|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 03. May 2007 06:18
aiguy and Zarathustra,
aiguy wrote:
quote:
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...
Forgive me, I must have misread you. I am all for introducing a myriad of variant Pacos from the start. I believe the range of Pacos should be bounded and the variations among them slight. I would allow the Pacos that make all goals to replicate with their offspring following the same set, or a slight variant set, of rules.
Point taken with respect to learning as a hallmark of imaginative creativity, I have overstated its importance. However, since it is often used by humans in the imaginative creative process, to ensure a system devoid of imaginative creativity we should withhold that ability from all initial variants of Paco.
aiguy wrote:
quote:
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.
Zarathustra wrote:
quote:
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.
I hope your vacation is restful and the surroundings more comfortable than Paco’s grid.
It is true I am setting the bar high. I don’t know if I have clearly stated the goal of this experiment. I want to know if the object “Paco” can “survive” [achieve a set of goals in order] in a system devoid of imaginative creativity. I want the experiment to be at least analogous to the task of abiogenesis in our physical universe. I don’t know that the outcome would prove anything, one way or another, but it might shed some light. Do we agree that life from lifelessness is a harsh proposition? If so, should not the bar set for Paco be both realistic and high?
aiguy wrote:
quote:
Also, you should think about calling what Paco has "knowledge".
I know what you mean. That is why it is important to have people of differing view points involved in the construction of an experiment. Your comments are very helpful and constructive.
aiguy wrote:
quote:
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.
I am ok with that, but do you think we can construct a system devoid of “imaginative creativity” [erring on the side of caution – as with learning] without a good way to understand it? And, do you believe this experiment has merit?
Zarathustra and aiguy have suggested I read more. I have looked. I can’t find any experiments similar to the one I propose here.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 03. May 2007 09:28
Quote: 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
Aiguy, in order to promote his own non-scientific political views, intentionally misinterprets the scientific process. Scientific analysis does not begin with exhaustive definitions that address all the nuances of an issue being analyzed. Scientific analysis of a complex phenomenon such as intelligent causation begins with a simple starting point working definition. As has been discussed, and as almost everyone other than aiguy agree, the starting point for defining intelligent causation is ‘problem solving’ and ‘generating goal compatible solutions’.
The ‘standard’ scientific methodology for studying a complex phenomenon such as intelligent causation involves a process something like”
STEP 1: Develop an initial working definition.
STEP 2: Identify a simple easy to study form of the phenomenon that fits the definition being used.
STEP 3: Observe in detail the behaviors and properties of the ‘simple form’ of the phenomenon
STEP 4: Formulate predictive models and theories.
STEP 5: Perform formal testing of the models and theories developed and refine the models and theories to reflect the results of testing.
STEP 6: As needed, use the knowledge acquired at any step in the process and go back and make appropriate changes or improvements to any of the previous steps.
It will be noted that to the person participating in scientific analysis, the scientific process involves thousands of iterations. To the person whose knowledge of science is largely limited to reading and observing, the process may involve to involve only the final iteration.
It will also be noted that scientists have been studying various aspects of intelligent causation for a very long time. People like aiguy, and he has lots of company in academia, would like you to believe that despite the fact that the subject has been studied extensively we still don’t have any useful working definitions of intelligent causation. This claim or conclusion is, of course, complete nonsense. Real scientists who study intelligent causation have an extensive understanding of the phenomenon and reasonably precise and useful definitions. The discussion here, if we can overcome the disruptions of people like aiguy, should be able to address the established scientific definitions of intelligent causation.
The huge gap or gulf that exists between the ‘real science understanding of intelligent causation’ and the ‘widely accepted academic view that intelligent causation can not be defined’, arises as a result of STEP 4 in the scientific process. Intelligent causation can be expressed and analyzed only by using teleological models and teleological theories. The extensive body of scientific knowledge that exists regarding intelligent causation arises from the use of teleological models and theories.
But academic ‘science’ refuses to accept or recognize either teleological theories or the scientific knowledge accumulated using teleological theories. By refusing to recognize as intelligent causation any phenomenon analyzed using teleological theories, academic science is left to view intelligent causation of some magical or mystical or metaphysical phenomenon not subject to any current or existing or known form of scientific analysis. Surprisingly, this academic view of intelligent causation is compatible with the beliefs of many supporters of non-scientific ID. The difference between aiguy and the supporters of metaphysical ID, is that aiguy claims the supposed non-definition of intelligent causation is a basis for rejecting ID and the supporters of metaphysical ID view the inability to define intelligent causation as a basis for believing in god-did-it ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 03. May 2007 09:59
Mel,
As you are probably aware, there exists an extensive body of knowledge of the relationship between intelligent causation and creativity.
