|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 01. May 2007 09:41
Hi aiguy and Zarathustra,
Thank you both for your constructive comments!
Zarathustra wrote:
quote:
Write a system in which variants of Paco are tested, each of which interacts with its environment in a slightly different manner, chosen randomly.
Yes, I intend to do so. Do you agree that the variations on the object Paco should be bounded and small?
Aiguy, with regard to [1], I am ok with changing the initial rules for Paco’s movement but the odds of success must remain extremely slim.
With regard to [2], I will not artificially gift Paco with the ability to learn from his mistakes. Paco must come up with the notion of “too close to the edge” on his own. Learning, all will agree, is a hallmark of imaginative creativity. Now, if you wish to assume that inanimate matter can naturally attain knowledge and learn from its mistakes, then you can write a program that enables Paco, right from the start, to do the same [I think you have]. I will not. This would be an ideological difference between us with no current resolution.
With regard to [3], I will not gift Paco with children. I will allow Paco to earn children. If Paco ever achieves all four goals, then he can reproduce. If Paco has attained, on his own, the ability to garnish knowledge and thus has gathered information about his environment, then I will allow him to pass that on to his children.
aiguy wrote:
quote:
Yes, I understand what you've done, but no, I still don't think either one of us really has a clear idea what you're asking...
I think this is the critical point, Mel. What I've been trying to show in this thread is that scientific claims are different from other sorts of claims…
If we don't decide on some clear definitions for these terms, then I'm just expressing a casual opinion, and we could never have a principled argument about if I was right or wrong.
I am not trying to argue that I am right and you are wrong. I am presenting an idea. I would like to discover how a system devoid of imaginative creativity would behave. I did not create reality. I don’t know how it works. I can create a virtual reality and control how it works. It is true; I can’t give, to the satisfaction of all, the distinctive properties or characteristics of imaginative creativity. If I were to formally define it now, then that would prohibit discussion between you and me. Perhaps only after our discussion will I be able to define imaginative creativity in a way that is acceptable to both of us; perhaps not. It could be you are ideologically opposed to such a concept as I am to the idea of inanimate objects attaining knowledge.
I am not ready to have a principled argument with you. Brainstorms is about sharing ideas. If our differences are ideological then we should go elsewhere to discuss them.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 01. May 2007 10:58
Daniel and aiguy appear to share at least one common misconception about the scientific analysis of intelligent causation. Both appear to believe that the key to a scientific definition and explanation of intelligent causation lies in understanding and explaining the most complex form of intelligent causation. Aiguy concludes that since we don’t understand the most complex forms of intelligent causation we can not yet define intelligent causation. Daniel and most traditional ID advocates argue that since we know that the most complex forms of intelligent causation occurred, but because we can’t explain them, we are justified in making the claim that these complex forms of intelligent causation are the result of the actions of an intelligent agent.
Contrary to the approaches that appear to be used by aiguy and Daniel, the standard scientific methodology for studying complex causal processes is to 1) break the complex process into relatively simple elements and components, 2) perform detailed analysis of each component, 3) develop models, simulations and theories of each component, and 3) finally recombine the models, simulations, and theories of the components in order to model, simulate and explain the complex process. We can easily identify a very extensive list of complex behaviors that been analyzed successfully using ‘break it into pieces and put it back together again’ approach to scientific analysis.
One of the few failures of this approach has been the failure to recognize, identify, describe, explain and define intelligent causation. Logically, there are two possible types of solutions to the ‘define intelligent causation’ problem. First, and by far the most popular type of solution suggests that intelligent causation involves some as yet unidentified phenomenon not included in the existing successful simulations. The second, and far less popular, solution involves some phenomenon within the existing successful simulations that is not currently identified or recognized as intelligent causation.
The key to solving the ‘identify and define intelligent causation’ problem, involves identifying the criteria to be satisfied by a formal scientific definition. The starting point for identifying the appropriate scientific criteria, involves recognizing that ‘explains everything’ or ‘provides a god-like explanation’ is absolutely not an appropriate criteria for scientific definitions. As mentioned several times, the appropriate criteria to be satisfied by a scientific definition is ‘is useful in formulating testable predictive scientific theories’. If we accept this criteria, and if we accept the validity of teleological theories, then the solution to the ‘develop a scientifically rigorous definition of intelligent causation’ problem becomes reasonably obvious.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 01. May 2007 14:01
Hi Mel,
quote:
With regard to [2], I will not artificially gift Paco with the ability to learn from his mistakes. Paco must come up with the notion of “too close to the edge” on his own.
