|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Ebb_Dimskill
Member
Member # 5197
|
posted 10. May 2007 09:30
quote:
(Daniel Smith to miosim)
You bring up the concept of "Internal Intelligence" and use the collective intelligence of human civilization as an example. This analogy applies to a point in regard to biological systems, but what seems to be lacking in human society - and seems abundantly present in biological organisms - is a "master plan".
Human societies function on the edge of chaos. We seem to barely get along most of the time, and - due to such things as language and cultural differences - we are often completely at odds with each other.
Biological systems, on the other hand, seem to generally function seamlessly from top to bottom. Every element involved in the system is "on the same page" so to speak.
You say the collective intelligence of human society is chaotic, but that biological systems function seamlessly. You're comparing apples and oranges, if biological systems are designed, and collective human intelligence is an example of a designer. Also, isn't collective human intelligence a biological system?
There may be a master plan for the space shuttle but there isn't one individual anywhere that understands all its subsystems (or comes close to it). I'd say the space shuttle functions pretty close to seamlessly (oops - strike that). The model of one master designer understanding everything in totality, such a model does not exist in human design. Where does it exist? The model of the God of eternity as "designer" is deeply flawed.
There is a literal type of natural selection that is intrinsic to any human design process. You have big chunks of design that other people are using in their own projects, so you incorporate them in your project without the slightest idea how they work - only the knowledge that they do work (i.e. natural selection), a knowledge that comes through mere observation.
Just to close the loop on this picture, I'd say there was a huge number of variants right at the start of creation with the vast majority of it just being waste. (i.e. we didn't have to wait millions of years for the correct mutations to occur). Some speculate that huge quantities of biological material originated in the heart of the earth and was disgorged to the surface. Natural selection did the rest.
[ 10. May 2007, 09:41: Message edited by: Ebb_Dimskill ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Ebb_Dimskill
Member
Member # 5197
|
posted 10. May 2007 11:05
quote:
There is a literal type of natural selection that is intrinsic to any human design process. You have big chunks of design that other people are using in their own projects, so you incorporate them in your project without the slightest idea how they work - only the knowledge that they do work (i.e. natural selection), a knowledge that comes through mere observation.
Come to think of it, not even knowledge or observation is usually necessary for something to be preserved, but instead merely a signal from some source - "This works." So you incorporate it in your project on the basis of that signal alone. Then when your project doesn't work, its debug time - and what does that entail? Many times just an exhaustive search, removing pieces of your program iteratively until the culprit is found - just a mindless repetitive task.
[ 10. May 2007, 11:08: Message edited by: Ebb_Dimskill ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 10. May 2007 11:52
nosivad: quote:
A long past Intelligent Designer(s) is obvious in every aspect of both the animate and inanimate worlds. To deny it is just as idiotic as it is to present it as a mere "inference" as the ID crowd continues to do. I regard ID as the necessary starting point without which nothing else in either ontogeny or phylogeny will ever make sense. It is a given and most certainly not a subject for debate.
From http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk/articles/prajapati.html
"Prajapati is linked to the sacrificial root of creation "either by continually creating living creatures out of the sacrifices to the gods (Taittiriya Brahmana 1, 8; 2, 1), or as being himself the sacrifice from which life is sustained: 'Prajapati is sacrifice, for he created it in his own self-expression"
Maybe you agree with Fritjof Capra, as per his "The Tao Of Physics", that the Eastern Mystics have been right all along and the rest of the scientific world is slowly "proving" it to be so!
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 10. May 2007 12:35
It is once again appropriate to remind participants here that the PURPOSE of a scientific definition of intelligent causation is to provide a scientifically useful method of classifying causation as 1) intelligent causation and 2) not intelligent causation. In order to determine if a proposed definition is scientifically useful, we first have to distinguish between 1) a group of individuals discussing, describing and engaging in scientific analysis and 2) a group of individual generating (and posting and publishing) random meaningless unscientific incantations and blither.
It turns out that there are lots of individuals and groups who claim to be discussing and engaging in scientific analysis. But when we look more closely at the behavior of many of these individuals and groups fail to satisfy even the minimum requirements for scientific discussion and analysis.