First, it is, I believe, well known that every form of successful problem solving via intelligent causation has limits. For any type of intelligent causation, it is possible, and usually not very difficult, to find situations where the problem solving ability will break down and fail.
Second, it is also well known that in most, but not all, situations where a limit or boundary between successful and unsuccessful intelligent causation has been identified, it is found that the boundary is dynamic or changeable. Creative or innovative intelligent causation results when some thing produces a change in the success/failure boundary so that an innovative new solution is produced.
Creativity or ‘the progressive nature of intelligent causation’ is an important and interesting property of intelligent causation from both a theoretical and practical perspective. However, despite suggestions to the contrary, it seems to be a property that has been studied extensively and that is quite well understood.
Intelligent causation is always and must logically always be progressive and creative.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 03. May 2007 13:32
LifeEngineer,
Thank you for not insulting me in your last post. I have not been reading your posts but because you addressed the last one to me, I read it. I did not understand the whole thing, so let me ask you this question: In the “extensive body of knowledge of the relationship between intelligent causation and creativity” has there ever been an interest in studying a system devoid of imaginative creativity? If so, could you point me to that paper [or papers]?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 03. May 2007 14:20
Melvin,
I don't know about papers, but it is quite common to design systems that deal only with a specific or fixed set of conditions and that have no ability to deal creatively with new conditions. In fact, most human designed systems, whehter computer systems or systems built by human engineers are of this general type.
Most commonly, creativity is introduced into human designed systems, by humans going back and redesigning the system.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. May 2007 14:46
aiguy:
quote:
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.
Maybe I'm not expressing my thoughts adequately, maybe you're having trouble understanding them, either way, you're not getting what I'm saying.
You keep inferring that, since I'm insisting that a particular system (human reproduction, earthly weather, etc) is designed, that I'm arguing that the system itself is intelligent or that that system requires constant intelligent intervention. That is not what I'm arguing at all.
I'll say it again for the last time (I hope) : We are discussing the origin of said systems, not their day to day workings! Arguing about whether their day to day workings require intelligent input is pointless and irrelevant to our discussion.
Saying that a lightning bolt does not require intelligent intervention does not address the origin of our earthly weather system and it's unique fitness for life. Likewise, arguing that organisms can self-replicate without thinking about it does not address the origin of self-replicating systems. Both of your arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with our discussion. Yet, for some reason you keep trotting them out as if they do.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. May 2007 15:05
LifeEngineer:
quote:
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.
I think I get what you're saying here. We must first define "Intelligent causation" in a general way, then we can, using that definition, look at anything and see if it fits.
I think however, that any definition of "Intelligent causation" must first include a definition of "Intelligence" which I suggest means "the possession of sound knowledge".
This then will allow us to break it down into categories. As miosim rightly pointed out, any accurate test of intelligence depends on the area of expertise being tested. This directly correlates to the type of knowledge we are discussing. These "levels of knowledge" can only be accurately accessed by experts in the field. For instance, if we have an architect look at a painting and assess the level of knowledge required to complete it, he might say "None", since it requires no knowledge of architecture to paint a painting. You have to have an artist assess the artistic knowledge involved in the creation of a painting and have the architect assess the level of architectural knowledge involved in the structure of a building.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 03. May 2007 15:58
LifeEngineer,
You wrote:
quote:
Most commonly, creativity is introduced into human designed systems, by humans going back and redesigning the system.
I agree completely. That is the sort of thing I want to avoid as we craft Paco’s grid.
I also agree that it is taken for granted that “it is quite common to design systems that deal only with a specific or fixed set of conditions and that have no ability to deal creatively with new conditions.”
But, I don’t want to take anything for granted. I want a system devoid of imaginative creativity. I want the system analogous, if not isomorphic, to the supposed system on earth where life came about minus any intelligence.
Once we have such a system, then we could study its behavior. It is my conjecture that the basis vectors for the behavior of this system will not span a space in which Paco can survive - life can come to be - [the bar is too high or the environment was too harsh].
As aiguy has pointed out, we may never come to a consensus with respect to “imaginative creativity” or with respect to the system called “early earth”. But, can we come close to a consensus on these points?
It may be that there are heads that will only turn to ID after this sort of work is completed. It may also bear out in the experiment that life could begin apart from intelligence. There is only one way to find out.
Do you think this experiment has any merit?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 03. May 2007 17:01
Daniel,
quote:
You keep inferring that, since I'm insisting that a particular system (human reproduction, earthly weather, etc) is designed, that I'm arguing that the system itself is intelligent or that that system requires constant intelligent intervention. That is not what I'm arguing at all.