I didn't say you should allow Paco to learn at all: Each Paco will deterministically follow his rules and learn nothing. Pacos with bad rules will simply die young, leaving few or no offspring. However, once in a while a new Paco will be born with good rules, and that Paco will leave more offspring. If you don't want to include "too close to the edge" as something a Paco can be born being able to sense, then don't use that... You could have Paco simply be able to tell how much time has passed, or base his next move on the basis of his previous moves, or whatever you decide.
quote:
Learning, all will agree, is a hallmark of imaginative creativity.
No, I disagree. First, you still haven't mentioned an objective way to decide what is or isn't imaginative creativity. Second, folks with religious tendencies would probably not want to say that all imaginative, creative things must be able to learn. After all, God is supposed to be eternally omniscient, and something that has always known everything has nothing at all to learn.
quote:
Now, if you wish to assume that inanimate matter can naturally attain knowledge and learn from its mistakes, then you can write a program that enables Paco, right from the start, to do the same [I think you have]. I will not. This would be an ideological difference between us with no current resolution.
I do not believe that matter (whether inanimate or animate!) can attain knowledge. However, whenever there is random variation with inheritance and differential reproduction, learning will occur over generations.
quote:
With regard to [3], I will not gift Paco with children. I will allow Paco to earn children. If Paco ever achieves all four goals, then he can reproduce. If Paco has attained, on his own, the ability to garnish knowledge and thus has gathered information about his environment, then I will allow him to pass that on to his children.
That's fine, but if Paco doesn't reproduce ever, then he'll just die childless, and the environment you've created is simply too harsh for his species to get started.
Also, you should think about calling what Paco has "knowledge". Does a virus use "knowledge" to infect a bacterium, or does it just do what it does because of how it is built? Does a flea "know" that it is waiting to jump on a dog? Does a thermostat "know" that it is supposed to keep a room at a certain temperature?
quote:
I am not trying to argue that I am right and you are wrong. I am presenting an idea. I would like to discover how a system devoid of imaginative creativity would behave.
Until we have a good way to understand what "imaginative creativity" is, then there is no right or wrong answer to the question. There is no fact of the matter at all.
[ 01. May 2007, 14:03: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 01. May 2007 18:15
quote:
Learning, all will agree, is a hallmark of imaginative creativity.
Are you implying that dogs are imaginatively creative?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 02. May 2007 06:11
Toward definition of “Intelligence”.
Despite of the variety of existed concepts of intelligence, practically all of them define it in term of a various Human-like mental abilities. However before applying this concept to other biological systems we need a more general definition of “Intelligence”. To do this we may choose do not treat a human–like problem solving abilities as the only criteria of “Intelligence”.
The most promising among existing definition of Intelligence (in my opinion), is a theory of multiple intelligences developed by prominent psychologist Howard Gardner. He proposed that “… a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving…” Another word, we can reduce combined Intelligence abilities to a sum of specific problem solving abilities.
Using this as a starting point and based on ideas expressed in this thread by Daniel, LifeEngineer, and Melvin H. Fox, we can extend this approach to other biological systems as follow:
1. “Intelligence” = problem solving abilities.
2. Any PURPOSE or GOAL-DIRECTED adaptive behavior could be regarded, as a problem a solving ability.
3. “Intelligent” ability of any biological system is observable only during process of interaction with a specific problem, same way as any physical property is observable only during appropriate interaction. A biological system will not reveal a specific problem solving ability in the absent of interacting with an adequate problem. For example, Humans would hardly demonstrate their intelligence, if He or She would be studied and treated the same way as we study bugs in a jar. To reveal human intelligence He or She needs an intelligent type of interaction that naturally occurs in the social system.
4. Each independent “Intelligence” ability is relativistic in nature, because its value depends on type of problem is selected to measure it. For example who is more intelligent - Mathematician, Composer or Writer? The answer depends on the specific type of problem (test) that was selected to measure their Intelligence. For the same reason, if the test is to navigate in the terrain, water or air, any migrating animals will demonstrate higher IQ that we do.
5. We may measure the “intelligence” of a system that interacts with the particular problem. The value of the intelligence could be determined as a probability to find a correct answer for a specific class of problems. For example the value of the intelligence for this specific class of problems is equal to 1 Grade if the probability p of correct answer for is 100%.