How do we objectively distinguish between meaningless unscientific jabbering and productive scientific discussion? The answer turns out to be quite simple- We look for well defined non-trivial testable predictive theory. If we can identify such theories as a central feature of the discussion and published materials we are observing scientific behavior. If no such theories can be identified as the focus of discussion, then no matter how many titles or degrees possessed by the participants, the behavior being observed is not science.
More directly relevant to the discussion in this thread- “How do we determine if a posting or argument is relevant to the scientific analysis of intelligent causation?” The answer is again simple- A discussion or posting is ‘scientific’ if it relates directly or indirectly to teleological theories because they are the only known well defined non-trivial predictive theories associated with intelligent causation”.
Lots of individuals will use all sorts of rhetorical tricks to avoid facing the science non-science test. But no one can show how scientific analysis can be performed or discussed without involving non-trivial well-defined predictive theories and no one can show that anything other than a teleological theory can both address intelligent causation and satisfy formal requirements for a scientific theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 11. May 2007 06:00
Daniel,
Sorry that it took so long to respond.
quote:
You bring up the concept of "Internal Intelligence" and use the collective intelligence of human civilization as an example. This analogy applies to a point in regard to biological systems, but what seems to be lacking in human society - and seems abundantly present in biological organisms - is a "master plan"… So I would argue that there is a unifying factor involved in biological systems that is largely non-existent in human society.
This is a legitimate objection and I also faced it in the past.
When you compare a level of organization of a human society with internal organization of animal - the difference is obvious. However if we compare human society with the simplest multicellular organisms we can find a lot of similarities.
In a past, as citizen of the former USSR, I have a significant exposure to Dialectical Materialism. According to one of its teaching, the historical development of a Human society follows a Helix, where each stage of the social system development is a repetition of the past forms, but on the higher level. For example a Communist society, where wealth (rather misery) is distributed evenly, is a repetition on a higher level, of the primitive Hunter-gatherer bands. I accepted this idea, and assumed that it could be applicable to all social and biological systems.
Later, in line with these views, I came to conclusion that a biological evolution of Human society will continue in the direction of the higher integration where the boundary among individual member of a society will be gradually “washed out” and eventually, the structure of the future social systems should repeat the evolution of biological systems and eventually the future human society will be much closer to what we observe today in organism of animals.
I understand that this explanation is too speculative to be considered as a reasonable argument. However the example of human society demonstrates that there is at list one clear case where "Intelligence causation" is “hidden” in the underplaying level of organization. Therefore it is reasonable to ask a question: could the same mechanism of "Intelligence causation" be valid in biological systems also?
Both ID theory and Natural sciences denies this possibility for on different grounds: ID - because it already “knows” an answer, and the Natural sciences – because the current paradigm “treat” all internal to organism subsystems, (except, may be a brain), as a “dead meat”. Therefore the challenge I am facing, is demonstrating a POSSIBILITY that it isn’t a “dead meat”, but is a sort of multi cellular society, whose complexity and intelligence caused by accumulative intelligence of its cells only.
Time ago, I was explained (but never read) about lymphocyte cell traveling across a blood vessel wall that composed of layer of endothelial cells. This wall is tight enough, so large molecules may not diffuse across this wall, but lymphocyte cell can. To do this lymphocyte cell is flattened and then insert itself between endothelial cells and by pushing them away eventually penetrates the blood vessel wall. Since that time, I regard lymphocyte cell as a highly specialized and “intelligent” single cell organism, but not as a “bag with antibodies”.
Traditional science doesn’t recognize “intelligence” of any cell, including neurons. Yet, it should not be difficult to assume, that the neuron cells are highly specialized in a some sort of “information processing” single cell organisms.
I remember one experimental study on the isolated neuron that intended to demonstrate that this cell is nothing else, but a sophisticated trigger or a switch. In this experiment, single neuron cell was isolated (using typical “butchering techniques”) glued to glass surface and micro electrode was inserted in its body. Then neuron was periodically “electrocuted” using some sort of “organized” pattern of electrical stimulation and neuron’s response was monitored. This experiment didn’t reveal any sufficiently “organized” pattern of neuron electrical activity, and this way, the initial assumption was conformed.
