|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. April 2007 09:59
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS
At least a part of the lack of agreement on this thread is due to a failure to differentiate among – definitions, scientific definitions, scientific explanations, and intuitive explanations.
Despite aiguy’s misleading counter claims, there is no difficulty in developing definitions that distinguish intelligent behaviors from non-intelligent behaviors. There is no difficulty in developing definitions that classify both human design behaviors and biological design behaviors as intelligent. There is also absolutely no difficulty in developing such definitions that satisfy scientific standards.
The difficulty, as should be obvious, arises in intuitive and scientific explanations for intelligent causation. And the basic problem with producing explanations, is that most people believe incorrectly that you need to start with an intuitive explanation of intelligent causation and that a formal scientific explanation will follow from an appropriate intuitive explanation.
It may be counter intuitive to people whose knowledge of science is limited to textbook learning, but the order or process in real science is 1) develop a scientifically sound definition, 2) identify a ‘simple’ and ‘relatively easy to study’ form of the defined phenomenon, 3) formulate non-trivial predictive theories of the identified phenomenon using the definition, 4) refine the definitions and theories as a result of formal falsify and replace testing, 5) attempt to apply the refined definitions and theories to more complex phenomena, and 6) finally, develop verbal explanations that make it easier to teach the formal definitions and predictive theories.
It will be noted that in teaching scientific concepts, the order is changed. Teaching generally starts with an ‘intuitive’ explanation. Typically, the final or current versions of predictive theories are taught first, and early forms of theories are only taught for historical background. It is sort of interesting to note that concepts like gravity that are ‘currently intuitively obvious’ to most people, were developed to make it easier to explain Newtonian theory. Newtonian theory did not develop from the intuitive concept of gravity. People like aiguy ‘visualize’ gravity as an explanation for Newtonian laws. They can not see that gravity was a man create concept developed to help people learn the concepts associated with Newtonian theories.
THE ‘PROBLEM’ IN DEVELOPING SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS
Again, in real working science, once an initial formal definition of intelligent causation is developed, the next step is to identify a simple and easy to study example intelligent causation. This stage or step has proved problematic for most scientific analysis of intelligent causation. If you start with a type of behavior that clearly involves intelligent causation, and you attempt to reduce it to something simple and easy to study, you end up with behaviors that do not appear to involve intelligence.
If, for example, we start with a clearly intelligent behavior like ‘solving math problems’ and reduce it to very simple components we end up with behaviors like ‘solving 2+2’ that don’t appear intuitively to require much intelligence. Similarly, if we start with information process in human brains, then reduce it to information processing in neurons, then further reduce it to the operations associated with neurons, we end up with relatively simple processing and simple feedback loops. Again feedback loops don’t appear to involve intelligence.
The proper question to ask, however, with respect to these simple components of intelligent behavior is not whether they appear intuitively to involve intelligence, but rather “Whether we can formulate non-trivial predictive theories for these simple behaviors?” The answer to this question is ultimately the solution to the problem of formal scientific analysis of intelligent causation.
It should be reasonably obvious that we can model the ‘solving 2+2’ problem with a mathematical function of the form 2+2=4. We can also use this algorithm to develop a theory of the form “Under ideal conditions, the solution to the 2+2 problem (or the output caused by the 2+2 input) will be generated or predicted by the 2+2=4 algorithm”
The question we now need to ask is “Does some form of this ‘theory’ satisfy the scientific requirements for a non-trivial predictive theory?” More specifically, “Can the theory be falsified?” The answer to this is clearly no. Non-trivial testable predictive theories can not be formulated for simple mathematical operations using simple deterministic algorithms.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. April 2007 10:40
No evolutionary change ever took place gradually. No such evolution has ever been demonstrated because that is not the way it happened. All evolution was saltational, dramatic, without transitional stages and none took place through the agency of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction can only produce intraspecific varieties. Creative progressive evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past. Selection had absolutely nothing to do with any of it either. All selection has ever been able to do is maintain the status quo. That is all it still does.
Darwinism is an atheist inspired persistent hoax.
"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
Otto Schindewolf
"We might as well stop lookimg for the missing links as they never existed."
ibid
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. April 2007 13:52
There are three things we know for sure about evolution. It took place, it no longer takes place, and chance had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
How do you like them apples Zarathustra?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 24. April 2007 15:01
aiguy:
quote:
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".
You're hopeless. You know that don't you? Is there anything science doesn't have a hard time defining? We can play this "definition game" all day long (and I have a feeling you will).
The truth is, there is a threshold above which we can eliminate natural causes and determine that a structure was built by some sort of agent.
