|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 22. April 2007 18:14
Daniel,
quote:
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.
Here is exactly why this answer will not do:
If you define intelligence as "that which can create machines", and then you explain how machines come to exist by saying intelligence is responsible, then you have said exactly nothing at all. "The machinery of biology is caused by that which can cause machinery" tells us precisely nothing. It is a vacuous tautology, true simply by definition. How can you not understand this?
quote:
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.
But nobody can answer this question until we know what "an intelligent agency" is supposed to mean. I have said this to you many times now, but you refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem here. If somebody found a Mount Rushmore on Mars, we might infer that something similar to human beings built it: a living thing that likes to carve faces into rocks. But that is not a definition of "an intelligent agency"!
quote:
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.
Scientific results are not justified by appeal to popular opinion, Daniel. Lots of people know what is beautiful, too, but saying "Angelina Jolie is beautiful" is not a scientific claim, no matter how many people think it is true. You could say "95% of adult males in the U.S. think that Angelina Jolie is beautiful", but that is not a statement about beauty; it is a statement of how likely an adult male in the U.S. is to report that Angelina is beautiful.
quote:
The term "intelligence" has meaning (it's even in the dictionary), the terms you mentioned don't and aren't.
Dictionary definitions do not suffice as technical definitions for scientific explanations. The word "force" is in the dictionary, but no scientific theory uses the word in the sense that it is defined in the dictionary.
quote:
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".
Nothing is wrong with this. All you have to do is to provide a scientific test that distinguishes things that solve problems using cognizant thought from things that solve problems without using cognizant thought. What might that test be?
quote:
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". ... So maybe ID should stand for "Ingenious Design"!
Do you not realize that what I am asking for is a scientific definition, rather than a common definition? Do you not understand the difference? Do you not realize that unless one provides an empirical test to distinguish those things that we attribute "cleverness" to from those things that do not, then we cannot use the concept of "cleverness" in science?
quote:
AIGUY: 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.
DANIEL: Then they - like you - are mistaken. Please explain precisely which "natural causes" produced intelligence.
Now you are saying that intelligence is something that is "produced"? And you are claiming that human beings are not "natural"?
quote:
So what exactly is gravity and how did it come to exist?
There have been different scientific theories of gravity; each one characterizes it differently, and each one characterizes very precisely. Newtonian gravity is described as force that acts across any distance instantaneously with particular effects that are described with perfect clarity in mathmatical formulas. That is exactly what gravity is in Newtonian theory.
If we defined gravity as simply "that which causes motion", then we would have no scientific theory of motion at all. Since ID defines intelligence as "that which causes otherwise unexplained phenomena", then ID has no theory of anything.
And I find it hard to believe you'd ask how gravity comes to exist. How did the Designer come to exist, Daniel?
quote:
For "free will", I have no argument, but for "conscious deliberation", I think we all have both observed and experienced that.
We each experience conscious deliberation, but we cannot establish what other things experience consciousness. Is a dog conscious? A fish? A flea? An atom? How do you know?
quote:
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".
It can be inferred that rivers are goal-oriented; their goal is to deliver water to the ocean. If this does not make you think rivers are intelligent, then you are admitting that being goal-oriented is not a sufficient condition for intelligence.
quote:
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.
What does an "assumption of design" mean? What does "intelligence" or "ingenuity" mean? If you can't provide emprically grounded definitions, then you should give up and admit these statements are no more scientific than saying the full moon is "beautiful".
quote:
Name the possible causes of complex machinery.
1) Human beings.
2) Things that human beings build.
3) Biologists generally think random mutation and natural selection will also do the trick; I'm not sure about that one.
That's the list as far as I know. You would like to add another cause:
4) Something that can cause complex machinery.
I hope you can see that (4) does not count.
[ 22. April 2007, 18:31: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 22. April 2007 20:35
quote:
aiguy:
“Once again, the point of the thread is how some particular characterization of intelligence can be used to evaluate the identity relation that ID claims exists between the causes of human behavior by sh and biological complexity.”
“No, this is really the opposite of what I believe. It is Intelligent Design Theory that assumes two types of causation, not me.”
If you disagree what ID claims, why do you try to positively characterize Intelligence causation?
What is the goal of this thread: just debating ID theory, use ID as a foundation and attempt to enhance it by “positively characterize Intelligence causation”, or work toward a new Intelligence theory?
It would be interesting to know what your views are in reference to ID or any other theory
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 22. April 2007 21:04
quote:
LifeEngineer: 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.
