|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 12. May 2007 12:39
LifeEngineer
quote:
…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”…
I am not a big fan creating definitions, especially of something I do not fully understand. However, if we claim that we do posses some knowledge, it is our responsibility to communicate it clearly using definitions or any other useful descriptions, so our knowledge could be evaluated and conformed or rejected. And if for a good reason our views will be defeated we should appreciate this, unless we prefer to believe in ILLUSION.
quote:
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 …
....The alternative interpretation of the goal or purpose of science is “to find practical and reliable solutions to practical problems”.
The real science, the way I understand it, is nothing to do with the “most knowledgeable philosophy of science experts” but with strange guys, like Einstein, who, while is working on somebody’s patent, couldn’t stop thinking about his Theory of relativity. Thanks God, his work wasn’t subjected to the censorship of the “most knowledgeable philosophy of science experts”, because they may reject it on the ground that this is a “god-like knowledge” and because it isn’t in compliance with requirement of “practical and reliable solutions”.
quote:
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...
The logic between the paragraph above and the paragraph below is not obvious to me.
quote:
… 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.
However, I think I understand you (correct me if I am wrong) that from IDT point of view a computer simulations (designed by human) is similar to a living system designed by external “agent”. Than I would agree with the logic.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 12. May 2007 17:13
In our attempts to assess intelligent causation and it's application to both biological complexity and human inventions, I think what's needed is some common ground. We need to find a place where these two paths cross. In keeping with our agreed upon "results based" definition of Intelligent Causation, I would suggest possibly the area of Molecular nanotechnology.
quote:
Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) is nanotechnology using "molecular manufacturing", an anticipated technology based on positionally-controlled mechanosynthesis guided by molecular machine systems. It involves combining physical principles demonstrated by chemistry, other nanotechnologies, and the molecular machinery of life with the systems engineering principles found in modern macroscale factories. Its most well-known exposition is in the books of K. Eric Drexler.
What we have then would be a direct comparison between the efforts of man (a known intelligence) and the unknown cause of Nature (a projected intelligence) in the construction and utilization of molecular machines and systems.
We could then evaluate the respective systems for their technology (which interestingly enough is defined as: "the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems"). IOW, molecular nanotechnology offers us the unique opportunity to compare man's solutions with those of biological systems for common problems at the molecular manufacturing level. We'd be comparing apples to apples.
I'm not sure how one could formulate "scientific predictive theories" from this (I'll leave that to LifeEngineer), but I think it's a good place to start.
Thoughts?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 13. May 2007 00:49
Ebb_Dimskill: quote:
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...
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.
I'm not sure if I follow your logic or not, but you seem to be suggesting that human inventions are merely a gathering of existing inventions and ideas into new configurations, with a minimal input of knowledge.
Is that correct?
It seems that you are attempting to model human invention after an idealized natural selection. I'm not sure that's a valid comparison.
First off, I think there's a lot more knowledge applied in human inventions than you are willing to give credit for. Inventions that are just "thrown together" from a bunch of parts that "work" will more than likely result in a mess. Just because two systems work well does not mean they will work well together. Much more thought goes into successful inventions than that.
Secondly, I'm not sure natural selection is all it's cracked up to be. I've never heard a better, more realistic critique of natural selection than that made by Leo Berg in his book Nomogenesis (which I am attempting to read - thanks Dr. Davison!). He said basically that natural selection actually works against chance innovation - since natural selection cannot select for potential. He argues that a world without selection would be more beneficial for chance innovation - since all potential innovations would survive. As it is, only that which keeps the status quo tends to survive. All else is eliminated. And, he also points out that, the only reason artificial selection works is because it shields organisms from natural selection!
So, I'm not sure I agree with your analogies.
IP: Logged
|
|
Ebb_Dimskill
Member
Member # 5197
|
posted 13. May 2007 03:49
quote:
I'm not sure if I follow your logic or not, but you seem to be suggesting that human inventions are merely a gathering of existing inventions and ideas into new configurations, with a minimal input of knowledge.
Is that correct?
It seems that you are attempting to model human invention after an idealized natural selection. I'm not sure that's a valid comparison.
I'm not using idealized natural selection as merely a model. I'm thinking that human design must somehow be the same as whatever process created us. Of course, that's what ID says as well, but for them, whatever process created us, and design in general, are both some mysterious inscrutable process that transcends mechanistic explanation. I say human design is a mechanistic process that is explicable in terms of the working of a hierarchy of lower-levels components. (which I think is how natural selection would probably be described). I think its a purely determinstic process. (Incidentally, strict determinism is what the Bible teaches).
