|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 20. May 2007 23:22
quote:
moisim: Regarding Judeo-Christian interpretation of the spirituality, I have to admit I was disappointed after reading (actually listening to more than 90 CDs, while commuting to work)a Bible. I found there some troubled me unconsistency, especially in its moral values.
In which case, may I recommend evilbible.com, in which the discrepancies are laid out in full. There is also a lively discussion forum, where evasion, equivocation, and misrepresentation are not tolerated, as is the case here. Do make yourself known to me, if you join using a different nom-de-plume.
[ 20. May 2007, 23:29: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 20. May 2007 23:46
quote:
Miosim: Therefore, if one day the essential role of "noncoding DNA" will be conformed it wouldn’t be even evidence in favor to IDT, but just another solved puzzle of molecular biology.
Daniel Smith: This is a good example of the unscientific nature of many "theories" (especially Neo-Darwinism). They make no predictions and therefore cannot be falsified. If "junk" DNA can be either non-essential or essential without falsifying the theory, it's not really a theory is it? It's not even a verifiable hypothesis. What you have is a "Catch All" that consists of any and all evidence and which essentially explains nothing.
ID predicts that all DNA will be found to be essential.
I would agree with you that if “all DNA will be found to be essential” it would be a good evidence in favor to IDT. Even stronger evidence would be to demonstrate that all biological mechanisms are essential - “Designer” must be PERFECT to distinguish “Him” from imperfect results of natural evolution.
But, do you know how long we have to wait for all biological phenomena to be explained, before concluding that IDT is correct? Therefore, could you suggest other method to prove IDT, so result to be expected at least within life of this generation?
quote:
miosim: This example reminds me the complex systems development that is studied by nonlinear thermodynamics. This discipline considers the two outcomes of the system evolution: if the system is not far from equilibrium, it develops toward equilibrium (as non-living matter does), but if a system is far enough from equilibrium and pass the critical point, a small change can push the system into chaotic behavior (Edge of Chaos) and move it even further from an equilibrium and eventually causes the various types of the self-organization processes. Significant accomplishments have been made to extend the self-organization processes of the non-equilibrium system into the realm of living organisms.
Daniel Smith: I think you need to have a "reality check" miosim. Living systems tend towards equilibrium - not evolution (else why the plethora of extinctions?).
From THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, (by Allan H. Harvey, an evangelical Christian, http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html)
“…"The 2nd law says everything tends toward increasing entropy (randomness and disorder). BUT THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE INVOLVES THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREAT COMPLEXITY AND ORDER (opposite to equilibrium Miosim)...”
In this paragraph I am talking about self-organization processes that was developing in direction out from equilibrium and caused emergence of the simplest living organisms. The process of evolution, as I see it, is still continuer, on the level of biosphere and driving factor is a Human civilization that increasingly generates “order” causing decrease in overall Entropy production (see “Reducing Entropy Production Distinguishes Intelligent Design”, by David L. Hagen thread, of this forum.
quote:
There is also no evidence of any tendency towards self-organization of non-living matter into living matter.
Indeed, there is no evidence of self-organization of non-living matter into living matter, but I have a hope for Dissipative systems that could be extended into the realm of living organisms. I may return to this another time.
quote:
This is easily explained by the "Christian God" hypothesis via the fall of man and the curse.
The story about “fall of man and the curse” don’t make much sense to me. Next time, could you help me to understand it?
quote:
The biblical creationist would predict that all organisms are bound to death as a result of the curse.
Another word, Bible, written at the time when “all organisms was bound to death”, predicted that “all organisms will be bound to death” – I am having problem to follow logic of this prediction.
quote:
In this sense, biblical creationism is more scientific than the "theory" of evolution - which makes no predictions on the matter (although it should).