Lights on, nobody home.
quote:
Smith: How about a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to non-human intelligence?
Thanks for the link, Daniel. I used to read a lot of papers like that when I worked in the field. I think you'll find that they are mostly formal treatments of specific, well-defined problem-solving scenarios. If you can find one that gives an "objective scientific definition of intelligence" in the context that LE used it, pray bring it forth.
quote:
Smith: Your (LE's) 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".
LE's comments about intelligence are relevant only inasmuch as they seem to use the vocabulary of those who actually know about the subject. With respect to the "undeniability" claim, one is minded of the DC Comics character "Wizard", who embarked on a career as a criminal magician, assisted by his "Cloak of Invisibility". In LE's case, he protects himself from being brought to justice by means of a magic "Cloak of Incomprehensibility". Why do you schmooze with someone who doesn't even have the good grace to defend his own unsupported claims, Daniel?
quote:
LifeEngineer: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.
Oh dear. Perhaps one of the other keys is rejecting the subjective majority concept of talking meaningless rubbish.
quote:
Moisim: 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?
I've got a reason: because it's ridiculous. Here's a link for you: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory.
quote:
Smith: So maybe ID should stand for "Ingenious Design"!
No. Better is: "Inaccurate Deduction".
Smith, and all the Creationists here, have fallen foul of the error that arises from the incorrect use of abduction. Their thinking goes along the lines of:
a) intelligent beings can make complex things
b) biological replicators are complex things
[Abduction: if complex things could only be made using intelligence, then that would explain all of them]
c) therefore that's the only answer, and must be correct.
The error lies in c), obviously.
Let's work through a couple of other examples using the broken logic of the ID proponents.
a) Only humans are known to have created complex machinery
b) Biological replicators are complex machinery
c) Therefore, only humans can have created biological machinery.
How about another one?
a) Only humans are known to be intelligent
b) Humans have never created biological replicators
c) Therefore, what gives rise to biological replicators is not intelligent.
There you have it. The logic used by the ID crowd actually leads to the opposite conclusion to the one they are promoting. Does simple logic have a theopolitical agenda?
[Addendum. I know I'm being hard on LE, but that's only because he's not being as open as he ought to be. One cannot tell whether he is a closet creationist or someone who thinks the universe gives rise to emergent phenomena in a way that we do not understand yet, but can still study. What is your position, LifeEngineer?]
[ 22. April 2007, 21:29: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 22. April 2007 21:42
miosim,
quote:
If you disagree what ID claims, why do you try to positively characterize Intelligence causation?
What I am saying is that we cannot even speak of the truth or falisity of ID - it can't be scientifically evaluated at all - until ID proposes some testable characterization of "intelligent causation" other than "that which is capable of creating life". My questions in the OP were for ID supporters to provide some such characterization. I do not believe it is possible to characterize intelligence in such a way that we can objectively distinguish some class of "intelligent agents", and then demonstrates that some instance of this class was responsible for life.
When I said ID must "positively characterize" intelligence, I meant that it must characterize it by assigning attributes to it, rather than characterizing it negatively by saying what attributes it does not have. It does no good to say intelligent causation is anything that is not caused by other known means.
quote:
What is the goal of this thread: just debating ID theory, use ID as a foundation and attempt to enhance it by “positively characterize Intelligence causation”, or work toward a new Intelligence theory?
I asked the questions in the OP in good faith; I'm always open to a sound argument. I don't believe there is a sound argument against the issues I've raised here, however, and I've yet to see one in this thread. The "intelligence" that ID offers as its sole explanatory concept is meaningless.
quote:
It would be interesting to know what your views are in reference to ID or any other theory
I think ID is pseudo-science. I think evolutionary theory is perfectly scientific. I also think evolutionary theory might be fundamentally incomplete, and something beyond anything we understand might play a vital role in the creation of biological complexity.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 22. April 2007 21:45
quote:
Miosim: It would be interesting to know what your views are in reference to ID or any other theory
It would indeed. If only there were a forum in which Aiguy was able to pose a simple question, so as to be able to present his thoughts on these matters. Even if it covered 17 pages, it would be interesting to hear his views, nonetheless. Do any of our other readers have a link to such a forum?
[edit: Damn. That little joke was ruined by your getting your post in two minutes before I did, Aiguy.]