Imagine that the same experimental approach is used to study a Human intelligence, say by some aliens. First “alien researcher” would chop off legs - because human tried to escape, and than hands – because human resisted this “study” (hands and legs do not affect intelligence, anyway – right?). Next, human is firmly attached to a table and an electrode (having size of a pencil) was inserted in his body. Than human was “electrocuted” with a series of “organized” pattern of electrical pulses, say Morse code and alien experimenter expected to observe an intelligent respond to this stimulation. I am guessing that the most intelligent human respond in this situation would be a swearing, but because this is not enough to explain a sophistication of human civilization, alien probably would conclude that Human is pretty simple (and vulgar) creature, and the sophistication of a Human civilization is caused only by system phenomenon of Human networks.
Time ago, in the Ukraine Neurophysiology Institute, I proposed the different experiment to demonstrate an “Intelligence” of an isolated neuron cell, by creating instrumental feedback between neuron spontaneous electrical activity and some important for this neuron environmental factors – like temperature, vital ion concentration, etc. to see if a neuron able to learn a correlation between its spontaneous electrical activity and parameter of its environment and eventually regulate it. However this proposal was rejected.
So, I approached my friend mathematician and asked if there is any formal mathematical tool that could help me to express the complexity of the system (neuron network) vs. complexity of parts (neuron) and this way to demonstrate that a neuron could be more complex than we believed at the time. I was told that not such tool exists.
I started my own investigation and eventually come up with the views that satisfied my curiosity, including explanation of Life phenomenon. I didn’t have yet an opportunity to discuss them and wonder if these views could survive a “fire” of this discussion.
[ 11. May 2007, 12:32: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. May 2007 08:24
Quote: So, I approached my friend mathematician and asked if there is any formal mathematical tool that could help me to express the complexity of the system (neuron network) vs. complexity of parts (neuron) and this way to demonstrate that a neuron could be more complex than we believed at the time. I was told that not such tool exists.
Scientific analysis of information processing in neurons offers an interesting paradox or apparent paradox. On the one hand, most scientists and mathematicians agree that there is no existing mathematical or scientific method that can effectively evaluate the complexity of information processing in individual neurons. On the other hand, scientists/systems designers routinely develop sophisticated computer programs that effectively simulate, and in many cases outperform, the information processing performed by groups of 10's of millions of neurons.
How can we not understand, or even know how to scientifically evaluate, the information processing in neurons yet be able to effectively model and simulate the behavior produced by complex neuronal information processing?
There is a resolution to this apparent paradox, but understanding it requires an understanding of intelligent causation, human scientific analysis and teleological theories. In somewhat simplified terms, it turns out humans, or at least a very small percentage of humans, have the ability to perform rigorous and highly effective scientific analysis of intelligent causation, but the vast majority of humans, including the vast majority of academic scientists lack the ability and training to understand the analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Ebb_Dimskill
Member
Member # 5197
|
posted 11. May 2007 17:29
quote:
(miosim)
the Natural sciences – because the current paradigm “treat” all internal to organism subsystems, (except, may be a brain), as a “dead meat”. Therefore the challenge I am facing, is demonstrating a POSSIBILITY that it isn’t a “dead meat”, but is a sort of multi cellular society, whose complexity and intelligence caused by accumulative intelligence of its cells only.
regard lymphocyte cell as a highly specialized and “intelligent” single cell organism, but not as a “bag with antibodies”.
Traditional science doesn’t recognize “intelligence” of any cell, including neurons. Yet, it should not be difficult to assume, that the neuron cells are highly specialized in a some sort of “information processing” single cell organisms.
I remember one experimental study on the isolated neuron that intended to demonstrate that this cell is nothing else, but a sophisticated trigger or a switch.
Time ago, in the Ukraine Neurophysiology Institute, I proposed the different experiment to demonstrate an “Intelligence” of an isolated neuron cell, by creating instrumental feedback between neuron spontaneous electrical activity and some important for this neuron environmental factors – like temperature, vital ion concentration, etc. to see if a neuron able to learn a correlation between its spontaneous electrical activity and parameter of its environment and eventually regulate it. However this proposal was rejected.