Here is the way I see the argument:
DANIEL: Whatever caused these particular systems (humans, stars, weather, etc) to exist must have consciously applied knowledge. Nothing could cause these things to exist unless it had the relevant engineering knowledge.
AIGUY: All sorts of things happen that if a human being were to try to do them would require vast knowledge. Creating a lightning bolt is an example of this: If a human being were to create one, he/she would have to understand electrical engineering. However, when lightning is created by a cloud, nothing is consciously applying knowledge at all.
DANIEL: But I'm not talking about when lightning is created by a cloud! What about whatever caused the cloud to exist? Surely that required conscious application of knowledge!
AIGUY: But clouds and their electrical charges are formed by solar-driven atmospheric events, and no conscious mind is responsible for forming clouds either.
DANIEL: Well, what about those atmospheric forces, and the Sun itself? How might they have come to exist?
AIGUY: You can keep this up all you like, and eventually we shall reach some phenomenon that we don't understand. At that point, you will say "See, I knew that knowledge was needed somewhere!" But of course this inference is unwarranted; we can't simply assert that knowledge was required because we don't understand how something happened. What about things like protein folding? We don't understand how that happens, and it is a very complex phenomenon. Would you like to assert that whenever a protein gets folded inside a cell, some intelligent agent is in there applying its knowledge of protein structure?
We know that all sorts of things that would require knowledge if a human tried to do it happen in the world without any application of knowledge at all. This includes the creation of biological complexity, which happens every day without the application of knowledge.
quote:
Saying that a lightning bolt does not require intelligent intervention does not address the origin of our earthly weather system and it's unique fitness for life. Likewise, arguing that organisms can self-replicate without thinking about it does not address the origin of self-replicating systems. Both of your arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with our discussion. Yet, for some reason you keep trotting them out as if they do.
Again, all you are doing is trying to reach back further and further into the causal chain of events that ended up causing lightning, or living things, or whatever, until you have surpassed our ability to provide explanations. But no matter how far you go, there is no principle by which you can demonstrate that the application of knowledge is the only way it could have happened.
[ 04. May 2007, 00:16: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 04. May 2007 06:08
LifeEngineer quote:
The extensive body of scientific knowledge ... exists regarding intelligent causation...
What do ID theories say about a nature of intelligent causation or “designer” (God, alien, biofield etc.)?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 04. May 2007 07:01
Mel and Daniel,
Quote: But, I don’t want to take anything for granted. I want a system devoid of imaginative creativity. I want the system analogous, if not isomorphic, to the supposed system on earth where life came about minus any intelligence.
It would seem to be quite easy to find sets of conditions or systems that are incapable of evolving into life forms. It would, however, appear to be logically impossible to demonstrate that you tested a system that was isomorphic to the one present when life evolved.
I believe that both you and Daniel are attempting to argue that there is some essential ingredient in ‘intelligent causation’ whether you label it knowledge or imaginative creativity, and without this ingredient being inputted at the very beginning and transmitted from generation to generation, you would not have intelligent causation (or life).
I have look at and analyzed the same type of issue but at the micro-level and with respect to phenomenon that are more readily subjected to formal scientific laboratory analysis. I studied dynamic change and adaptive change and learning and problem solving in neurons and in human decision making. My findings suggest that 1) included in the changes studied were phenomenon that would be classified or defined as intelligent causation and 2) the changes could be modeled and explained in terms of inputs from external sources. These inputs could be labeled as imaginative creativity or knowledge.
It appears, based on experimental analysis, that all forms of intelligent causation are explainable in terms of externally generated input. A lot of traditional ID supporters, and I expect this includes Mel and Daniel, believe that the very complex types of intelligent causation like designing birds and creating life depend on some significant external source of input. My analysis suggests that all instances of intelligent causation depend on and are explainable in terms of external sources of input.
It should also be added that many specific instances of intelligent causation, we can identify and track these input sources, and the ‘knowledge content’ or ‘creativity content’ or ‘information content’ of the inputs is vastly greater than what could be stored and transmitted via DNA.
It is a fairly technical subject, but science has highly effective methods of identifying, modeling, simulating and analyzing the input associated with specific sets of occurrences of intelligent causation. Such analysis universally confirms that specific sets of intelligent causation events can be modeled, simulated and explained in terms of complex external input (inputted knowledge and inputted ‘imaginative creativity’)
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. May 2007 07:04
Living things in all their varieties are the product of long dead God or Gods. The effort, which must have been enormous, probably completely consumed them.
"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, originally in italics.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
P.S.
The title of my only thread at Dawkins' little fan club was "God or Gods are dead but must have once existed." It produced over 60,000 visits in under a week at which time I was not only summarily banned but was denied viewing as well, one of my better achievements.