P.S. Potentially we may expend this approach to any natural system, by following Stephen Wolfram’s principle of Computational Equivalence - that “… all processes occurring spontaneously in Nature can be viewed as computations following the basic laws of nature.” In this case River’s “Intelligence” in reference to finding a path to Ocean, is 100% (1 Grade).
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 02. May 2007 09:19
First, I think we all need to thank Miosim for providing a useful detailed framework for discussing a scientific definition of intelligent causation. At least a one level, intelligence is a set of properties. To reach a consensus on a definition of intelligent causation, it is at least useful to first agree on a list of properties and then to gradually agree on more formal expressions of those properties. Ultimately, a formal scientific definition of intelligent causation may well involve something other than an agreed list of properties, but a list of properties to be discussed and refined is a useful starting point. Again, thanks to miosim for presenting an initial list.
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES
As anyone familiar with the analysis of intelligence and intelligent behavior show be aware, the issue of multiple intelligences versus a single general intelligence is an important issue and one that remains controversial.
My first exposure to the multiple intelligences concept involved intelligence tests. Intelligence tests were originally developed to measure and predict success in school. But as everyone knows, there is not a single measure of ‘ability to succeed in school’. Some people and some tests are better at predicting success in math, for example, and others at predicting success in sports, music, or language.
Carried to its limit, the concept of multiple intelligences might be interpreted as meaning that the solution to every problem or the solutions to every problem in a narrowly defined class of problems, involves a different type of problem specific intelligence or intelligent causation.
The question of the number of different types of intelligent causation is not unlike the question of the number of different physical forces. Someone may someday show that all the forces in the physical universe can be defined or described as manifestations of a single force. In the meantime, engineers find it useful to recognize lift on an airplane wing and gravity as separate forces.
Similarly, someone may someday develop a definition or concept or theory that concludes there is only a single form of intelligence. At this stage of analysis, however, it seems perfectly legitimate and useful to recognize multiple intelligences. It also appears perfectly legitimate and useful to recognize and define a type or class of intelligent causation in terms of a type or class of problem solving.
HUMAN VERSUS NON-HUMAN INTELLIGENCE
Closely related to the question of multiple intelligences, is the far more controversial question of whether or not all types of problem solving involve intelligent causation. In its most common form, lots of people would argue that a problem solved by a human involves intelligent causation, but the same problem or type of problem solved by a computer does not involve intelligent causation. Is this a scientifically valid or scientifically useful distinction?
Miosim provides a reasonably clear of the issue and its solution- Quote: Despite of the variety of existed concepts of intelligence, practically all of them define it in term of a various Human-like mental abilities. However before applying this concept to other biological systems we need a more general definition of “Intelligence”. To do this we may choose do not treat a human–like problem solving abilities as the only criteria of “Intelligence”.
On a purely pragmatic basis, if you want to determine or evaluate scientifically whether or not ‘computers involve intelligent causation’ or ‘other biological systems involve intelligent causation’, then you are logically forced to generate definitions of intelligent causation that do not depend on terms involving human mental abilities.
It is, I believe, important that people recognize the significance of this conclusion. It is not essentially that everyone accept the results based or problem solving definitions of intelligent causation proposed here, but it is essential that anyone wishing to be involved in the discussion and scientific analysis of computer intelligence or biological intelligence produce definitions of intelligent causation independent of human mental activity.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 02. May 2007 10:31
TELEOLOGY AND INTELLIGENT CAUSATION
Quote: 2. Any PURPOSE or GOAL-DIRECTED adaptive behavior could be regarded, as a problem a solving ability
The relationship between teleology and intelligent causation is very important, but a bit more complex than might be immediately apparent.
First, it should be apparent that if you define intelligent causation in terms of problem solving or problem solving ability, you are defining intelligent causation as teleological because the behavior of ‘finding a solution’ is purposeful or goal-directed. A ‘solution to a problem’ is clearly a type of goal.
There are two key aspects of teleology and teleological causation that are essential to understanding the scientific analysis of intelligent causation, but that appear to be extremely difficult for most people to understand and accept.
Most people have no difficulty in recognizing that intelligent causation is associated with ‘striving to find solutions or striving to achieve a goal or purpose’. Also, most people have no difficulty in recognizing that a goal or goal expectation is a mental abstraction involving some event occurring in the future of the behavior being analyzed.