So, I approached my friend mathematician and asked if there is any formal mathematical tool that could help me to express the complexity of the system (neuron network) vs. complexity of parts (neuron) and this way to demonstrate that a neuron could be more complex than we believed at the time. I was told that not such tool exists.
First of all I think intelligence can be defined quite straightforwardly as the level of variability in the response of an entity to external stimuli.
If no matter what you throw at an entity it either flees if its light or approaches if its dark, then that entity isn't very intelligent.
If on the other hand, an entity has the sensory discrimination to perceive a very fine level of detail in a given stimuli and then respond in any one of a multitude of different ways, based on various low-level properties of a stimuli the entity perceives, then that entity is relatively intelligent.
There is a direct correlation between the complexity of an entity and the complexity of its responses to its environment, just as when the larger a program is, the more things that program is capable of doing.
All this is pretty much obvious, but your analysis seems to skirt around it.
As to why cells might not be called "intelligent" it seems that would be merely a matter of convention, as "intelligent" might be reserved for no good reason to refer exclusively to human intelligence, for example.
If a neuron is relatively more intelligent, it has to be directly related to the complexity of its internal structure, perhaps complexity that was heretofore unperceived. Any intelligence it has can't emanate from it by magic.
However, because a neuron is "intelligent" does not imply that there must be an infinite regression of "intelligence", with all the nueron's constituents being "intelligent", and so on.
No matter how complex a program is, its lowest level constituents are just very rudimentary instructions, e.g. "if x = y then goto intruction i" "move zero into register r." "increment register r". Actually, any program, no matter how mind-bogglingly intelligent it is, can be constructed from a series of the aformentioned instructions. Does the capability to compare two numbers for equality indicate intelligence? Well, if this comparison is between two numbers each 10^1000 bits long and the comparison can be done in say, 10^-1000 seconds, then maybe.
Just one other thing: If there are X billion neurons in a brain, and each one of those neurons is necessary, than a brain is X billion times more intelligent than a neuron.
[ 11. May 2007, 17:43: Message edited by: Ebb_Dimskill ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 11. May 2007 22:21
LifeEngineer
quote:
Scientific analysis of information processing in neurons offers an interesting paradox or apparent paradox. On the one hand, most scientists and mathematicians agree that there is no existing mathematical or scientific method that can effectively evaluate the complexity of information processing in individual neurons.
As I understand there isn’t any accepted scientific method that effectively evaluates complexity of informational processing, not only in individual neuron, but in any complex system. There is not even accepted definition of Complexity, regardless that attempts to characterize it have a 100 years history. The best we can do is to evaluate the amount of information encoded in a system or in a message, but this is not the same, as a Complexity. I think the reason of this failure is that Complexity is regarded, as an objective category, and it probably will take another 100 years to realize that it isn't.
In one of my previous posting ( May 2 ) I supported an approach to define “intelligence”, as a problem solving ability. In section (4) of that posting I emphasized that “intelligence” is relativistic in nature, because its value depends on a type of problem selected to measure it. Therefore if someone says: “Mr. Smith is intelligent…”, this statement is incomplete and we have to ask for a clarification: “Intelligent … to do what…?” For this reason, "Intelligence", Complexities of a Problem, Complexities of a System and Complexities of Information are relativistic in nature and should be defined only in relation to each other.
quote:
On the other hand, scientists/systems designers routinely develop sophisticated computer programs that effectively simulate … the information processing performed by groups of 10's of millions of neurons.
I was allays been suspicious about neuron network modeling, because any model is as good (or as bad), as our understanding about object we are modeling. My impression is that if we would summarize all our knowledge about neuron and neuron network, we would come up with the “black boxes” having inputs and outputs. And if we believe that this model is even remote representation of a real network of neuron cells, we just fool our self.
quote:
… sophisticated computer programs that effectively … outperform, the information processing performed by groups of 10's of millions of neurons.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a Calculator outperforms 10's of millions of neurons or even whole human brain. All depend on a problem we select to compare their performance. In general, any system or any human are “the best in the class” - we just have to find appropriate task to demonstrate their Superiority.