[ 22. April 2007, 21:53: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 23. April 2007 04:35
aiguy,
I am 100% with you.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. April 2007 06:00
The transparently obvious does not require verification. No unencumbered mind can possibly deny that the origin and subsequent evolution of life required the action of one or more intelligences far beyond our present capacity to even imagine. Yet such pitiful souls abound in the contemporary world, blindly adhering to the most idiotic hypothesis ever conjured up by the human imagination. They are known as Darwinians. They apparently were born that way.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 23. April 2007 08:38
nosivad,
I taught that the MAIN point of Darwinism is that Life on earth is a result of millions years of Evolution and not one day of creation. Is it Darwin's fault that for the next 100 years scientists cannot find an explanation of how it may happened?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 23. April 2007 09:05
quote:
nosivad: The transparently obvious does not require verification. No unencumbered mind can possibly deny that the origin and subsequent evolution of life required the action of one or more intelligences far beyond our present capacity to even imagine. Yet such pitiful souls abound in the contemporary world, blindly adhering to the most idiotic hypothesis ever conjured up by the human imagination.
I thought you said you had no more to say here. Don't you just hate it when people break their promises?
This is not well thought-out, even for a piece of ranting polemic. Reduced, it becomes:
1. No-one could deny X.
2. People who deny X do exist.
I am sure it is clear just how unencumbered nosivad's mind is if he is suggesting that anything "beyond human imagination" is "transparently obvious".
Zarathustra can think of some other, more profoundly idiotic hypotheses, such as "A super-being created everything in 6 days", or the "Eternal Life" theory.
quote:
nosivad:They are known as Darwinians. They apparently were born that way.
You missed the obvious joke here. You should have said: "They came about through a series of small changes, which, over time, cumulated in a large one."
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. April 2007 09:38
Quote: 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 sort of agree with the first part of aiguy's statement but not the second. Scientific analysis and predictive hard science theories deal with only one logical type of causation. This general type or category of scientific causation can be characterized as deterministic and permanent and universal. This type of causation is expressed/explained in real science in non-trivial predictive theories with the general form “Under ideal conditions or within defined constraints, F(C)=E”.
Science recognizes the existence or at least theoretical possible existence of non-deterministic causation, but science and scientific theories do not address non-deterministic and non-permanent and universal causal relationships.
However, within this single type or class of scientific causation, we have important subclasses of causation including 1) simple deterministic causation, 2) stochastic causation, 3) teleological causation and 4) intelligence based teleological causation.
Anyone who has actually studied the subject should be aware that simple deterministic causation is a special case or subset of simple deterministic causation. With a bit more study, it should also be obvious that teleological causation is a legitimate member of the general class of permanent and universal teleological causes. To understand this conclusion, all you need to be able to understand is the goal variables or goal expectation variables are legitimate causal variables.
When we come to intelligence based teleological causation, we need to address two questions:
1. Does intelligence based teleological causation satisfy the formal requirements for deterministic permanent and universal scientific causation? AND
2. Is intelligence based teleological causation required to provide scientific theories and scientific explanations of certain types of phenomena?
In order to answer these questions, you need a reasonably precise understanding of the scientific concepts of 1) determinism and 2) the permanent and universal property. In order to formulate a precise understanding of these scientific concepts, you need to understand their role in scientific theories and the scientific paradigm. To understand the role of these concepts in the scientific paradigm, you need to understand the human behavior of scientific analysis and why the human behavior of formal hard science analysis is significantly more effective at problem solving than alternative types of human problem solving behaviors.
In order to address all these issues, we can begin by looking at one of the simplest forms of intelligent causation- the feedback loop. 1) Can we formulate hard science theories of the behavior of feedback loops using intelligence based teleological causation? And 2)Can we formulate hard science theories of the behavior of feedback loops without using intelligence based teleological causation?
Almost everyone who knows even a little about mathematical modeling, knows that you can model the behavior of a simple feedback loop using a simple deterministic formula like F(temp)= (do or do not turn furnace on). But can this model be turned into a scientific theory of the form “Under ideal conditions, F(temp)=(do or do not turn furnace on)”? Do any of the readers here recognize that such a theory is trivial and does not satisfy the scientific requirements for testability?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. April 2007 10:12
Quote: I taught that the MAIN point of Darwinism is that Life on earth is a result of millions years of Evolution and not one day of creation. Is it Darwin's fault that for the next 100 years scientists cannot find an explanation of how it may happened?
