|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 20. April 2007 12:28
Daniel,
Quote: What we are up against here is the mapping of features that have no conceivable natural precursors, but which do share many analogous characteristics with human designs.
Your comments touch on three very important features of intelligent causation.
First (and second) you touch on two important and often observed properties of intelligent causation. First, intelligent causation is discontinuous. Form of intelligent causation can ‘go dormant’ over long periods of time and space, then reappear in the same form or in a highly modified form. Second, intelligent causation is progressive. Solutions or intelligent processing can arise that did not previously exist. Certainly both intelligent human engineering and biological evolution have produced novel solutions to problems.
Personally, I think that small discontinuities and small examples of progressive change are more interesting and more informative than the difficult to explain very large creative leaps. As far as I can tell, there are no fundamental differences between small and large discontinuities or between small and large creative leaps. In other words, while I accept that it is essential to recognize intelligent causation in order to explain behaviors that appear intelligent and creative, it is not necessary to assume or suggest that some types intelligent causation require the actions of an external intelligence or external intelligent agent.
The third issue that your comment above raises is the question of “How does science explain the creative or progressive ‘jumps’ or leaps (small and large) associated with intelligent causation?” A lot of ID supporters would like to argue that at least the large leaps can only be explained by an external intelligent designer. People like aiguy appear to make the dubious argument that ‘you can’t LABEL creative progressive leaps as intelligent causation because you can’t explain these creative leaps in terms of phenomena other than goal directed intelligence”.
The answer to the ‘How does science explain…?” question is ‘Science needs to be able to make testable non-trivial predictions associated with the leaps and science needs to be able to express or formulate these predictions in terms of scientific theories’. Scientific explanations, or hard science explanations of intelligent causation are not abased on ‘what are the processes or mechanisms that produce intelligent causation?’ Scientific explanations of intelligent causation involve testable predictions produced by non-trivial predictive theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 21. April 2007 09:56
LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE
A lot of people in both ID and AI seem to reject the reductionist concept or approach to the scientific analysis of intelligent causation. These individuals are willing to accept that 1) creating life or 2) sending a space ship to the moon might require intelligence, but they are not willing to recognize or accept that some small isolated elements of intelligent causation might also involve intelligent causation.
The decision to reject or refuse to recognize formal scietific definitions of intelligent causation that can be applied to something as simple as a thermostat is not at the discretion of some peer review process. Scientists are welcome to propose alternative or competing formal definitions that lead to better predictive theories, but they are not entitled to reject one definition that leads to predictive theories when they have no alternative to offer.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 21. April 2007 14:48
aiguy:
quote:
Daniel, can you see the problem here? Subsitute your definition of intelligence for the word in that sentence:
"Complex biological machinery is best explained by that which can create complex machinery".
What is the alternative - "Complex biological machinery is best explained by that which cannot create complex machinery."?
Obviously whatever created the complex biological machinery must've been able to do so. Appealing to something that has not been demonstrated as able to produce complex machinery (random mutations and natural selection) is ludicrous.
There is only one observed and tested mechanism that we know of that can create complex machinery - intelligent agency.
If it is the only adequate explanation, then we are forced to accept it - at least until a viable alternative is offered.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 21. April 2007 14:55
Interesting topics.
Time ago I went through the same questions you are discussing here. That time I tried to explain (just to my self) the Life phenomenon. Eventually, this “internal investigation” led me to views that System emergence its Complexity of a problem and Intelligence are interconnected, and we may not able completely comprehend and define each of these categories independently. It is why, in my opinion, the definition of Life, Complexity, Emergence or Intelligence still not exists.
I regard “Intelligence”, as a property of a system - actually any system even those we normally do not call intelligent. To avoid confusion, I should define a new term for this property, but for now I use the same term “Intelligence”, but in parenthesis.
To examine “Intelligence”, as a property of a system, we have to find a way to measure it. Like any other measurements that occur only in the process of interaction, we will measure the “intelligence” of a system that interacts with particular problem. It is important to understand that “intelligence” cannot be defined as an absolute value but relative only. Its value depends upon the type of a problem selected to measure “intelligence”. For example, who is more intelligent – mathematician, musician or surgeon depends of the task we choose: solve a linear differential equation, compose music or perform surgical operation. If the problem is protein folding, then any single molecule of protein is much more “intelligent” that we are.