For example what is more “intelligent” sophisticated Computer or Calculator? To insure that this is a fair competition, consider that computer and calculator, having the same clock speed, solving the same arithmetic problem, say 2+2=4. Now I will introduce one more condition to this problem – a time. No “intelligence” testing is valid without taking in consideration how long it takes to solve a problem.
To perform the same operation 2+2=4, computer will require more time, because its multitasking processor needs more clock cycles than Calculator to finish calculation. Therefore, we allays can select the time condition at which Calculator successfully finish the task while Computer will fail to produce any meaningful result.
quote:
There is a resolution to this apparent paradox, but understanding it requires an understanding of intelligent causation, human scientific analysis and teleological theories. In somewhat simplified terms, it turns out humans, or at least a very small percentage of humans, have the ability to perform rigorous and highly effective scientific analysis of intelligent causation, but the vast majority of humans, including the vast majority of academic scientists lack the ability and training to understand the analysis.
I'm interested in learning more about teleological theories you refer to. Could you provide some references please?
[ 12. May 2007, 05:07: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Ebb_Dimskill
Member
Member # 5197
|
posted 11. May 2007 23:26
quote:
(miosim)
In one of my previous posting ( May 2 ) I supported an approach to define “intelligence”, as a problem solving ability. In section (4) of that posting I emphasized that “intelligence” is relativistic in nature, because its value depends on a type of problem selected to measure it. Therefore if someone says: “Mr. Smith is intelligent…”, this statement is incomplete and we have to ask for a clarification: “Intelligent … to do what…?”
For example what is more “intelligent” sophisticated Computer or Calculator? To insure that this is a fair competition, consider that computer and calculator, having the same clock speed, solving the same arithmetic problem, say 2+2=4. Now I will introduce one more condition to this problem – a time. No “intelligence” testing is valid without taking in consideration how long it takes to solve a problem.
To perform the same operation 2+2=4, computer will require more time, because its multitasking processor needs more clock cycles than Calculator to finish calculation. Therefore, we allays can select the time condition at which Calculator successfully finish the task while Computer will fail to produce any meaningful result.
If your definition of intelligence leads you to think a Calculator is smarter than a computer, then perhaps there's something wrong with your definition.
If we assume that the calculator and computer are encoded in hardware with equivalent levels of efficiency, then we can use their respective amount of hardware as an indication of the complexity of the problems they are designed to solve, and in that regard, the computer has more chips and so it must solve a wider array of problems, and in that regard it must be more intelligent. In actuality though, there is not a huge difference in intelligence, as a computer's essential task of iterating through instructions in a program, and shifting values between registers and memory and the like is not that much more complicated than what a calculator does. (After all a Universal Computer is very simple). But if you were saying a computer running some military war game simulation was dumber than a calculator, then there's really something wrong with your definition.
IP: Logged
|
|
Ebb_Dimskill
Member
Member # 5197
|
posted 12. May 2007 04:24
quote:
To perform the same operation 2+2=4, computer will require more time, because its multitasking processor needs more clock cycles than Calculator to finish calculation. Therefore, we allays can select the time condition at which Calculator successfully finish the task while Computer will fail to produce any meaningful result.
FWIW, the computer will definitely not perform a simple addition slower than a calculator. Additions are done continually and have to be fast. They will almost certainly be faster on a computer than on a calculator, where they would primarily be used in association with user key input. Furthermore, multitasking would be a function of the operating system (i.e. software) and I don't think an addition instruction is something that could be interrupted by the OS in mid-stream. Display of results might be slower than on a calculator, but not at the level of user perception. I guess a software calculator would be slower than a real calculator, and thus less intelligent, but not the computer itself.
IP: Logged
|
|
Ebb_Dimskill
Member
Member # 5197
|
posted 12. May 2007 05:05
quote:
I wouldn’t be surprised if a Calculator outperforms 10's of millions of neurons or even whole human brain. All depend on a problem we select to compare their performance. In general, any system or any human are “the best in the class” - we just have to find appropriate task to demonstrate their Superiority.