I've already described all this previously, but the ideas didn't originate with me. The old PBS show Connections was about showing how some trivial device of modern culture came about as the result of innummerable individuals working completely independently on completely unrelated technologies. At various stages someone would come along and integrate some previous technologies which he did not invent in some new way which no one had previously envisioned.
But certainly the collective brains of all of society are a computational resource that transcends by a factor of billions the power of any one brain. But that collective brain is working in a chaotic fashion to produce very unchaotic very advanced results. A process of natural selection serves to preserve things on one basis only - they work. (I'm not stating this in the most artful way here, but its late.)
Furthermore that collective human brain doesn't have consciousness or plans, and for that matter any one individuals brain is only conscious of, if anything, an incredibly minute portion of what is being done in totality by the collective brain of humanity. Certainly people get together and make plans to do things, but they're all short-term plans in the scope of human history. When primitive tribes were learning to refine ores to make weapons for example, they weren't planning for their new technology of metal to be used in watches or rockets, or anything else.
Of course, its not just about brains. Energy is involved as well. What is the energy source for every single accomplishment of mankind? It is the Sun. Take away the Sun and everything dies. Take away the Sun and all the plants die and no one has the energy to invent fire to refine ore to make weapons to kill mastadons, and so on. (Didn't know whether or not I had to spell this out.) This bring us to the designs of nature. As a Christian, I have to ask myself, why do trillions upon trillions upon trillions of stars exist? Just so earthlings will have something to look at at night? All that energy had to exist for a reason, and I'm thinking that stellar energy was harnassed in the creation of life on this planet. Specifically, I do think it was a matter of some humungous unleashing of energy creating the probablistic resources allowing for life to emerge. In any endeavor, there's a trade-off between energy and planning. With a lot of planning you can accomplish something with less energy. But if you have unlimited energy at your disposal, why not use it?
Once rudimentary cells emerged "by chance" on this planet, a continual influx of energy is what enabled a continual increase in complexity (in a process which BTW IMO was MUCH faster than proposed in most evolutionary scenarios (albeit still completely natural)). Just as human innovations emerge essentially by accident, it was the same with innovations of nature.
But somehow, both type of innovations were exploiting an eternal and infinite repository of information that is extant in God. What I mean is, those designs that were more viable were a direct reflection of eternal principles, if you catch my meaning. I take the existence of God as a given and do not feel obliged to try to prove his existence to anyone. But one other thing on the subject of God - For reasons I can't precisely articulate at the moment, I know it was the intention of God to essentially let things unfold as they will in this thing we call the universe. That's why I think its seriously wrong to think of God sitting around and specifically "designing" things like cockroaches or box jelly fish, or the innumerable things with poision and fangs and so forth. These were the designs, quite literally, of the physical universe. And note that its been this way since the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were cast out of some special idyllic oasis of some sort into a world that was already overrun with predators of every shape and kind imaginable. Such things were the direct creation of natural processes, not God (IMO).
quote:
First off, I think there's a lot more knowledge applied in human inventions than you are willing to give credit for. Inventions that are just "thrown together" from a bunch of parts that "work" will more than likely result in a mess
OK, but what is knowledge? I would say its an internal represenation of the world in a person's brain, reflecting what he has seen, heard, or otherwise sensed or experienced in the past. Its all mechanism. The larger a storage device and the more finely grained it is, the more comprehensive and detailed and the higher the resolution your picture of the world is. Obvious, right? Maybe it takes a software engineer or programmer to understand what a mechanical process design can be. When it comes to things like art, a lot of it is just mimicry of nature, and then in advanced societies, just scribbling.
quote:
Secondly, I'm not sure natural selection is all it's cracked up to be. I've never heard a better, more realistic critique of natural selection than that made by Leo Berg in his book Nomogenesis (which I am attempting to read - thanks Dr. Davison!). He said basically that natural selection actually works against chance innovation - since natural selection cannot select for potential. He argues that a world without selection would be more beneficial for chance innovation - since all potential innovations would survive. As it is, only that which keeps the status quo tends to survive. All else is eliminated. And, he also points out that, the only reason artificial selection works is because it shields organisms from natural selection!
To me natural selection is just a label. I'm not naive enough to say RMNS is all there is. But just as man's accomplishments are the result of a natural mechanism, so is man himself. Sorry I went off on a few tangents, but its late. I read your nanotechnology thread. Haven't come up with anything to say yet.
[ 13. May 2007, 04:29: Message edited by: Ebb_Dimskill ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 13. May 2007 12:12
Miosim,
Quote: However, I think I understand you (correct me if I am wrong) that from IDT point of view a computer simulations (designed by human) is similar to a living system designed by external “agent”. Than I would agree with the logic.