The value of the intelligence that solves the particular problem within specific time frame could be determined as follow: the value of the intelligence is equal to 1 GRADE if the probability p of correct answer is 100%. If an individual is solving the specific class of problems, with the 10% success rates his/her intelligence, relative to this type of the problems is 0.1
In general, a group (system) is able to solve a more complex problem that an individual member. Suppose that the group of m individuals is solving the same problem that has one correct answer chosen among vast amount of incorrect ones. Suppose also that these individuals solve this problem independently and then compare their answers at the end. The identical results, most probable are the correct answer, but the different results are random, and therefore will be canceled out as incorrect. Therefore, the identical results represent the correct answer defined by the group. The more members are in the group, the higher is the probability that a system comes up with a correct answer and therefore its “intelligence is higher.
The described mechanism determining system intelligence is applicable to the “democratic” system only where independence is preserved and authority is distributed more or less evenly among its members. If an authority or power in a system plays a role in determining a “correct answer”, the optimum solution may not be achieved and this system intelligence could be compromised.
Using the described above mechanism, a system able to accumulate an intelligence of its elements producing a higher level of intelligence. The existence of hierarchical organization of mater from elementary particle to human society is a series of mind levels, which became more and more sophisticated from one hierarchical level to the next level.
The by-product of this view is a new definition of a TRUTH. According to described above group solving problem mechanism - there is no absolute TRUTH (unless GOD exists), but a relative TRUTH only. This TRUTH is what a majority believes in. For example, what is the TRUTH about the structure of our universe? The CORRECT answer may vary. A thousand years ago, the CORRECT answer was - the Sun, the few planets, and the stars are rotated around the Earth. Since then we learned a grate deals about our solar system and have another CORRECT answer. Tomorrow we may learn more profound facts about our universe and the CORRECT answer could be different from today’s one. This TRUTH depends on an initial condition of the given problem. These initial conditions are changing from time to time or from culture to culture, thus causing the different correct answers or a TRUTH.
I would like to provide some comments on the important points made by participants of this thread, but I will do it in the next posting
Mark
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 21. April 2007 15:07
Zarathustra:
quote:
quote:
LifeEngineer: 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.
Please name one of the scientists who has actually presented such a definition, and give a web link to his work.
How about a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to non-human intelligence?
http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=J57&type=periodical&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=17014654&CFTOKEN=18719077
[ 21. April 2007, 15:14: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 21. April 2007 15:35
LifeEngineer,
Your comments are completely relevant and undeniable. Your appeals to the scientific method in regards to Intelligent causation are met with scorn by those who claim to be all about "science".
Their prejudice is showing.
We seem to be building a consensus here that "intelligence" can be measured in terms of results. The IQ test is a perfect example. The "Intelligence Quotient" is measured in relation to one's ability to solve predetermined problems.
We are trying to answer the question about whether or not intelligence was involved in the design of biological machinery, but I think a better question is; "What kind of intelligence would it take to design biological machinery?".
The level of ingenuity involved in the solutions presented in life's machinery require a staggering intellect - IMO.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 21. April 2007 18:45
Daniel,
quote:
AIGUY: Complex biological machinery is best explained by that which can create complex machinery.
DANIEL: What is the alternative - "Complex biological machinery is best explained by that which cannot create complex machinery."?
I hope you can see that neither of these constitute any sort of explanation at all.
quote:
Obviously whatever created the complex biological machinery must've been able to do so. Appealing to something that has not been demonstrated as able to produce complex machinery (random mutations and natural selection) is ludicrous.
As is appealing to something defined only as "that which can produce it", obviously.
quote:
There is only one observed and tested mechanism that we know of that can create complex machinery - intelligent agency.
You have failed to read my points, Daniel, and keep repeating your mistake: We know human beings can create machines, but unless you're talking about humans, nobody knows what an intelligent agent is, and nobody can say what distinguishes an intelligent agent from anything else in the universe. You seem to be unable to respond to this argument, and choose instead to ignore it completely.
quote:
If it is the only adequate explanation, then we are forced to accept it - at least until a viable alternative is offered.
It is no explanation at all, and we are not forced to accept a vacuous, meaningless, undefined appeal to subjective theological intuitions as a scientific explanation no matter what we think about alternatives.
If you think we can, then I have another theory that is just as good as yours: Life was caused by monsorial cause. Humans are monsorial, and they can design machines, and biological looks like machinery, so I conclude that monsorial caused life. And here's another one: Life was caused by redantic causes. Humans are redantic, and so life was caused by a redantic cause too.
