|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 16. April 2007 08:45
Daniel,
Quote: It's not just a matter on not being able to explain things either, it's beyond that. You brush these questions off as if a natural explanation is just a tweak or two away, when you and I both know that no natural explanation for biological complexity is in sight. There's nothing even on the horizon. If there is an answer, it certainly does not involve random searches or chance.
You bring up one of the key issues in the scientific analysis of complex systems. As anyone who has ever seriously studied any complex system is aware- "The more we learn the more we realize we don't know or understand". No matter how much we learn about complex systems, we keep finding new levels of complexity.
The expression 'natural explanation' might also be expressed as a complete or materialistic or mechanistic or deterministic explanation. As you correctly point out, there is no prospect that such explanations will ever be developed.
The relevant issue, however, is whether natural or complete or absolute explanations are the same as a scientific explanation. Is a scientific explanation an attempt at an absolute or natural explanation, or is a scientific explanation "the best current explanations or models that meet the requirements for producing testable predictions".
If 'scientific explanations' are equivalent to what you call natural or complete explanations, then we will never have scientific explanations of complex systems. If, however, scientific explanations of complex systems involve step by step successive approximations, then current scientific explanations are the 'best testable non-trivial predictive theories' that can be produced. The 'current best' theories, for complex systems will always be intelligence based teleological theories or ID theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 16. April 2007 13:40
Daniel: quote:
We can (and do) compare human artifacts with biological complexity and find they share many of the same properties (I mentioned a few in a previous post about the machines I work on every day).
I assume you're referring to this:
quote:
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!
I'm trying to identify the properties you're referring to. I see:
1) Feedback
2) Fast rotation
3) Multi-axis movement
4) Complexity (I assume this refers to a large number of interacting parts, yes?)
Anything else?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 16. April 2007 19:56
quote:
LifeEngineer: The logical similarities between the efficient transformations associated with human problem solving and evolutionary problem solving are well defined and demonstrated.
This is a false claim. Please retract it.
The ID proponents here appear to be skulking behind a screen consisting of unsupported teleological presumptions. In order to proceed more honestly from this point, they must answer the following two questions:
a) How can we know the nature of a non-human "purpose"?
b) What "problem" does biological life solve?
quote:
LifeEngineer: If 'scientific explanations' are equivalent to what you call natural or complete explanations, then we will never have scientific explanations of complex systems.
You appear to be unaware of the concept of "emergent phenomena". Start with JS Mill and work your way forward. You have 150 years of catching up to do, so set to it.
[ 16. April 2007, 20:19: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 16. April 2007 20:35
Zarathustra, those of us who have a long past with LifeEngineer regard his posts as spam. In fact, his unresponsiveness is good evidence that he's nothing more than a spam-bot. Skipping over his posts is so automatic for me that I don't even notice them any more.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 16. April 2007 20:52
quote:
2nd Class: Skipping over his posts is so automatic for me that I don't even notice them any more.
Thanks for the heads up. Perhaps LifeEngineer is doing the same thing with our posts. For all we know, he may think he is the only one here!
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 17. April 2007 01:26
Daniel,
quote:
You beat all around the bush while never actually answering my question.
Sorry, what was your question?
quote:
All you're doing is dressing up the old anti-ID line: "We can't determine design unless we know who the designer is".
Hardly! By using the pronoun "who" - something we use to refer soley to human beings - you are implying that the cause of biological complexity is a person. I see no evidence of this, and so I do not ask who causes life, but what. ID claims to have an answer to the question "What caused life?", and that answer is "intelligent causation". I am asking "What is intelligent causation?" That seems fair enough to me.
quote:
Whenever that line is used, I ask some variant of the "design on Mars" question. It never fails to produce the same results - vagaries and diversions. I've yet to receive a straight answer.
You need to respond to what I said rather than with your own "vargaries". Please quote what I said, and respond to it.
quote:
This actually cuts to the heart of the matter though; How could we determine design if an artifact is known not to be of human origin?