No. What I am saying is that 1) the behavior or the computer and the behavior of the evolving biological system are logically analogous, 2) both can be fit to scientific teleological theories (and no other types of predictive scientific theories, 3) both sets of teleological theories are sufficiently reliable to solve practical problems.
From the perspective of real or hard science, the existence or non-existence of an identifiable intelligent agent is relevant. The only issue is the type of predictive theories involved in explaining the phenomena.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 13. May 2007 14:28
Daniel Smith
quote:
…molecular nanotechnology offers us the unique opportunity to compare man's solutions with those of biological systems for common problems…
Regarding what molecular nanotechnology offers us, I rather agree with these lines from Wickipedia/Nanotechnology: “… Some view nanotechnology, as a marketing term that describes pre-existing lines of research applied to the sub-micron size scale …”.
Nanotechnology having own problems and controversy (see http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html ). It could be speculation not about technology only, but about underlying science also. Nanotechnology is inspired by Molecular biology and is expecting utilizing its knowledge base. However Molecular biology itself having problem to fully comprehend its intracellular machinery (in my opinion just scratched a surface of its complexity) and even the basic mechanism of protein folding is not fully understood.
Therefore, at this point we can only compare known biological systems with “pre-existing lines of research applied to the sub-micron size scale”.
Should we add Nanotechnology to this discussion or return to “Intelligent causation” of biological systems?
P.S. My editor-in-chief (14 old daughters) found the systemic error in my previous posting. While using word “Intelligence” I referred to parenthesis instead of quotation marks “ ”. Sorry for a confusion.
[ 13. May 2007, 14:32: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. May 2007 14:36
Life Engineer
I humbly request a definition of "real" or "hard" science as opposed to some other kind of science which I assume must be "soft" or "unreal" science. I regard that terminology as infantile, unrealistic and ridiculously evasive. It contributes absolutely nothing to the purposes of this forum. It also makes you look arrogant, pompous and judgmental.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable"
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 13. May 2007 14:42
LifeEngineer
quote:
No. What I am saying is that 1) the behavior or the computer and the behavior of the evolving biological system are logically analogous. 2) both can be fit to scientific teleological theories (and no other types of predictive scientific theories, 3) both sets of teleological theories are sufficiently reliable to solve practical problems.
Thank you for clarification of 1). Now I am wondering about meaning of 2) and 3). Is it because I am not familiar with scientific teleological theories? Can you provide me with a link to good source of information?
Thank you.
P.S. I just realized that you answered already this question in your posting from May 12. Sorry for not paying attention.
[ 13. May 2007, 23:12: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 13. May 2007 16:35
miosim:
quote:
Nanotechnology having own problems and controversy (see http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html )...
Therefore, at this point we can only compare known biological systems with “pre-existing lines of research applied to the sub-micron size scale”.
Should we add Nanotechnology to this discussion or return to “Intelligent causation” of biological systems?
Thanks for the link. After reading the exchange between Rick Smalley and Eric Drexler, I feel that their debate illustrates precisely the difficulties of making working molecular machines.
Statements such as this one by Prof. Smalley illuminate the incredible elegance of the technology utilized within biological machinery and the great difficulties man (the most intelligent creature we know of) will have in mimicking that technology:
quote:
Chemistry of the complexity, richness, and precision needed to come anywhere close to making a molecular assembler--let alone a self-replicating assembler--cannot be done simply by mushing two molecular objects together. You need more control. There are too many atoms involved to handle in such a clumsy way. To control these atoms you need some sort of molecular chaperone that can also serve as a catalyst. You need a fairly large group of other atoms arranged in a complex, articulated, three-dimensional way to activate the substrate and bring in the reactant, and massage the two until they react in just the desired way. You need something very much like an enzyme.
This is a direct comparison between human and biological design - and illustrates very well my point that biological design requires a mind of immense capabilities. The requirements for working molecular machinery are too precise and too advanced for even the collective human intelligence on this planet to overcome.
I don't think most of us even begin to realize the sheer brilliance involved in the designs of molecular biological systems. We are talking about molecular machines that regulate their own environment; we are talking about molecules that capture ions of copper and iron in order to create electrical circuits; molecules that are capable of pulling energy from oxygen atoms and releasing a byproduct called "water"; we are talking about molecules that actually contain data, machines that read that data and pass it on to other machines that translate that data, correct it for errors then pass it on to another machine which will convert it into another molecular medium, manufacture precise molecular machines from that medium, after which said machines fold themselves into working three dimensional shapes for the purpose of doing more work. All of this with the aid of another type of molecular machine that can "massage" these molecules in order to produce exactly the right chemical reaction at exactly the right time for exactly the right purpose. Such technology is far and away out of the reach of intelligent humans, yet (arrogant creatures that we are) we are perfectly willing to ascribe such creations to chance and accidental bumpings in the night.