But most people have an extremely difficult time recognizing or understanding WHERE the mental goal abstraction or mental goal variable exists. In the ‘scientific analysis’ of intelligent causation, mental abstract goals exist in the form of goal variables, and the goal variables are created and exist in the minds of the scientists performing the analysis. The oft repeated adage that ‘there is no purpose in nature’ is probably technically true. This, however, does not mean that scientists can’t envision goals and translate these conceptualizations into well defined goal variables.
It will be noted, for those interested in the subject, that all variables used in science are mental abstractions created and defined by scientists. It is often convenient to believe that the variables defined in the physical sciences represent real or material phenomenon. While believing that scientific variables represent real material phenomena is convenient and may make learning easier, the ‘reality’ is that all scientific variables represent mental abstractions created or defined by scientists.
The second ‘difficult to understand’ aspect of teleology in intelligent causation is the scientific role or purpose of teleological variables. It is often convenient to believe that in scientific analysis ‘causal variables explain the occurrence of ‘effect variables’. In reality, in scientific analysis, the values of causal variables serve only to predict the values of effect variables ‘under ideal conditions’ or ‘within defined constraints’. Intelligent causation is scientifically analyzed in terms of teleological causation because goal variables are useful in predicting the results (values of effect variables) under ideal conditions (when intelligent causation actually produces a solution to a problem).
Again, it seems highly unlikely that anyone is going to develop a scientific understanding of intelligent causation unless they first master the difficult to understand concepts associated with teleological causation.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 02. May 2007 13:40
miosim,
I understand that you are not necessarily attempting to characterize intelligence in a way that would satisfy the requirements of ID theory. However, since that is the topic of this thread, I will comment from that perspective.
quote:
Despite of the variety of existed concepts of intelligence, practically all of them define it in term of a various Human-like mental abilities. However before applying this concept to other biological systems we need a more general definition of “Intelligence”. To do this we may choose do not treat a human–like problem solving abilities as the only criteria of “Intelligence”.
In the context of this thread, the challenge is a bit greater than this. ID claims that "intelligence" was responsible for creating life. So it's clear that whatever meaning ID gives to the word "intelligence", it must apply not not just to other (non-human) biological systems, but to non-biological systems.
quote:
The most promising among existing definition of Intelligence (in my opinion), is a theory of multiple intelligences developed by prominent psychologist Howard Gardner. He proposed that “… a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving…” Another word, we can reduce combined Intelligence abilities to a sum of specific problem solving abilities.
Think about this. ID claims "intelligence" is required to create living things. Now, if "intelligence" meant nothing more than the specific problem solving ability of "having the ability to create life", then ID would be saying nothing at all, right? It would just be saying that whatever created life could create life.
So, ID must mean more than "having the ability to create life" when it says the cause of life was intelligent. What more could it mean? What other sorts of problems besides creating life could we infer that this intelligent thing was capable of? Could we ever demonstrate that the cause of life could also get high scores on Gardner's intelligence tests? Could it read a book? Write a book? Solve a crossword puzzle? Solve a differential equation?
Obviously, one could simply assert that whatever created life simply must be capable of doing all these things. But simple assertions aren't enough to support a scientific claim. One could also assert that whatever is smart enough to do the electrical engineering required to send a lightning bolt to Earth must be capable of doing the complex mathematics involved... but we know that is false, since clouds really can't solve equations at all.
quote:
1. “Intelligence” = problem solving abilities.
This isn't really helpful, since every system can be considered to solve a problem. A river solves the problem of finding a path to the sea, but we don't consider rivers to be intelligent.
quote:
2. Any PURPOSE or GOAL-DIRECTED adaptive behavior could be regarded, as a problem a solving ability.
In cybernetics, purposeful/goal-directed systems are defined as systems that incorporate negative feedback. All sorts of natural systems incorporate negative feedback, including evolutionary processes. Unless ID does wants Darwinian evolution itself to be considered intelligent, then the criterion of "purpose" will not do.
quote:
3. “Intelligent” ability of any biological system is observable only during process of interaction with a specific problem, same way as any physical property is observable only during appropriate interaction. A biological system will not reveal a specific problem solving ability in the absent of interacting with an adequate problem. For example, Humans would hardly demonstrate their intelligence, if He or She would be studied and treated the same way as we study bugs in a jar. To reveal human intelligence He or She needs an intelligent type of interaction that naturally occurs in the social system.