This is a pretty good expression of what I learned a long time ago as the “Scientific status of Darwinism and evolution”. To paraphrase, there is a general agreement among scientists that life forms have changed or evolved over millions of years, but no one has yet to come up with a valid or acceptable scientific explanation of how evolution occurs. All the so called RM&NS and genetic type explanations for evolutionary change are recognized by real science practitioners as non-scientific.
If it weren’t for all the ideological noise being generated, you might expect a lot of scientists would be interested in possibility that evolution is the result of the same type of intelligent causation associated with human problem solving. Or expressed in a more appropriate manner, you might expect a lot of scientists to be interested in the possibility that human intelligence is an extension or manifestation of a more general type of intelligent causation associated with all living systems?
If, as has been discussed, intelligent causation is defined in terms of results, then the conclusion is obvious that evolution involves intelligent causation. But quite obviously, DEFINING both human behavior and evolution as intelligent does not provide a scientific explanation of either human behavior or biological evolution. It should also be noted for aiguy’s sake that DEFINING intelligence as an exclusively human phenomenon also does not provide any scientific explanation.
It should be noted that as a starting point for analysis scientists have a lot of leeway in how they define intelligent causation. Some definitions will suggest evolution is an intelligent process and some will suggest that computer processing is intelligent. The scientific standard or criteria for determining which definitions are best, is ‘which definitions produce the best non-trivial predictive theories”.
As most hard science advocates recognize, the challenge of producing non-trivial predictive theories has not yet been satisfied for either human behavior or biological evolution. The study of evolution has not yet produced predictive theories that are acceptable to the hard science community. The study of human behavior and intelligence has not yet produced predictive theories that are acceptable to the hard science community.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. April 2007 11:03
1) They deny the need to say anything at all about intelligent causation is.
Quote: 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.
It is rather amusing to note the type of people who believe that Newton discovered or defined gravity as something real. In reality, Newton described a functional relationship between the values of causal variables and effect variables and was able to express this relationship in a non-trivial predictive theory. Lots of people who supposedly have the training to know the difference between 'real phenomenon' and 'abstract concepts', can recognize the differences.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 23. April 2007 15:06
OK, aiguy, let's say for the moment that I am willing to concede the point that it is not scientifically verifiable that "intelligence" or an "intelligent agent" was involved in the production of biological complexity.
But, we both know that no known natural phenomenon has been shown capable of producing said complexity either. So where are we?
Is there something we can point to besides intelligent agency or natural phenomena?
I think there is.
If we did not know about beavers, could we determine that beaver dams and lairs were built by agents (not necessarily intelligent)? If we knew nothing of ants, could we determine that ant hills were the result of agency and not natural causes? If we did not know about birds, could we distinguish the work of agency in the production of nests?
I think we could make that determination in all the above cases based on the simple quality of "Ingenuity".
These "designs" are beyond the reach of all known non-living natural causes; their structure shows an ingenuity of construction that non-living nature by itself cannot produce. So for the sake of our discussion lets define "Ingenious" as "structures characterized by a level of sophistication beyond that which can be produced by non-living natural causes."
IOW, all of the above examples show evidence of being produced by a "living active entity".
Scientifically then, let's say that this is as far as we can take the argument from design - since the above entities are not considered "intelligent". This argument however, would also apply to our theoretical structure on Mars: Once we had determined that it was beyond the reach of non-living natural causes, we could safely deduce that some kind of living entity produced it.
So, based on this characterization, we can safely say that whatever produced biological complexity was "the same thing" that produced beaver dams, ant hills, bird nests, planes, trains and automobiles - some sort of living active agent - since biological complexity shows a level of sophistication beyond that which can be produced by non-living natural causes.
The level of "intelligence" this agent possessed would have to be a best guess based on the level of ingenuity and sophistication within the biological structures themselves.
[ 23. April 2007, 15:08: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 23. April 2007 15:56
Zarathustra,
I agree with you about my assumption that any processes in the nature may have intelligent causation, is ridiculous. However I will not be surprised, if an explanation of the Life and Intelligence phenomena, when found, will be indeed ridiculous. By the way, do you think that it is ridiculous that earth is spherical instead of to be flat and peoples on opposite side of earth are walking upside down.
Just to provide you with more material for your comical talent, I will briefly describe below my other ridiculous views on the subject discussed in this thread.
I can summarize my vies as follow:
“Consciousness” is the fundamental property of Matter, like any other physical properties.