Do you think these explanations are any worse than yours? If so, why? Might it have something to do with the fact that nobody can say what a "monsorial" or a "redantic" cause is? Well, unless you can say what an intelligent cause is, you are in exactly the same boat.
quote:
How about a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to non-human intelligence?
http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=J57&type=periodical&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=17014654&CFTOKEN=18719077
If you'd like to refer to AI literature as the science of intelligence, then you're going to find yourself in big trouble. AI assumes that purely natural causes, such as we see in evolutionary processes, are the foundation for all behavior, including that which we tend to call intelligent. So much for science supporting ID.
quote:
Your comments are completely relevant and undeniable. Your appeals to the scientific method in regards to Intelligent causation are met with scorn by those who claim to be all about "science". Their prejudice is showing.
Instead of making actual arguments, you simply accuse people of being prejudiced. If you'd like to offer an argument, do so. These sorts of general insults do not further your position.
quote:
We seem to be building a consensus here that "intelligence" can be measured in terms of results. The IQ test is a perfect example. The "Intelligence Quotient" is measured in relation to one's ability to solve predetermined problems.
And who says that "the creation of life" was a "predetermined problem"?
However, if you'd like to define intelligence in terms of IQ test results, I'll go along with that arguendo. As soon as you can give the Designer of Life an IQ test and get back the results, you'll have something to talk about. Which of the standard tests do you intend to use, the Stanford-Binet? If it isn't a standardized test, then the results will be meaningless of course, since as every psychologist knows, the meaning of IQ test results is strictly dependent on the statistical correlations we find when we give the same test to large numbers of subjects.
This is what I meant in the OP when I said "psychology defines intelligence simply as an opaque theoretical construct deduced from the covariance of performance we see on tests of specific mental abilities". (Have you even bothered to read the OP?)
A single test given to a single subject is completely uninterpretable with regard to any scientific notion of intelligence. Too bad - science is a bit harder than you apparently believe.
[ 21. April 2007, 19:06: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 22. April 2007 08:07
Quote: We seem to be building a consensus here that "intelligence" can be measured in terms of results. The IQ test is a perfect example. The "Intelligence Quotient" is measured in relation to one's ability to solve predetermined problems.
Yes, I think we probably are building a consensus on the feasibility of defining intelligence in terms of results. As your example points out, the convention or concept of defining intelligence in terms of results can not only be used in ID, but it can be and is widely used in both the study of behavior in psychology and in the applied forms of AI. In other words, the consensus on the feasibility of defining intelligence in terms of results is already established in at least portions of many existing fields.
It might be useful in addressing aiguy's arguments to point out that 'a definition of intelligent causation' and 'a scientific explanation of how intelligent causation works' are not at all the same thing. Developing useful formal definitions that allow us to classify behavior as intelligent or non-intelligent is only the first step in developing scientific theories and scientific explanations of intelligent causation.
It is quite straight forward, logical, and scientifically sound to formulate definitions of intelligence that classify both 'hmans producing complex flying machines' and 'biological evolution producing flying machines' as examples of intelligent behavior. It is, when you think about it, hard to believe that any serious scientist would question the validity of such definitions. Once you have such a definitions you can start attempting to address the questions 1) "How do these instances of intelligent causation work?" and 2) "What testable predictive theories can be formulated?"
The scientific results obtained will depend in large measure on which of these two questions is addressed. But whatever direction we go, we can agree that we can start by defining intelligent causation in terms of results.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 22. April 2007 08:26
Mark,
Quote:The by-product of this view is a new definition of a TRUTH. According to described above group solving problem mechanism - there is no absolute TRUTH (unless GOD exists), but a relative TRUTH only. This TRUTH is what a majority believes in. For example, what is the TRUTH about the structure of our universe?
In analyzing intelligent causation, I went through most of the steps and ideas you list. I also agree that an essential part of developing a scientific understanding intelligent causation involves understanding the concepts of 1) absolute truth, 2) human truth, 3) popular or consensus truth and 4) scientific truth.
I believe, along with a lot of peope in philosophy of science and theology, that humans are not capable of acquiring or understanding absolute truth. Neither science nor religion can give humans God like absolute knowledge or absolute truth.
