessary in order to demonstrate intelligence.
I understand that my four items present difficulties but is there anything constructive that can be said for them or are they a total wash?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 13. April 2007 15:25
Nick: quote:
But, no, you will continue to make silly analogous comparisons and present superfluous arguments, against a concept that the rest of the average people in the world considers an axiomatic postulate, as long as someone will indulge you.
What axiomatic postulate are you referring to? Can you state it?
quote:
The recognition of something is not predicate to a clear definition, characterization or understanding of it.
If the ID movement interprets "intelligence" as nothing more than an I-know-it-when-I-see-it concept, then the question of whether ID is science is settled by that fact alone.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