Sorry to beat this to death, but your conception of intelligence just isn't very useful. To assert that we can't make an overall comparison of intelligence between two entities, is just nonsensical.
So, Bob can speak Latin, juggle, fix airplanes, has 5 Phds, and a Nobel Prize and Steve is a High School dropout but is an expert on Star Trek. On the subject of Star Trek, Steve is more intelligent. So what?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 12. May 2007 06:24
Ebb_Dimskill quote:
If your definition of intelligence leads you to think a Calculator is smarter than a computer, then perhaps there's something wrong with your definition.
If you read my posting of May 2 (Toward definition of “Intelligence”) you would notice that I am attempting to expend meaning of “Intelligence” outside of human–like ability and therefore the word “smart” not applicable within the scope of this characterization. The word “Intelligence” also misleading, because it also refer to a human experience. Therefore until a better term is introduced, I will use the word Intelligence with parenthesis.
Regarding “something wrong” with my definition – it could be, so I push it to the limit to test it and to find its boundary. Indeed it produces unusual results and some times even contradicts to common sense, but as I will show later, this approach may help to open our boundary and experience some unusual application for “Intelligent causation”.
quote:
But if you were saying a computer running some military war game simulation was dumber than a calculator, then there's really something wrong with your definition.
In this example Computer is indeed more “intelligent” because of the task (game simulation) you referred to. Without understanding a crucial role of the type of problem, is used to measure “Intelligence” of a system, all my examples should sound like a nonsense.
quote:
… we can use their respective amount of hardware as an indication of the complexity…
If you want to propose one more definition of complexity, check how many of them already exists (Wikipedia is good start)
quote:
...the computer will definitely not perform a simple addition slower than a calculator. Additions are done continually and have to be fast. They will almost certainly be faster on a computer than on a calculator, where they would primarily be used in association with user key input
I am not expert in IT technology and could be wrong on that. I will check it.
[ 12. May 2007, 07:29: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. May 2007 07:51
Miosim,
Quote: I was allays been suspicious about neuron network modeling, because any model is as good (or as bad), as our understanding about object we are modeling. My impression is that if we would summarize all our knowledge about neuron and neuron network, we would come up with the “black boxes” having inputs and outputs. And if we believe that this model is even remote representation of a real network of neuron cells, we just fool our self.
This comment gets right to the heart of the “What is the purpose of scientific analysis?” issue. If we assume or believe that the goal or purpose of scientific analysis of information processing in brains and neurons is “a complete god-like knowledge of exactly how brains and neurons produce intelligent behavior” then like aiguy you argue that “we don’t currently know exactly how the brain or neuron works and therefore we can’t accept any proposed definition of intelligence because we don’t know if the definition properly addresses what we don’t know”.
It should be noted that most knowledgeable philosophy of science experts appear to reject this ‘science as source of god-like knowledge’ concept or goal, but it still dominates the thinking of an awful lot of academic scientists.
The alternative interpretation of the goal or purpose of science is “to find practical and reliable solutions to practical problems”. This more pragmatic concept of science means that rather than god-like knowledge the goals of science with respect to intelligent causation take the form “find a faster, cheaper, more efficient, more reliable method of performing intelligent processes such as performing math calculations, performing visual recognition tasks, or performing human type decision making”.
If you recognize and accept that 1) the goal or purpose of scientific analysis is to solve practical problems, and 2) the process of scientific analysis involves a gradual step by step testing and refining of predictive theories until the theories have sufficient reliability to produce solutions, then you can begin to recognize that computer simulations do in fact represent ‘scientific’ representations and solutions to the problems of how intelligent causation works.
A lot of people on both sides of the ID issue believe and claim that computer simulations do not represent scientific knowledge and explanations of intelligent causation. This belief or position, although it is widely accepted and promoted by lots of academics like aiguy, is based on a lack of understanding of the goal or purpose of scientific analysis and it is based on a lack of understanding of the behavior or scientific analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. May 2007 09:36
Miosim,
Quote: I'm interested in learning more about teleological theories you refer to. Could you provide some references please?