The most useful and most reliable form of truth that humans can achieve, in my view, is scientific or hard science truth. Hard science truth is very different from majority view or consensus truth (which can be extremely distorted and misleading). Hard science truth is truth established by 'king on the hill' type testing of predictive theories. In real science, a scientist produces a testable predictive theory subject to open, objective testing by all other scientists. The theory remains current scientific truth until some other scientist produces a better alternative via a formal process of falsify and replace analysis.
One of the keys, IMO, to solving the problem/challenge of inteligent causation is rejecting the subjective majority concept of truth and accepting the 'only one theory wins' concept of scientific truth.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 22. April 2007 10:04
LifeEngineer
No objections.
I am not sure if I understood your last sentence: ” One of the keys, IMO…”
It could be just limitation of my English (as a second language).
What is IMO?
Thanks
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 22. April 2007 10:14
Sorry for the internet slang. IMO= in my opinion. IMHO= in my humble opinion
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 22. April 2007 10:53
Aiguy:
"If intelligent causation is to be offered as a meaningful explanation of anything - whether it be the behavior of human beings or the origin of biological complexity – we must be able to positively characterize this type of causation in way that is DISTINGUISHED from other types."
Aiguy,
As I understood, your assumption is that there are two types of causation: intelligent and not intelligent. Would you accept, as a possibility, that there is only one type of causation: intelligent one. Do you have a reason to rule out this possibility?
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 22. April 2007 15:19
miosim,
quote:
As I understood, your assumption is that there are two types of causation: intelligent and not intelligent.
No, this is really the opposite of what I believe. It is Intelligent Design Theory that assumes two types of causation, not me. In my view, we have no way to objectively distinguish intelligent causation from any other type of causation.
quote:
Would you accept, as a possibility, that there is only one type of causation: intelligent one. Do you have a reason to rule out this possibility?
What I believe is that there is only one type of causation, and that it makes no difference at all whether we choose to call this intelligent or not. The word "intelligent" doesn't tell us anything at all.
I have asked ID supporters to tell me how they think we can distinguish "intelligent causation" from anything else. Here are the types of responses I get:
1) They deny the need to say anything at all about intelligent causation is.
However, when we offer some concept as a scientific explanation for something, we actually do need to say something about what we mean. If Newton had described gravity as merely "something that moves things", then we would not consider his work to be scientific, and his theory would have been utterly useless. Likewise, when ID describes intelligence as "something that creates complex machinery", we learn nothing whatsoever about how complex machinery comes to exist.
2) They describe intelligent causation in terms that cannot be scientifically evaluated.
After conceding that perhaps ID is obliged to actually say something about how it is trying to explain biological complexity, ID supporters begin by saying that intelligence requires free will, or conscious deliberation. However, there is no scientific basis for inferring free will or conscious deliberation, even in living things to which we have empirical access. So obviously there is no scientific justification in attributing these things to a hypothetical entity.
3) They describe intelligent causation in terms that also apply to natural processes which they do not consider to be intelligentFor example, they will say that intelligent causation is is distinguished by being "goal-driven" or "purposeful" or as "problem-solving. However, many other natural processes are goal-driven and purposeful, and we do not say those processes are intelligent. The goal of a cloud is to collect moisture evaporating from the oceans and return it to the Earth. But we don't think of clouds as being intelligent. A river solves the problem of carving a path to the sea, but we don't think of a river as being intelligent either.
4) They point to other scientific endeavors that use the concept of intelligence
But as I explained in the OP (Original Post) of this thread, none of the characterizations of intelligence that science uses can be applied in the context of ID. The Designer can't be given an IQ test, and we can't study the brain of the Designer, and we can't interact with It to study Its responses.
5) They describe intelligence in terms of what intelligence can do.
In other words, they claim that intelligence is defined by the ability to create complex structures. This, however, renders ID's claim completely vacuous: Complex structures in biology are caused by that which can create complex structures.
Then they start all over again, at #1, without ever conceding that ID Theory is utterly without scientific content.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 22. April 2007 16:21
aiguy:
quote:
You have failed to read my points, Daniel, and keep repeating your mistake: We know human beings can create machines, but unless you're talking about humans, nobody knows what an intelligent agent is, and nobody can say what distinguishes an intelligent agent from anything else in the universe. You seem to be unable to respond to this argument, and choose instead to ignore it completely.
I've not ignored it. I've addressed it several times. You just don't like my answers. One of the things that distinguishes an intelligent agent from anything else in the universe is the ability to create machines. It is the artifacts themselves that give evidence of intelligent agency.