You have used the word "design" as a verb, without telling me what that means. Can you tell me what the word "design" means as a verb? I don't think you can, so these sorts of statements have no meaning.
quote:
AIGUY: In contrast, the claim of ID theory that the cause of biological complexity is the same thing as that which enables human beings to think cannot even be evaluated at all until we have some characterization of what this thing (called "intelligent causation") is supposed to be.
DANIEL: Interesting that you equate "that which enables human beings to think" to "intelligent causation".
Sorry, but it is not I who is doing this, but rather ID theory. By using the word "intelligent" to describe both human behavior and the purported cause of life, ID claims an identity relationship. I ask what evidence there is for this claim: How can we demonstrate that the cause of human behavior, and the cause of life, is the same thing? If they are not the same thing, then ID is wrong.
quote:
We may not know (exactly) what this thing called "intelligent causation" IS, but we know (and can observe) what it DOES.
In that case, I can explain any phenomenon by the "X-force". I might not know what it is, but I know what it DOES. What? It causes the phenomenon in question!!! Gee, these scientific explanations aren't as hard as people make them out to be, huh?
quote:
Human artifacts show us what "intelligent causation" does. Human artifacts are the product of "that which enables human beings to think". We can (and do) compare human artifacts with biological complexity and find they share many of the same properties (I mentioned a few in a previous post about the machines I work on every day).
Therefore it follows that "the same thing" that enables human beings to think could be behind the "designs" of biology.
You can make subjective judgements all you'd like, but unless you characterize this "thing" in some way that allows us to demonstrate that the same thing enables humans to think that to cause life, you have no science. Again, it is as though Newton simply said gravity was "what caused otherwise inexplicable motion" - this would not have allowed us to demonstrate that it moved both apples and planets.
quote:
It's not just a matter on not being able to explain things either, it's beyond that. You brush these questions off as if a natural explanation is just a tweak or two away, when you and I both know that no natural explanation for biological complexity is in sight. There's nothing even on the horizon. If there is an answer, it certainly does not involve random searches or chance.
Even if I grant no explanation is in sight, this obviously does not make some vacuous explanation any better. You need to say what ID means, and criticizing other theories, or complaining about a lack of other explanations, is entirely irrelevant.
quote:
This is really an absurd argument that has no analogous merit whatsoever in reference to biological complexity. To equate a lightning strike in any way to something like protein synthesis is patently ridiculous and only shows to what great lengths you will go to avoid the issue.
I think the analogy was perfect: People had no explanation at all of how lightning hit steeples, and they thought that intelligent causation was responsible. Later, we found the explanation, and it had no relation to human mentality. Why don't you think this is analogous?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. April 2007 09:24
It should be this time be apparent to everyone that 1) ID science can readily and clearly define intelligent causation and 2) no matter what scientific definitions are proposed, they won’t satisfy the political opponents of ID science.
On an informal or common sense basis, intelligence is the capacity to solve problems. Intelligent causation is the application or utilization of intelligence to solve problems. This concept or definition may not be sufficiently precise for formal analysis, but it is certainly acceptable as an informal starting point.
Can we demonstrate, on an informal basis, that biological evolution involves intelligent causation? There are lots of such demonstrations. We identify some complex phenomenon in a biological system, like a heart, and then we demonstrate that it requires significant levels of human intelligence to even attempt to produce even an inferior form of the biological design. Such demonstrations of intelligence and intelligent design in biological systems are so commonplace it is easy to overlook their significance.
Opponents of ID might argue that complex hearts were designed by unintelligent processes, but they can not demonstrate a heart evolving using unintelligent processes.
Three things are important to note. First, there are lots of informal demonstrations that biological systems involve complex designs produced by intelligence. Second, there are no demonstrations that complex biological designs could have been produced by non-intelligent processes. And finally, the scientific issue of “Does the scientific explanation for the evolution of complex biological forms and functions involve goal directed intelligence?” can not be resolved based only on informal definitions and demonstrations.