Ludicrous.
Designs such as this require levels of knowledge far beyond anything we can even imagine; knowledge of chemistry, physics, engineering and many other fields. You CAN'T get this stuff by accident or by any other means but intelligent design. It's impossible!
IP: Logged
|
|
Ebb_Dimskill
Member
Member # 5197
|
posted 13. May 2007 17:28
quote:
(Daniel Smith)
This is a direct comparison between human and biological design - and illustrates very well my point that biological design requires a mind of immense capabilities. The requirements for working molecular machinery are too precise and too advanced for even the collective human intelligence on this planet to overcome.
I say a mind is a physical thing, its the only type of minds we have experience with. To be talking about God's "mind" is to reduce God, if you intend that term to be taken literally. Talking about God's "mind" is no different than scripture talking about God's "hands". If we are to find an analogue for either of them, it has to be in the physical universe. Why couldn't the universe be the "mind" (or "hands") of God? It certainly has the "immense" qualification you demand. What is the only mind we know of, the brain - a complex physical system. It seems the physical universe is as well.
quote:
I don't think most of us even begin to realize the sheer brilliance involved in the designs of molecular biological systems. We are talking about molecular machines that regulate their own environment; we are talking about molecules that capture ions of copper and iron in order to create electrical circuits; molecules that are capable of pulling energy from oxygen atoms and releasing a byproduct called "water"; we are talking about molecules that actually contain data, machines that read that data and pass it on to other machines that translate that data, correct it for errors then pass it on to another machine which will convert it into another molecular medium, manufacture precise molecular machines from that medium, after which said machines fold themselves into working three dimensional shapes for the purpose of doing more work. All of this with the aid of another type of molecular machine that can "massage" these molecules in order to produce exactly the right chemical reaction at exactly the right time for exactly the right purpose. Such technology is far and away out of the reach of intelligent humans, yet (arrogant creatures that we are) we are perfectly willing to ascribe such creations to chance and accidental bumpings in the night.
You say that the biological world is far too complex for even the collective intelligence of mankind to achieve. Its evidently not beyond our ability to understand, given your detailed characterization of it. If we can understand it whats to keep us from building it? I'm not sure what your point is anyway - that the biological world is beyond the capability of a physical mind (e.g. that of man) to achieve? How have you established that? Someone could look at the state of society several millenia in the past and say it was impossible for them to fly to the moon. Maybe then it was impossible.
I think we should accept the existence of God as a given, and then seek to establish how everything happened - thats all that matters for the purposes of science.
And for those who would claim I am "reifying" the universe, it is the Bible itself that continually anthropomorphizes it:
(Rom 8:19-22) For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
(Psa 110:3) Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You the dew.
(Job 38:7) When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
(Psa 69:34) Let heaven and earth praise Him, The seas and everything that moves in them.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. May 2007 18:34
Daniel Smith
You are abssoluitely correct but it is hopeless to attempt to convince "prescribed. "born that way" atheist ideologues that Intelligent Design was ever involved in the history of life. They are incapable of such a conclusion because they are genetically impaired. They are, like Ernst Mayr, who described himself as a -
"dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist like myself."
"The Growth of Biological Thought, page 132.
So we can add "dyed-in-the-wool" to "prescribed" and "born that way."
Sooner or later the wisdom of Einstein will finally sink in.
"Our actions shoud be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
my quite unecessary emphasis.
Until that realization takes place, and that may very will be quite impossible, internet exchanges such as this one will go on ad infinitum and, what has become to this investigator, ad nauseum. They accomplish absolutely nothing except to verify that we are nothing but victims of our "prescribed," "born that way," "dyed -in-the-wool" irreversible destinies. The most bitter pill for us all to swallow is contained in Einsteins's lifelong determinism -
"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
That position is one with which I completely concur.
Four hundred years ago another genius said much the same thing -
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor
player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the
stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
William Shakespeare
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 14. May 2007 00:21
If I would belief in God and accept it the way Bible teach it, I would stop doing anything, but practicing religion. I would preach that God created not only us – human, but the whole universe in their astonishing complexity and we are only the “dust” of the God’s creation, but in our arrogance we place ourselves next to God, as his most important creation. We even think that God gave us a brain and curiosity to inquire knowledge and understanding. Instead this arrogance is coming from the evil fruit of “knowledge”. God do not want us inquiry knowledge, He do not want us to know more than he willing to tell us. He punished Adam and Eve just for that, He warned us by burning at the stake Giordano Bruno, He sent us the message using the “most knowledgeable philosophy of science experts” to stop god-like knowledge. So why we continuer resisting his will? Stop, guessing, speculating, inquiring the advance degrees in Arrogance (Sciences). Instead go back to God and try to establish a non-interrupting relationship with Him. Beg Him to lift you from a dust and give you a chance to avoid miserable eternity. Everything else in this life is not important and will be perished in the microsecond of the universe time-scale.