If this is true, then it would appear ID has no hope at all of demonstrating that the cause of life was intelligent, since we cannot observe the cause of life during the process of its interaction with that problem.
quote:
Potentially we may expend this approach to any natural system, by following Stephen Wolfram’s principle of Computational Equivalence - that “… all processes occurring spontaneously in Nature can be viewed as computations following the basic laws of nature.” In this case River’s “Intelligence” in reference to finding a path to Ocean, is 100% (1 Grade).
If Wolfram is right, then ID is wrong: All of ID's claims depend on the notion that intelligent processes transcend natural law.
[ 02. May 2007, 15:02: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 02. May 2007 15:09
aiguy:
quote:
One could also assert that whatever is smart enough to do the electrical engineering required to send a lightning bolt to Earth must be capable of doing the complex mathematics involved... but we that is false, since clouds really can't solve equations at all.
Sure, we know what causes a lightning bolt. We also know what causes proteins to form (DNA through RNA, ribosome, etc.). What you fail to account for in your lightning bolt example is that a lightning bolt is part of a finely tuned ecosystem, which is part of a finely tuned universe.
The truth is; the entire cosmos - the atomic structures of the basic building blocks of carbon-based life which are formed in the furnaces of supernovae; the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces, the properties of water and oxygen, the solar radiation that gets through to this planet (and many, many other things - including the cloud formations that produce lightning) all seem to be laid out - as if by law - for the sustenance of life on this planet. The earth itself has such a complex and balanced ecosystem that some scientists (Lovelock, Margulis and others) have postulated a "living earth" (see "Gaia theory"). If you look at all this together, it's like Paley's watch, within a watch, within a watch, within a watch, within a watch... out to the nth power. We have no explanation for that.
===========================
Now, as to the definition of intelligent causation (as it pertains to biological complexity and ID):
quote:
miosim: Each independent “Intelligence” ability is relativistic in nature, because its value depends on type of problem is selected to measure it. For example who is more intelligent - Mathematician, Composer or Writer? The answer depends on the specific type of problem (test) that was selected to measure their Intelligence.
I agree that any "test" of intelligence is results based and must be applicable to the subject being discussed. I also maintain that any definition of "Intelligence" must include "the possession of knowledge".
I think, for the sake of this discussion, since what ID proposes (in part) is that the design of biological complexity requires the same types of knowledge as the design of human machines, we could limit our definition to:
"The possession of knowledge of the principles of engineering and the utilization of that knowledge to solve basic engineering problems".
We can then analyze human machines and biological complexity through an "engineering based microscope" and test them to determine if they both require this particular type of intelligence in their structures and functions.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 02. May 2007 15:27
Daniel: quote:
Sure, we know what causes a lightning bolt. We also know what causes proteins to form (DNA through RNA, ribosome, etc.). What you fail to account for in your lightning bolt example is that a lightning bolt is part of a finely tuned ecosystem, which is part of a finely tuned universe.
The truth is; the entire cosmos - the atomic structures of the basic building blocks of carbon-based life which are formed in the furnaces of supernovae; the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces, the properties of water and oxygen, the solar radiation that gets through to this planet (and many, many other things - including the cloud formations that produce lightning) all seem to be laid out - as if by law - for the sustenance of life on this planet.
So ultimately everything is designed, which means that ID's methods for distinguishing design from non-design are pretty useless.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 02. May 2007 15:28
Daniel,
quote:
Sure, we know what causes a lightning bolt. We also know what causes proteins to form (DNA through RNA, ribosome, etc.). What you fail to account for in your lightning bolt example is that a lightning bolt is part of a finely tuned ecosystem, which is part of a finely tuned universe.
And your point is? My point was that by your reasoning, you would be forced to conclude that each lightning bolt must require the application of knowledge of an electrical engineer, but we know it does not.
quote:
The truth is; the entire cosmos ... all seem to be laid out - as if by law - for the sustenance of life on this planet.... We have no explanation for that.
And your point is? My point is that if we have no explantion for something, simply saying "intelligence caused it" does not help at all. If you are insisting that this is a scientific claim, you must actually say what this is supposed to mean, rather than rely on theological intuitions to fill in the blank.
quote:
I think, for the sake of this discussion, since what ID proposes (in part) is that the design of biological complexity requires the same types of knowledge as the design of human machines, we could limit our definition to:
"The possession of knowledge of the principles of engineering and the utilization of that knowledge to solve basic engineering problems". We can then analyze human machines and biological complexity through an "engineering based microscope" and test them to determine if they both require this particular type of intelligence in their structures and functions.