Lots of ID opponents, and aiguy is a good example, would like us to believe that ID can only qualify as a science if we can get ID opponents to accept or recognize the validity of ID arguments and definitions and approaches. This is nonsense. ID science depends on the scientific soundness of ID arguments, not the acceptance of these arguments by highly biased and manipulative opponents.
On an informal or non-technical basis, the arguments and demonstrations in favor of ID science are extremely strong and the anti-intelligence arguments and demonstrations are extremely weak. But, as we should all recognize from experience, the relative strengths of informal arguments have little or nothing to do with the general acceptance or rejection of such arguments.
Scientific issues can only be resolved using formal scientific methodologies when concepts are formally defined and form expressed in terms of testable predictive theories. But to understand and evaluate formal definitions and formal predictive theories, it is first necessary to have a working knowledge and understanding of the formal mathematical and scientific procedures and concepts involved.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. April 2007 11:57
TRACKING INTELLIGENT CAUSATION THROUGH TIME AND SPACE
One of the key or defining characteristics of intelligent causation is that it is dynamic. More specifically, intelligent causation or intelligent information processing can change for R is NGC to R is GC and back again to R is NGC. In order to understand intelligent causation and the formal scientific analysis of intelligent causation, it is useful to start by studying the interesting and complex patterns of dynamic changes.
One of easiest ways to study these patterns of dynamic changes is to consider a very simple example of intelligent causation such as a simple household thermostat. Just to review, a thermostat can be viewed as involving three responses- 1) turn on heat source, 2) turn off heat source and 3) do nothing. Note that the same types of patterns of dynamic changes are produced for more complex forms of intelligent causation.
DYNAMIC PATTERN WHEN INTELLIGENT CAUSATION IS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY
To begin, it is useful to start by tracking the behavior of the thermostat over a period of time and location where the thermostat is ‘functioning properly’. If we look at the behavior during different points in time over a ‘functioning properly’ interval, we are likely to find times when the thermostat is generating response 1), response 2) and response 3). When the thermostat is functioning properly, the responses generated will change in a manner that exactly parallels changes in the NGC GC requirement and the responses generated will always be GC. This pattern of ‘instant and constant adaptive change’ is arguably the most common pattern associated with intelligent causation.
BREAKDOWN OR FAILURE OR LIMITATIONS OF INTELLIGENT CAUSATION
The household thermostat, like all forms of intelligent causation, is imperfect. For any form of intelligent causation, there will always be conditions where the process breakdowns and fails to produce R is GC. For the thermostat, this might involve something like ‘the electricity going off’. It might also involve something like ‘a change in the goal temperature’. If the temperature goal changes, and the thermostat is not properly adjusted, the responses generated by the thermostat may become R is NGC.
One of the basic tests and identifying properties for intelligent causation is the ability of the scientist to cause the intelligent process to malfunction.
ORIGINS
Another important feature of intelligent causation is that it did not exist from the beginning of time. At least it did not exist in its current form from the beginning of time. Intelligence is progressive. It involves transformations from less intelligent forms to more intelligent forms. Similarly it involves transformations from more intelligent forms to less intelligent forms. In analyzing intelligent causation, we may or may not be able to explain these transformations, but we should have evidence that such transformations occur or have occurred.
NON-INTELLIGENT FORMS AND LOCATIONS
Science and scientific theories, it will be noted, deal with permanent and universal causal relationships. In other words, science deals with input-output or cause and effect relationships that are applicable at every space-time point in the universe. If we randomly select a space-time point in the universe and test for ‘thermostat’ properties, we will most likely find the ‘unintelligent form’. Think about it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 17. April 2007 14:48
2ndclass:
quote:
I'm trying to identify the properties you're referring to. I see:
1) Feedback
2) Fast rotation
3) Multi-axis movement
4) Complexity (I assume this refers to a large number of interacting parts, yes?)
Anything else?
As to #4, yes.
To that list, I'd add:
Electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic systems, central processor control, communication systems, a cross-platform programming language (with it's own self-contained transcription, translation, production and replication support), strictly controlled manufacturing cycles with quality control, transportation systems, fully contained subsystems (with their own hierarchy of organizational management) integrated seamlessly into an overall system of hierarchal management, sensory systems (including audio, visual, and touch contact), flight systems, mobility methods, systems for digging, power plants for producing usable energy from various fuels, aquatic systems, navigation and balance systems...