I'll ask you once again:
If we find a complex structure on Mars, how would we determine if it was built by natural causes or intelligent agency? When you can answer that question, you'll know what distinguishes an intelligent agent from anything else in the universe.
quote:
Life was caused by monsorial cause. Humans are monsorial, and they can design machines, and biological looks like machinery, so I conclude that monsorial caused life. And here's another one: Life was caused by redantic causes. Humans are redantic, and so life was caused by a redantic cause too.
Do you think these explanations are any worse than yours? If so, why? Might it have something to do with the fact that nobody can say what a "monsorial" or a "redantic" cause is? Well, unless you can say what an intelligent cause is, you are in exactly the same boat.
It's not that nobody can say what an "intelligent cause" is. Plenty of people can agree what it is. You're just in the "that depends on what 'is' is" minority.
The term "intelligence" has meaning (it's even in the dictionary), the terms you mentioned don't and aren't.
Here's another definition for intelligence - you tell me what's wrong with it:
"Intelligence is the ability to use cognizant thought to solve problems".
It just occurred to me though, that what we are really talking about here is not so much "Intelligent Design" as it is "Ingenious Design".
Ingenious (adj) is defined by Webster as "1. characterized by cleverness or originality of invention. 2. cleverly inventive; resourceful."
Ingenuity (n) is "1. the quality of being cleverly inventive or resourceful. 2. cleverness or skillfulness of conception or design."
The term "ingenious" is no where near as broad in scope as "intelligence" - being more narrowly restricted to design - and is therefore more applicable to the subject of human and biological machinery.
So maybe ID should stand for "Ingenious Design"!
quote:
If you'd like to refer to AI literature as the science of intelligence, then you're going to find yourself in big trouble. AI assumes that purely natural causes, such as we see in evolutionary processes, are the foundation for all behavior, including that which we tend to call intelligent.
Then they - like you - are mistaken. Please explain precisely which "natural causes" produced intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 22. April 2007 16:40
aiguy:
quote:
1) They deny the need to say anything at all about intelligent causation is.
However, when we offer some concept as a scientific explanation for something, we actually do need to say something about what we mean. If Newton had described gravity as merely "something that moves things", then we would not consider his work to be scientific, and his theory would have been utterly useless. Likewise, when ID describes intelligence as "something that creates complex machinery", we learn nothing whatsoever about how complex machinery comes to exist.
So what exactly is gravity and how did it come to exist?
quote:
2) They describe intelligent causation in terms that cannot be scientifically evaluated.
After conceding that perhaps ID is obliged to actually say something about how it is trying to explain biological complexity, ID supporters begin by saying that intelligence requires free will, or conscious deliberation. However, there is no scientific basis for inferring free will or conscious deliberation, even in living things to which we have empirical access. So obviously there is no scientific justification in attributing these things to a hypothetical entity.
For "free will", I have no argument, but for "conscious deliberation", I think we all have both observed and experienced that.
quote:
3) They describe intelligent causation in terms that also apply to natural processes which they do not consider to be intelligentFor example, they will say that intelligent causation is is distinguished by being "goal-driven" or "purposeful" or as "problem-solving. However, many other natural processes are goal-driven and purposeful, and we do not say those processes are intelligent. The goal of a cloud is to collect moisture evaporating from the oceans and return it to the Earth. But we don't think of clouds as being intelligent. A river solves the problem of carving a path to the sea, but we don't think of a river as being intelligent either.
The so called "goals" of unintelligent natural processes are equally applicable to unintelligent human designs. The chair I'm sitting on has the "goal" of holding me up while I type this. No one is saying that chairs, clouds or rivers are intelligent, but it can be inferred that the designer of chairs, clouds and rivers was "goal oriented".
quote:
4) They point to other scientific endeavors that use the concept of intelligence
But as I explained in the OP (Original Post) of this thread, none of the characterizations of intelligence that science uses can be applied in the context of ID. The Designer can't be given an IQ test, and we can't study the brain of the Designer, and we can't interact with It to study Its responses.
We can study the designs of both humans and the designer of biological complexity. While this does require an a priori assumption of design, it nevertheless allows us to gauge the intelligence (or better "ingenuity") of these designers.
quote:
5) They describe intelligence in terms of what intelligence can do.
In other words, they claim that intelligence is defined by the ability to create complex structures. This, however, renders ID's claim completely vacuous: Complex structures in biology are caused by that which can create complex structures.
Name the possible causes of complex machinery.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