Take Stonehenge for instance:
What property does it have that allows us to deduce that is was not the result of natural causes? There are many similar rock structures in the American Southwest. All of those structures are the result of wind and erosion - so what makes Stonehenge different? Is it the complex pattern? Snowflakes have a more complex pattern - and they are the result of natural causes. So what makes Stonehenge different?
We have absolutely no problem determining that Stonehenge is a designed structure - but what exact property can you point to that sets Stonehenge apart from natural rock formations and snowflakes?
I don't know exactly what to call it, but we know that there is such a property (else scientists would still be debating whether Stonehenge was a natural phenomenon).
So let's say give this property a name. Let's call it "Property-X".
And let's say this Property-X is the same property that sets beaver dams, ant hills, bee hives, DNA, protein synthesis, planes, trains, automobiles and Stonehenge apart from rock formations and snowflakes.
Basically, Property-X is that which puts these structures beyond the reach of non-living natural causes.
quote:
quote:
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.
We both agree then that these structures must be the result of living agents.
Now, you want to define "Living" as "complex multicellular organisms that ingest food and reproduce", that's fine. But you must then account for the origin of these "complex multicellular organisms that ingest food and reproduce". They can't be from Earth, since the origin of life on Earth is the very thing we are attempting to explain.
So your definition of "living" leaves some loose ends.
quote:
quote:
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.
Which is why I said it'd be a "best guess".
quote:
But I'll agree on the "intelligent agency = living entity" concept, no problem.
I didn't equate "intelligent agency" to "living entity" - that was your assumption. I merely pointed out that these structures must've been built - since they are beyond the scope of any known natural cause.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. April 2007 17:10
Quote: The truth is, there is a threshold above which we can eliminate natural causes and determine that a structure was built by some sort of agent.
An interesting claim or assertion although it contradicts essentially everything we actually know about intelligent causation. Certainly the most complex systems known of life forms and although we can reasonably argue that they were created by intelligent causation we have no evidence that an intelligent 'agent' was involved.
The evidence with respect to human design suggests that complex human created designs are always the result of the cooperative efforts of large numbers of agents. The evidence would suggest that individual agents have fairly limited design capabilities.
All the available evidence, including the evidence relating to livig systems, suggests that all complex designs can be broken down into smaller and smaller components such that small units could, at least potentially, be designed by intelligent processes.
Finally, there is no evidence of any line or level of complexity that could only be designed by one type intelligence agent.
There is plenty of evidence that complex designs can not be produced by unintelligent processes, but that evidence in no way supports the claim that only intelligent 'agents' can produce certain levels of complexity.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 24. April 2007 19:13
Daniel,
quote:
You're hopeless. You know that don't you? Is there anything science doesn't have a hard time defining? We can play this "definition game" all day long (and I have a feeling you will).
There are plenty of things science doesn't have a hard time defining, obviously. It's not my fault that mentalistic concepts like intelligence, ingenuity, and agency aren't among them.
quote:
The truth is, there is a threshold above which we can eliminate natural causes and determine that a structure was built by some sort of agent.
What's an agent? All this means is "not caused by something we understand".
quote:
Take Stonehenge for instance: What property does it have that allows us to deduce that is was not the result of natural causes?
We recognize it as something a human being might build. We know what human beings are, and what sorts of things they do. We have no idea what "agents" are, and what sorts of things they do.
quote:
I don't know exactly what to call it, but we know that there is such a property (else scientists would still be debating whether Stonehenge was a natural phenomenon). So let's say give this property a name. Let's call it "Property-X".
I'd call it "looks like something people build".
quote:
And let's say this Property-X is the same property that sets beaver dams, ant hills, bee hives, DNA, protein synthesis, planes, trains, automobiles and Stonehenge apart from rock formations and snowflakes.
Basically, Property-X is that which puts these structures beyond the reach of non-living natural causes.
Ok, then we're back to "Things that look like living things cause". We already agreed this was ok.
quote:
We both agree then that these structures must be the result of living agents.
Sure.
quote:
Now, you want to define "Living" as "complex multicellular organisms that ingest food and reproduce", that's fine. But you must then account for the origin of these "complex multicellular organisms that ingest food and reproduce". They can't be from Earth, since the origin of life on Earth is the very thing we are attempting to explain. So your definition of "living" leaves some loose ends.
I think the definition of "living" is fine; I think it's clear that you run into problems trying to say some living thing created life though.
quote:
AIGUY: There is no scientific way to assess a "level of intelligence" that could apply in this case.