Should I continue?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 17. April 2007 15:12
aiguy:
quote:
I am asking "What is intelligent causation?" That seems fair enough to me.
Intelligent causation is the act of "causation" by an "intelligent agent".
We see it in action every day. It is observable.
I (an intelligent agent) am "causing" these words to appear right now. I am using various tools to accomplish that purpose, but the ultimate source (causation) of the words you are reading at this very moment is intelligent agency (me).
It's observable and repeatable. It can be tested in the laboratory. It is an utterly and unarguably scientific explanation. Like gravity, we don't know it's exact cause, but we can observe and measure it's effects.
You will use it (I'm sure) to reply to this message. It's not an (X)factor. We can study it directly. If you look around the room, you'll see hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of it.
What's so hard about that?
Your issue seems to be with the definition of "intelligent", and I think you'll never be satisfied with any definition offered. You've even said in the past that human designs cannot be classified as "intelligent designs". My only suggestion for you then, given your profound objection to the use of the term, is that you petition the scientific establishment to ban the word's usage in all fields. Otherwise, perhaps you should join the rest of science and consent to the currently accepted usage for the term.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 17. April 2007 16:50
quote:
Smith: It's observable and repeatable. It can be tested in the laboratory. It is an utterly and unarguably scientific explanation.
Give me an example of intelligent causation (other than by humans or animals) in which the "intelligence" of the phenomenon can be verified.
No such example actually exists, unless one is to replace the word "science" with "speculation".
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 17. April 2007 17:55
Daniel,
quote:
Intelligent causation is the act of "causation" by an "intelligent agent". We see it in action every day. It is observable. I (an intelligent agent) am "causing" these words to appear right now. I am using various tools to accomplish that purpose, but the ultimate source (causation) of the words you are reading at this very moment is intelligent agency (me). It's observable and repeatable. It can be tested in the laboratory. It is an utterly and unarguably scientific explanation. Like gravity, we don't know it's exact cause, but we can observe and measure it's effects. You will use it (I'm sure) to reply to this message. It's not an (X)factor. We can study it directly. If you look around the room, you'll see hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of it.
What's so hard about that?
Come on, Daniel we're going around in circles here. I will make this point one more time:
What you are talking about is not causation by "intelligent agents", but rather causation by "human beings". You pretend that there is a whole class of things called "intelligent agents", and that we can all agree on what things belong to this class and what things do not. But that is simply not the case. Since you can't give me a way to decide, for any X, if X is an intelligent agent or not, then you can't use the concept as a scientific explanation of anything.
quote:
Your issue seems to be with the definition of "intelligent", and I think you'll never be satisfied with any definition offered. You've even said in the past that human designs cannot be classified as "intelligent designs".
No, I never said that. How can I say what can or cannot be classified as an "intelligent agent" if I do not have a method for determining this? Until you provide some clear method that enables us to say what distinguishes an intelligent agent from other things in the world, you are saying nothing at all.
quote:
My only suggestion for you then, given your profound objection to the use of the term, is that you petition the scientific establishment to ban the word's usage in all fields. Otherwise, perhaps you should join the rest of science and consent to the currently accepted usage for the term.
You are confused. In my OP, I described exactly how science characterized intelligence - why don't you read that again? But no scientist explains any phenomenon by intelligent causation. And I think it's funny that you claim that there is a "currently accepted usage for the term", when the Encarta reference that you yourself provided said exactly the opposite!
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 17. April 2007 18:56
LifeEngineer: Three things are important to note. First, there are lots of informal demonstrations that biological systems involve complex designs produced by intelligence.
This is another one of your false claims. No biological system has ever been demonstrated to have been caused by intelligence. Or perhaps by "informal demonstration" you simply meant "unfounded assertion".