Are we ready to continuer inquiring the “The Intelligence causation”?
[ 14. May 2007, 07:29: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 14. May 2007 09:23
Quote: This is a direct comparison between human and biological design - and illustrates very well my point that biological design requires a mind of immense capabilities. The requirements for working molecular machinery are too precise and too advanced for even the collective human intelligence on this planet to overcome.
Daniel is correct in pointing out that the complexity of biological design is beyond the ability of human intelligence to completely understand. But the point or concept of ‘complexity beyond human understanding and complexity beyond human capacity to know and understand’ is a feature of all aspects of the real world. The relevant issue here is not the level of complexity, but rather how does human science address complexity beyond our human ability for complete understanding.
The answer, the correct answer, is that science and scientific theories deal with “our best current knowledge” and “a process of successive approximation based on refinements developed from falsify and replace testing”. Both Daniel’s “It so complex it must be God” and aiguy’s “Its so complex we can’t define it” arguments are incompatible with the real science or hard science concept of “Theories and definitions logically compatible with actual existing human knowledge” argument.
The reality is that while we can currently demonstrate scientifically and simulate behaviors involving intelligent causation, we can never successfully track back to the original source of intelligent causation. It might also be noted that neither can we track back to the original source of gravity or electrical attraction. Human knowledge is inherently limited and science, real science, recognizes such limitations.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 14. May 2007 10:11
SCIENTIFIC TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES
If you can for a minute ignore the dogma of academic science, most people can recognize informal human expressions of scientific teleological theories. Examples of might include 1) A bird has wings in order to achieve the goal of flying, 2) I built an airplane to achieve my goal of flying. 3) I want to solve this scientific problem. It is, in fact, difficult to discuss or describe almost any topic without introducing informal versions of teleological theories.
It is also quite easy, if understand the mathematical form of predictive theories- “Under ideal conditions, the result or effect or value of the effect variable E is predicted by the algorithm F(C) =E” – to understand that the mathematical form of scientific teleological theories are formed simply by including a goal variable G as part of the causal variables C.
Most people, however, will have a much more difficult time visualizing how formal scientific teleological theories fit all the formal requirements of the scientific paradigm. Most people should be able to visualize the ‘Under ideal conditions or within defined constraints, a goal or goal variable predicts the outcome” part of a teleological theory.
The part of teleological theories that, I suspect, most people will have a difficult time dealing with are the ‘not ideal conditions’ or ‘outside the defined constraints’ conditions where the teleological theory does not produce valid predictions. Although the perception may not be accurate, most people tend to believe that for most predictive scientific theories the ‘not ideal conditions’ criteria is seldom evoked. Many people believe that theories in physics only fail to produce valid predictions when the scientists makes measurement errors or when some outside factor artificially interferes with a law of nature. Most people would recognize that it is not a fault of the predictive theory if the predicted flight of a cannon ball was interrupted when it intercepted by another cannon ball.
With teleological theories, there are a lot more ‘non-ideal conditions’ where the theories do not produce valid predictions. While a teleological theory addressing the behavior of a thermostat might produce valid predictions when the thermostat is working properly, it will probably not produce valid predictions when the electricity is off or the furnace is malfunctioning. While the average reader may be able to understand that the ‘non-ideal conditions’ part of a predictive theory may apply when the electricity is off, they may have more difficulty in visualizing that the ‘non-ideal conditions’ criteria applies on Mars where the household thermostat may not exist or on earth in the time period before the thermostat was invented.
The reader is also likely to have trouble visualizing that a teleological theory might predict that at some time in the future the household thermostat might be perform better at some goal oriented task than the household thermostat of today.
The point here is that the behaviors addressed by teleological ‘laws’ or theories are generally more complex than the behaviors addressed by simple deterministic or stochastic laws or theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 14. May 2007 18:12
quote:
The point here is that the behaviors addressed by teleological ‘laws’ or theories are generally more complex ...
And there exist many more of them (virtually in every hamlet and village in the world! Which Agency, Club, group, etc. is authorized to choose which is the more plausible and worthy of developing verification tests?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