[ 04. May 2007, 07:05: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 04. May 2007 08:31
Miosim,
Quote: What do ID theories say about a nature of intelligent causation or “designer” (God, alien, biofield etc.)?
This question gets into what I think of as the ‘ownership of science’ and the ‘ownership of knowledge’ issues. Does IDT stand for ‘intelligent design theory’ or ‘intelligent designer theory’? In other words, is ID science concerned with demonstrating that the complexity of life forms is the result of ‘god-did-it’ or is ID science about demonstrating that both complex life forms and complex ‘intelligent’ problem solving behaviors of humans are the result of scientifically analyzable form of intelligent causation.
Even most theologians recognize that while ‘god did it’ is a logically legitimate explanation for anything, it does not satisfy scientific standards. This leaves us with the position that ID science refers to the study of ‘design by intelligent processes’.
Once we recognize that ID science refers to the analysis of design by intelligent process, we can begin to address the question of “Who has the authority to define intelligent processes and intelligent causation?”
The authority based or peer review based concept of science would suggest that the ownership of a concept like ‘intelligent causation’ rests with a group of authority figures. For Darwinian theories, concepts and knowledge of evolution, the authoritative concept of science would suggest, rests with the set of academic peer reviewers. For ID theories, this concept suggests, the ownership of knowledge and definitions rests with the early advocates and spokespeople like Dembski and Behe.
But in real science or hard science, knowledge and concepts are not ‘owned’ or controlled by the subjective opinions of authority figures. In real science, the authority and control of definitions rests with the scientist or scientists producing the current best predictive theories. The traditional IDists, the Darwinists, and the academic AI supporters have all failed to produce currently valid testable predictive theories relating to design or intelligent causation and thus none of those groups are in a position to dictate (or reject) scientific definitions of intelligent causation.
Although not generally accepted or recognized by the academic sciences, including tradition Dembski type ID, the current best ID theories are teleological theories. Teleological ID theories have quite a lot to say about the nature of intelligent causation but essentially nothing to say about designers.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 04. May 2007 09:12
Daniel,
Quote: I think I get what you're saying here. We must first define "Intelligent causation" in a general way, then we can, using that definition, look at anything and see if it fits
That is part of it, but I am also suggesting that 1) in formulating definitions of intelligent causation we need to follow the actual ‘scientific evidence’ rather than our preconceived notions or beliefs and that 2) we need to look closely at what types of definitions are actually useful in formulating testable predictive theories.
It would be a mistake to suggest that the scientific analysis of complex intelligent causation and design is easy. However, it is interesting to note how many of the widely accepted beliefs and misconceptions concerning intelligent causation are readily testable and falsifiable using established scientific methodologies. Many ID supporters, for example, are convinced that if a designer inputted or frontloaded the relevant design knowledge at an early stage, then that knowledge could be readily transmitted to latter life forms and readily modified to explain the different observed life forms. The scientific reality directly contradicts this belief. We have pretty good techniques to evaluating the level of information involved in something like developing a human being and we have pretty good techniques for evaluating the volume of information transmitted in DNA genes. Such analysis has clearly shown that information transmitted in genes is not sufficient to explain the complexity of developmental processes. If we are going to hypothesize that the design knowledge needed to assemble a living organisms was front loaded at the time life was created, then we also need to recognize that we have no knowledge or evidence of any process capable of transmitting such knowledge.
The second, and even more important point I was trying to make, is that in looking at and evaluating definitions of intelligent causation we need to look at their relevance and usefulness in formulating scientific theories and in their usefulness and relevance to the scientific process. Most of the difficulties in defining intelligent causation result from a failure to properly understand scientific theories and the goals and purposes of the scientific process. Most people incorrectly believe that the scientific process is an efficient method of producing something closely approximating god-like absolute truth. It is probably more accurate to describe the scientific process as an effective method of preventing or eliminating the nonsensical beliefs that humans develop and accept when they rely on ‘theories’ generated and validated by subjective authoritative opinions. Science is more about dealing with the weaknesses of authority based human beliefs than it is about achieving god-like knowledge.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. May 2007 10:50
Life Engineer
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is indeed a teleological hypothesis. Don't abuse the word theory please. Theories are verified hypotheses. The PEH simply recognizes the fact that much of evolution was internally driven and was independent of the environment. It follows directly from the miserable failure of both the Lamarckian and the Darwinian hypothesis to explain anything about evolution beyond the establshment of intraspecifc varieties which had nothing to do with evolution anyway. What is wrong with teleology anyway? Isn't the development of the individual from a single cell a perfect example of a teleological phenomenon?
You want teleology?
Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