The frequent request for references on subjects like teleological causation and teleological theories is a rather interesting phenomenon from a number of perspectives.
First, the requests reflect the fact that a lot of readers and posters simply do not have much formal education or training in the basic areas of philosophy of science and mathematical modeling. Teleological causation and teleological theories have been around and debated for centuries. The standard academic literature on teleological causation and teleological theories should provide a basic background for the discussion here. The reader should be aware that the standard or classic literature is going to contain more misleading and confusing information than useful relevant information.
Second, I assume that in many instances the requests for references are intended to point out how successful peer review processes have been in suppressing teleological theories and explanations. As far as I am aware, you will almost never find explicit positive references to teleological causation or teleological theories in the literature of biology or AI. Interestingly, you also will also find essentially no references to or discussion of other well defined non-trivial testable predictive theories of any sort in any of the life sciences. The academic sciences, it appears, have abandoned and suppressed all efforts to include well defined testable theories as a part of scientific analysis.
Third, the requests for references suggest that people have a difficult time visualizing or understanding basic concepts. At least on the surface, teleological theories are exactly like other formal theories except that they include goal variables or goal expectation variables. Granted that the explanation of how teleological theories fit the formal requirements of the scientific paradigm is a bit complicated and difficult to understand, but that topic, as far as I am aware, has never been addressed in the literature. A lot of requests for references appear to imply that the requestor would understand something presented in the literature, when they can’t understand it when it is explained directly to them. When you consider the difficulties that typically result from interpreting and misinterpreting literature, the suggestion that a published reference will increase understanding seems highly dubious.
Fourth, and probably most interesting aspect of requests for references, is the possibility that a lot of individuals view science and the discussion of science as a form of role playing. To participate in science and the discussion of science, the role playing concept suggests, an individual does not have to actually understand the concepts involved, but one simply associates oneself with some player or set of players who have published a set of peer reviewed papers. Science becomes like a kids game of cowboys and Indians or a game of fantasy football. Select a set of papers and associate yourself with the group, and you automatically achieve the same results as ‘your’ selected teammates. Playing the ID versus Darwin game using this approach, those who select the Darwin side always win and those who select the ID side always loose. The benefit of fantasy science, is that whether you decide to be a cowboy or an Indian, you get to play without having to actually learn anything substantive about science.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 12. May 2007 12:17
Ebb_Dimskill
quote:
Sorry to beat this to death, but your conception of intelligence just isn't very useful. To assert that we can't make an overall comparison of intelligence between two entities is just nonsensical.
So, Bob can speak Latin, juggle, fix airplanes, has 5 Phds, and a Nobel Prize and Steve is a High School dropout but is an expert on Star Trek. On the subject of Star Trek, Steve is more intelligent. So what?
Congratulation, you are absolutely right, including - “So what?” - comment. The only mistake in your post is that you use word intelligent without paranthesis.
I agree that these views indeed are not very helpful, when applying only to Human and are sound like nonsense if applying to computers. But, often, accepting a nonsense is a price for expention of our vision. Imaging frastration of our ancestor when they first time was told that Earth is a globe and peoples on the other side of it are walking upside down.
I actually appreciate your challenge, because it allows me to insure that my point, if not accepted, but at least understood. Your reaction is normal, because we do not have all pieces of the puzzle yet and I do not want to present “whole story” in this posting, because it definitely will create even more confusions.
The problem you are experience is that you cannot separate the common usage of Intelligence as a property of mind, like creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom etc., from proposed more general “Intelligence” as a PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY. Now because it is more general it takes additional efforts to translate it to the common usage of this word.
To understand proposed views it may takes to reevaluate how we use this word and I do not want to write assay about this matter, but if I find that this is only way to clarify my point, I will do it. Meanwhile, you may try this exercise: every time you think about some one as intelligent, ask your self: “intelligent …to do what?”
The reason we go through this head twisting exercises, because it is one of the foundations of my understanding of “Intelligence causation” in Living systems and without accepting them, as a reasonable assumption, I would not able to tell the rest of the story. But if you think that there is a flaw in my assumption, let me know, I may miss some thing.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