Consciousness property of subatomic Matter is not recognized by fundamentally incomplete quantum mechanics theory. Consciousness property of Matter also is not observable in the thermodynamically equilibrium systems. However if a system steered far enough from an equilibrium and past a critical point, a non-equilibrium system will emerge. The further development of these systems in the direction out from equilibrium will reveal the property that causes the phenomenon we call - LIFE.
One day, long time ago, I was preoccupied with one of my ridiculous philosophical approach to understand Life phenomenon and unexpectedly arrived to really ridiculous conclusion that to understand a most basic Life phenomena (like protein folding) we should check if atoms and even elementary particles have some sort of "Elementary Intelligence.” Electron, for example, may have a “free will” and moves anywhere it chooses, but because of “internal needs” for interaction it chooses to move toward the positively charged particle. It would mean, that electron’s motion may caused not by an external forces, that push or pull electron, but because a source of the motion is in electron itself. Before rejecting this ridiculous idea, that clearly contradict with everything we know about physics and physical forces) I had some investigation and found following:
“Historically, the concept of force, taken originally in analogy to human will power, spiritual influence, or muscular effort, became projected into inanimate objects. In elementary or introductory courses in physics a force is still interpreted in the traditional animistic manner as a “tendency” or “striving” or “attraction”. In quantum chromodinamics however, the Standard Model of “force” is replaced by ontologically less demanding concept of “interaction” between particles, which manifest itself by the exchange of additional particles that mediate this interaction. Clearly, what one calls the “fundamental forces of nature” are no longer “forces” in the traditional sense. Modern particle physics seems to support the thesis that the concept of forces has reached the end of its life cycle even though the term “force” continues to be part of our scientific vocabulary.”
If the external force, as a physical reality, does not exist, the only source of motion may lay in the particle itself and should be determined by the particle’s internal properties. Because this property wasn’t observed, I could only speculate about its nature. For example, a particle needs interactions in order to exchange by small-mediated particles and this “trade” decrease the “free energy” of both interacting particles. Because of that, the particles should be actively searching for interactions. Electron for example, may "look around" for positively charged particles and move toward its direction if senses it. The shorter a distance between the particles, more virtual photon they can “trade,” and the stronger attraction is and faster they move toward each other.
Generally speaking, all known physical phenomena can be explained in term of “freedom of choice” “ability to make decision”, "goal" etc. In addition, it is necessary to introduce a "memory" as fundamental property of an elementary particle. Inertia, for instance, could be due to this property: a particle "remember" the direction where an attraction came from and even after attraction disappear the particle continue moving in the same direction. Due to the “memory”, every elementary particle could be unique because it has a unique experience and may act differently from other particle under identical circumstances.
In this description, the elementary particle revives from the ashes and a new the “elementary living creature” is born.
FROM THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE ELEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM INTELLIGENCE
In my posting of April 21, I already described that a system could 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.
According to these views, mechanism solving problem by a group, occurs on all levels of organization. The elements of any system, independently analyze the external to the system conditions, come up with a solution to achieve tangible benefits (minimum free energy or equilibrium), compare the results among the members of the system and only than act upon the decision dictated by majority. For example, a nail, hit on the head by a hammer, moves downward, penetrating the wood not just because of the brutal force of a hammer, but because the nail’s constituent part resolute the "conscience" decision to move downward (rather than waiting for the second hit. – I am joking). Regardless of the absurd description of this example, it would not contradict to the nail's motion described by the Newtonian dynamics.
CONNECTING THE DOTS: GOAL, RESULT, AND ORIGIN OF LIFE.
Since we are talking about a system that is solving a problem we have to consider two possible outcomes: the system will come up with the correct answer or an incorrect one. It is naturally to assume that if a system is solving a problem (searching for equilibrium, for example) and got the correct answer the system will approach the equilibrium, but the incorrect answer moves it away from the destination.
Imagine a fisherman who lives on a small, remote Island. Every day he takes a boat to fish within a visible distance from the Island and therefore he has no problem to find his way back home. However, one day, by accident, he got slightly farther from the Island so he cannot see it any more. In this case, the complexity of the problem to find an Island exceeds the threshold of this man ability and therefore the more this man tries to find his Island by searching randomly, the further he moves away from it.
If one observes this man moving away from the Island, the observer may assume that this man has the goal to find more open space rather than the Island.