LifeEngineer: Second, there are no demonstrations that complex biological designs could have been produced by non-intelligent processes.
This is an intellectually bankrupt line of reasoning. Many thousands of scientists have investigated the mechanisms that operate in biological systems, and none of them has detected a single one that requires the intervention of an "intelligent" agent. There is, therefore, no reason to infer that any such agent exists. Were someone to make the extraordinary claim that one was necessary, the onus would be on him to substantiate it.
LifeEngineer: And finally, the scientific issue of “Does the scientific explanation for the evolution of complex biological forms and functions involve goal directed intelligence?” can not be resolved based only on informal definitions and demonstrations.
You have not been able to answer my earlier question about what "problem" life solves. That being the case, your notion of a "goal" becomes meaningless in any subsequent analysis you care to present. Trivial thermostat examples only waste space here.
LifeEngineer: This is nonsense. ID science depends on the scientific soundness of ID arguments, not the acceptance of these arguments by highly biased and manipulative opponents.
Since the ID proponents are able to justify their use of neither the term "intelligence" nor "design" in any other context than that of human endeavors, the only conclusion available is that they are anthropormorphizing the natural world. This is not called "science", nor "sound argument". Instead, it is commonly referred to as "superstition".
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. April 2007 09:35
Quote: You are confused. In my OP, I described exactly how science characterized intelligence - why don't you read that again? But no scientist explains any phenomenon by intelligent causation.
Quote: We pursue our understanding of intelligence at multiple levels of abstraction simultaneously. At the most abstract, psychology defines intelligence simply as an opaque theoretical construct deduced from the covariance of performance we see on tests of specific mental abilities. Most concretely, the neurosciences attempt to tie these abilities to neural mechanisms. In between, cognitive scientists attempt to build models of our mental skills that are consistent with findings at either end of this explanatory spectrum.
This is an old and rather silly argument. Essentially it says ‘intelligence is something occurring in human minds’ and therefore ‘anything not occurring in minds, or anything that can not be proved to involve exactly the same processes involved in the human mind does not meet the definition of intelligence’. A variation of this argument was used by IBM to convince customers that it was safe to buy computers because computers weren’t really intelligent. A good argument can be made that this logic played an essential role in the commercial success of computers.
While the ‘real intelligence is uniquely human’ argument may be commercially valuable and while lots of humans find comfort in the logic, it is not scientifically valid.
Real science does use human behavior as starting point for developing definitions of intelligence and science uses human behavior to benchmark levels of intelligence. However, every serious and competent scientist recognizes that any objective scientific definition of intelligence must be in terms that can be applied to phenomena other than human behavior.
The main confusion in this thread is with the people who are confusing IBM’s commercial argument with scientific logic.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. April 2007 10:58
While it is undoubtedly boring and uninteresting and incomprehensible to many, formal analysis of intelligence and intelligent behavior is often, even usually, analyzed in terms of information processing or input-output or cause-effect relationships. In mathematics these relationships are represented or modeled by algorithms with the general F(S)=R format.
One ‘possible’ approach to the analysis of complex behavior or complex information processing is to start by developing point in time models capable of simulating information processing at a single location and single point in time. Once you have point in time models, you can then begin to analyze the changes that occur overtime and between locations.
Typically, the most ‘interesting’ changes are those occurring within a single system like a brain or neuron or computer over a short period of time. However, in order to put those short term interesting changes into an appropriate perspective, it is useful to consider a much broader range of changes. At the extreme we can evaluate thermostat type information processing over the entire universe and form a mapping of the (R is GC and R is NGC) property.
Two major features of such a map should be immediately obvious. First, successful thermostat information processing producing (R is GC) is extremely rare in the universe and we only find the phenomena occurring in a few isolated spots on the earth. The same will be true of essentially all type of intelligent processing.
Second, the mapping produced depends on the formal definitions developed by human observers. Definitions of properties like ‘intelligence’ and ‘R is GC’ depend on human observers (scientists). No matter how often it is repeated, most people seem to have a very hard time accepting that scientific concepts and properties are formulated and defined by human scientists.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