DANIEL: Which is why I said it'd be a "best guess".
You can guess all you want, sure. I was talking about scientific theories.
quote:
I didn't equate "intelligent agency" to "living entity" - that was your assumption. I merely pointed out that these structures must've been built - since they are beyond the scope of any known natural cause.
We agree that these structures exist. We've agreed arguendo that we don't know how. You have tried to characterize the structures we see in living things as being the sort of structures that only living things can build. I agreed, but I hope it's obvious that this doesn't help you come up with a theory about how it got started.
So here is what we agree on, for the sake of argument:
1) There are some special types of things (Property-X things) in the world
2) Biological structures have Property-X, as do beaver dams, etc.
3) As far as we can observe, only living things can create things with Property-X
4) But living organisms could not have created the Property-X things that we see in living organisms
Obviously we've gone wrong somewhere. There must be something else that create things with Property-X, and this thing is not itself alive. We'd like to see what this thing might be in order to find out how Property-X things got into living organisms. I don't know what it is, and you don't either.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. April 2007 19:56
We are all hopeless victims of our "prescribed" predetermined fates and there is not a thing that can be done about it. Don't take my word for it.
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bouind as the stars in their motion.
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"EVERYTHING is determined.... by forces over which we have no control."
ibid, my emphasis
I cannot imagine a more convincing verification of Einstein's analysis than the substance of this thread.
Some of us have been luckier than others. Naturally I think of myself as one of the luckier ones. Don't we all?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. April 2007 06:22
OK, let's try approaching this from another angle:
One of the definitions for "intelligent" is "possessing sound knowledge".
"Knowledge" is defined as: "the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori)."
So, if life on Earth was designed, what kind of knowledge would it's designer have to possess (if any), and could the designer be classified as "intelligent"?
Let's examine the evidence:
First off, any designer of life would need a thorough knowledge of Chemistry. The inner workings of the cell are all based on various chemical reactions which are essential to function. Chemical bonds are the basis for the DNA molecule and are also essential for the folding of proteins into their various shapes. Without that knowledge, any design of biological machinery would fail miserably.
Our theoretical designer would also need an extensive knowledge of Physics and all the laws that govern motion, matter and energy - since biological machines convert various energy sources into work (extremely efficiently I might add) and are almost constantly in motion.
Then of course we have the issue of our planet: it's place in the solar system; the energy of our sun, it's available lightwaves and radiation; the properties of our atmosphere and it's filtering effects upon harmful and helpful rays; it's water content - with all the properties necessary for not only the sustenance of life, but also it's very makeup. The potential designer would need to be an expert in Astronomy to choose this planet out of all the planets available in the universe.
Our designer would need to have an exhaustive understanding of Engineering principles as well. The structural engineering in something as "simple" as bone boggles the mind. Yet there is much much more than that - there is motion control and all the physical stresses that must be accounted for and dealt with - as well as all the various feedback systems. Even the most basic structures within the simplest cells are marvels of engineering. The ribosome is a tightly integrated structure capable of not only synthesizing any protein (based on a set of instructions) but also capable of constructing itself! This in itself is an engineering marvel (and every cell has one!).
Of course, no discussion of life would be complete without mentioning the "language of life". Our possible designer would need a fluent knowledge of communication codes and programming in order to decide on the triplet coding of DNA. He would also need to possess knowledge about means of translation, transcription and error checking in order to come up with just the very basics of life.
The potential designer of life would also need to be an expert in efficiency - since all of the myriads of biological functions are carried out by proteins constructed of just 20 amino acids! Can you imagine giving any designer 20 parts and saying, "Build me a machine."? But not only has our theoretical designer been able to build a machine, he's been able to build billions and billions of them - all with unique functions and all working together in a harmony never seen in any of man's organized systems.
Of course, I've only just barely scratched the surface here. Much more could be said of the knowledge required to design systems of flight, or of sight; aquatic motion systems; digestive and circulatory systems; waste management... The list goes on and on. Thousands of books have been written on the subject, (and still, even these only cover the tip of the iceberg), but I think I can safely say that, if there is a designer of life, that designer definitely qualifies as "intelligent".
[ 25. April 2007, 06:28: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. April 2007 09:05
Daniel,
Quote: One of the definitions for "intelligent" is "possessing sound knowledge".
"Knowledge" is defined as: "the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori)."
When intelligent causation is modeled and analyzed in terms of boring mathematical information processing, ‘knowledge’ reduces to input. When a system efficiently and quickly generates a highly improbable R is GC, we conclude there was some type of input responsible for the GC output produced. If R is assumed to be generated by processing of the form F(S), then ‘knowledge’ must be input in the form of S or a change in F.