This example reminds me the complex systems development that is studied by nonlinear thermodynamics. This discipline considers the two outcomes of the system evolution: if the system is not far from equilibrium, it develops toward equilibrium (as non-living matter does), but if a system is far enough from equilibrium and pass the critical point, a small change can push the system into chaotic behavior (Edge of Chaos) and move it even further from an equilibrium and eventually causes the various types of the self-organization processes. Significant accomplishments have been made to extend the self-organization processes of the non-equilibrium system into the realm of living organisms.
The similarity between the man, who moves away from the Island (and probably has to develop many “tricks” to survive in this journey), and the self-organization systems that move away from equilibrium lead me to think that these two events belong to the same phenomenon.
The observation of evolution and development of Living Nature shows that it continues to move away from equilibrium, but now I would be very cautious about conclusion that this evolution and development is the real goal of Nature. Instead I would consider the opposite: the Living systems actually looking for an equilibrium, but move in the opposite direction, because they were “lost“ after series of mistakes to get back to the equilibrium and their continuous attempt to find an equilibrium has brought them further and further from the goal.
CONCLUSION
If the system steered far enough from equilibrium and past the critical point, the complexity of the problem to find equilibrium exceeds the system’s “Intelligence”. As a result of continuing attempts to find the equilibrium, a system starts developing in the direction out of equilibrium and a non-equilibrium self-organized system will emerge. The further development of this system in the direction out from equilibrium will reveal the Conscience property, which was not recognized in their elements - elementary particles. This property causes the phenomenon we call - LIFE.
If LIFE indeed was emerged due to the inevitable MISTAKE, the CORRECT answer is DEATH, but to find this answer living things have to search throughout their life.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 23. April 2007 20:16
Daniel,
quote:
OK, aiguy, let's say for the moment that I am willing to concede the point that it is not scientifically verifiable that "intelligence" or an "intelligent agent" was involved in the production of biological complexity.
Then my work is done. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
But, we both know that no known natural phenomenon has been shown capable of producing said complexity either. So where are we?
I don't know if evolutionary theory is missing something fundamental; it's just my hunch that it is. But I'll say arguendo that no known natural phenomenon has been shown capable, ok. Where are we? In that case, we are in the position of saying we do not know.
quote:
Is there something we can point to besides intelligent agency or natural phenomena? I think there is. If we did not know about beavers, could we determine that beaver dams and lairs were built by agents (not necessarily intelligent)? If we knew nothing of ants, could we determine that ant hills were the result of agency and not natural causes? If we did not know about birds, could we distinguish the work of agency in the production of nests? I think we could make that determination in all the above cases based on the simple quality of "Ingenuity".
Sorry, but removing the word "intelligent" from "intelligent agency" leaves "agency", which you are using to mean the same, undefinable, intuitive thing. Likewise "ingenuity". Either we can define what we are talking about when we use these words, or we cannot. And the fact is, we cannot provide any useful definitions for them at all.
quote:
These "designs" are beyond the reach of all known non-living natural causes; their structure shows an ingenuity of construction that non-living nature by itself cannot produce. So for the sake of our discussion lets define "Ingenious" as "structures characterized by a level of sophistication beyond that which can be produced by non-living natural causes."
IOW, all of the above examples show evidence of being produced by a "living active entity".
Ok, fine, we'll define "intelligent agency" or "agency" to mean "living". And while scientists have had a very hard time defining "life", I will ignore that for the time being too. We'll say that "living things" are "organisms that have cells, ingest food, and reproduce". And since we're not talking about amoebas building complex machinery, we can add "complex, multicellular organisms". That matches your list of clever critters - will that do?
quote:
Scientifically then, let's say that this is as far as we can take the argument from design - since the above entities are not considered "intelligent". This argument however, would also apply to our theoretical structure on Mars: Once we had determined that it was beyond the reach of non-living natural causes, we could safely deduce that some kind of living entity produced it.
Sure, why not.
quote:
So, based on this characterization, we can safely say that whatever produced biological complexity was "the same thing" that produced beaver dams, ant hills, bird nests, planes, trains and automobiles - some sort of living active agent - since biological complexity shows a level of sophistication beyond that which can be produced by non-living natural causes.
Fine, I'll go along with that.
quote:
The level of "intelligence" this agent possessed would have to be a best guess based on the level of ingenuity and sophistication within the biological structures themselves.
You've gone off track here again. There is no scientific way to assess a "level of intelligence" that could apply in this case.
But I'll agree on the "intelligent agency = living entity" concept, no problem. Now, ID's claim is:
"The cause of biological complexity is complex multicellular organisms that ingest food and reproduce".
Is that really where you wanted to take this?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