You don't seem to be taking my point here. If you apply this exact same analysis to lightning, you end up inferring that something with knowledge of electrical engineering creates lightning, which we have agreed is not the case. If you apply this sort of analysis to ontology, you conclude that all parents must be brilliant biotechnical engineers, which we agree is not the case. So this sort of analysis obviously does not work.
[ 02. May 2007, 15:30: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 02. May 2007 17:03
Aiguy and Daniel both seem to be attempting to undo the useful definitional framework started by miosim. It might help keep both these posters on topic if they were to keep in mind that definition in scientific analysis are used to classify or group phenomenon, not to provide exhaustive explanations. A scientific definition of 'dog', for example, is intended to make it possible for scientists to classify animals into dog and not-dog catagories. It is not necessary for the definition of dog to address the origins of life. Neither is there any value in a scientific DEFINITION of intelligent causation to address the origin of life.
All that a scientific definition of intelligent causation needs to accomplish is to provide enough information to permit scientists to subdivide the class of causal relationships subject to scientific analysis (causal relationships that can be expressed and tested as scinetific theories) into intelligent causation and non-intelligent causation.
Fundamentally, all non-inetelligent causation has a permanent and universal, essentially non-dynamic functional relationship between cause variables and effect variables. Intelligent causation, by contrast involves effect variables dynamically changing between goal compatible and non-goal compatible.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 02. May 2007 22:36
aiguy quote:
I understand that you are not necessarily attempting to characterize intelligence in a way that would satisfy the requirements of ID theory.
Your are right. I just expressed my opinion on this issue the way I see it, without any ideological consideration.
quote:
"Think about this. ID claims "intelligence" is required to create living things. Now, if "intelligence" meant nothing more than the specific problem solving ability of "having the ability to create life", then ID would be saying nothing at all, right? It would just be saying that whatever created life could create life.
I may agree with your final conclusion, but I have a very limited knowledge about ID theory to judge it. Regarding logic you are using, I do not trust Logic in the area outside of our sufficient knowledge, (what Life phenomenon is), because Logic is applicable only in the well defined field of knowledge.
quote:
This (“Intelligence” = problem solving abilities) isn't really helpful, since every system can be considered to solve a problem. A river solves the problem of finding a path to the sea, but we don't consider rivers to be intelligent.
The proposed definition of Inteligente is a very simplified and limited model, but it works for now the way I wanted: It made you think that “… A river may solve the problem of finding a path to the sea…” and if we currently don't consider rivers to be intelligent, it may take more than one “brainstorm” to at least consider this possibility.
One comment regarding debating ID. Natural Sciences were winning influence over Theology not because they were debating Theology, but because they demonstrate the own power of explanation. However, in the area of Life phenomena, Theology still challenges Natural Sciences by pointing to the problem these sciences often not willing to admit.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 02. May 2007 22:59
quote:
LE It is not necessary for the definition of dog to address the origins of life. Neither is there any value in a scientific DEFINITION of intelligent causation to address the origin of life.
And your point is?
quote:
LE: All that a scientific definition of intelligent causation needs to accomplish is to provide enough information to permit scientists to subdivide the class of causal relationships subject to scientific analysis (causal relationships that can be expressed and tested as scinetific theories) into intelligent causation and non-intelligent causation.
Excellent. You have managed to understand the OP, finally. One day, you may even address it.
quote:
LE:Fundamentally, all non-inetelligent causation has a permanent and universal, essentially non-dynamic functional relationship between cause variables and effect variables. Intelligent causation, by contrast involves effect variables dynamically changing between goal compatible and non-goal compatible.
How does this relate to the "talking bollocks"-compatible variables?
@ Melvin: I'm off on vacation for the next two weeks, so I can't talk more about your "Paco" simulation till I get back. Have a look at the spider-web paper I posted for Aiguy above, and do some googling on "genetic algorithms". I am concerned that Paco (and his descendants) may all be doomed, simply because you have set the bar too high. I'll check in when I get back.
Z
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 03. May 2007 05:50
LifeEngineer,
I glad that we are getting a common ground before rushing discussing differences. I agree with you on importance to follow pragmatic scientific methodology to insure that we do not jump into a “train” that goes into unknown direction.
I have some questions about your views, but I need more time to prepare, because, as we know, the quality of a question determines the quality of an answer.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