A good formal mathematical illustration of the role of ‘knowledge’ in intelligent causation is provided by search algorithms or the misnamed genetic algorithms. The only way a search process can ‘efficiently’ find improbable solutions, is if ‘knowledge’ is inputted into the system, generally in the form of an efficient search algorithm.
In the formal mathematical/scientific analysis of intelligent causation, knowledge is ‘observable’ input. This input can also be referred to as intelligent agency.
In formal scientific analysis it is neither necessary nor appropriate to characterize knowledge or the source of knowledge as involving metaphysical or mental properties.
In formal scientific analysis, intelligent causation involves observable responses and observable input (where processing algorithms are a form of input) and functional deterministic processing. The scientific analysis of intelligent causation does require identifying the source of knowledge or input or intelligent agency. Formal scientific analysis simply requires that scientists be able to formulate testable predictive non-trivial theories that describe and explain the processing.
There are at least 4 key aspects of the intelligent causation issue that need to be addressed if solutions are to be developed. First, analysis needs to start by focusing on relatively simple manifestations of intelligent causation rather than such grandiose issues as the evolution of life. Second, analysis needs to be performed using precise mathematical and logical terms and concepts. Third, analysis needs to conform to the processes and procedures of the formal scientific paradigm (i.e. Based on formulating, testing, and refining predictive theories). As I have stated elsewhere, the formulation of predictive theories appears to be one of the key elements in solving the intelligent causation problem from a scientific perspective. Finally, analysis needs to recognize how human behavior can limit and distort efforts at analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. April 2007 10:51
Daniel Smith
I agree with every thing you said with one exception. That is your use of the present tense. The designer (or designers of course) WAS intelligent. There is not a shred of evidence for a living designer nor is there any need for one.
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis.
"God is dead."
Frederich Nietzche
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 25. April 2007 14:30
Daniel,
quote:
First off, any designer of life would need a thorough knowledge of Chemistry...
My wife built a very complicated biological system. However, my wife knows next to nothing about chemistry, or biology, or physics. Nonetheless, she built our daughter just fine. How could she build something so complicated without any of the knowledge you think is necessary?
Let me anticipate your response here: My wife's ability to design a child was itself designed. Right? But why would you assume that whatever designed my wife had any more knowledge about chemistry, etc. than my wife does? If my wife could design an organism capable of replication without even knowing what a "periodic table of elements" is, then so could whatever designed my wife. (In point of fact, my wife was designed by my wife's mother, who didn't know anything about science either).
And here, you will resort to an "ultimate cause" argument: Somewhere along the line, there had to be something that had this knowledge, right? Don't we have to postulate that some undesigned designer existed who had all this knowledge?
Well, you can postulate this if you'd like, and many people do: They call it God, and their postulations are called "theism". I don't happen to buy it; it seems to me that imagining how this ultra-knowledgable undesigned designer came to exist is even more problematic than simply imagining that this ability to generate complexity was inherent in the universe all along, and there was never anything that had "the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information" to get it all started.
So we could argue about religion all day, but this is not the forum for that.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. April 2007 15:09
Oh but this IS the forum for discussing religion. Atheist inspired Darwinism is nothing but a religion and the biggest hoax in the history of science. It even has its Patron Saints, Mayr, Gould and now Dawkins. The Darwinist's altar is a roulette wheel flanked by a pair of very fuzzy dice.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 25. April 2007 17:02
quote:
Oh but this IS the forum for discussing religion.
No, you are mistaken once again. If you think I have made dogmatic, unsupported statements, then quote me and challenge what I've said. If you have an argument of your own to make, then make it. Instead, you seem to have nothing better to do than interject off-topic one-liners, and pointing out how you love it so. Are you incapable of discussing the particular topic at hand? Is Daniel the only one on the entire forum who is attempting to engage the topic here?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. April 2007 17:08
Quote: My wife built a very complicated biological system. However, my wife knows next to nothing about chemistry, or biology, or physics.
Because she can not express a knowledge of these topics in an academic context does not mean the knowledge (and/or intelligence) to solve complex chemistry, biology and physics problems does not exist within her body. Based on observed results, it would appear clear that such knowledge/intelligence does exist.
Based on the observed evidence or observed results, it would appear that all living systems involve very extensive levels of very sophisticated knowledge/intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. April 2007 17:25
What topic, blind belief in chance? That is all that you or any other Darwinian can ever offer.
It doesn't get any better than this.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