I thought that the main point of theory of evolution is not prediction of the future, but explanation of the past – that Life on our planet had been evolved gradually over millions of years and the evidences in favor to this theory, are very impressive. However explanations of evolution mechanisms are less than satisfactory, because it fully relied on other biological sciences that are fundamentally incomplete.
quote:
Think about it: All of the mechanisms are present in living organisms for them to continue living forever. All cells have the ability to self-replicate, all of life's systems are capable of self repair and error correction and could conceivably go on forever. Yet they do not. It's like there's a switch that turns itself off and causes organisms to quit repairing themselves. Evolutionary theories would certainly predict (if they made predictions) that this "switch" should have - at some point in the trillions upon trillions of organisms that have existed - been defective at least once and not turned off the self repairing mechanisms. And surely if this switch quit working and an organism did not age, such a feature would be a reproductive advantage would it not? So surely it would have been selected.
You described a very mechanistic model of living organism in which all processes are programmed by genes. Unfortunately two many scientists support a similar mechanistic model by looking for specific genes that turn ON and OFF specific function including aging process. This model just illustrates how primitive is our understanding about organism.
[ 21. May 2007, 08:00: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 21. May 2007 07:56
David L. Hagen
quote:
Miosim: In general, the most basic properties of single cell organisms can be reduced to the properties of its components. For instance, cell's ability to self-reproduction is based on autoreplicative property of DNA molecules.
David L. Hagen: Please clarify. DNA is not autoreplicative. Cell replication including DNA replication requires the DNA/RNA replication system, energy processing and material processing, each of which require DNA etc.
This is my mistake. I should say "....cell's ability for self-reproduction is based on (or could be reduced to) the mechanism of DNA molecules replication".
Thank you for correction.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 22. May 2007 12:58
Daniel and Miosim,
TESTABILITY
Quote: Daniel Smith: This is a good example of the unscientific nature of many "theories" (especially Neo-Darwinism). They make no predictions and therefore cannot be falsified. If "junk" DNA can be either non-essential or essential without falsifying the theory,
You both recognize and accept the importance of scientific testability, but you have each presented theories that don’t completely satisfy formal testing requirements and that are easily falsified and replaced by more mundane, but more scientifically rigorous teleological theories. Formal falsify and replace analysis of your theories should be useful in helping understand some of the technical issues involved.
Daniel’s theory, in simplified terms, asserts that some body of knowledge was inserted or created at the time of the origin of life, and this body of knowledge is transmitted from one living organisms to another, and this transported body of knowledge is responsible for all ‘true’ examples of intelligent causation. Using mathematical scientific notation this theory might be expressed as “Under ideal conditions, F(EK)=TIB” where EK =essential knowledge and TIB =true intelligent behavior. Please correct me if I am misrepresenting any particular feature of your theory.
Testing if this theory might involve identifying and evaluating and testing the mechanisms involved in transmitting EK. Is, for example, EK a single element or does it have many different components? Is it possible to disrupt parts of EK and thus limit the range of TIB that can be produced? Is it possible to add to EK? Can EK be transmitted outside a living system (to a computer for example)? If EK is a single body of knowledge, then what explains that trees or animals like mice aren’t capable of the same type of complex mathematical analysis as humans?
It will be noted that as each independent researcher begins to evaluate Daniel’s theory from a new perspective, he creates the need for more refined and specific definitions of EK and TIB. In order to remain testable, it must always be possible to produce the required refinements.
It should also be noted that, as anyone familiar with the history of science should know, variations of Daniel’s stored knowledge theory have previously been presented and evaluated. Genetic determinism theories provide well known examples of stored knowledge theories. It is apparently not as widely known as it should be that stored knowledge theories are always trivial and easily falsified. This is true of genetic determinism theories as well as Daniel’s theory. This is also true of relatively simple deterministic theories or models of intelligent processes.
The principled involved is fairly straight forward. If I assert or predict or formulate a theory that asserts that some form of intelligent goal directed behavior X is caused by some fixed set of factors (knowledge or processing algorithms) Y, such that F(Y)=X, then it will always be possible, and generally quite easy to find some X not included in Y such that F(Y,Z)=X provides a better fit to observed data at least under some conditions.
In more common or everyday language, this formal scientific concept can be expressed as “the more we know about something the more we learn we don’t know”. In a more philosophical context, the above concept is simply an expression of fact that human knowledge has limitations. Anytime scientists attempt to formulate predictive theories based on or requiring complete or absolute knowledge, their attempts will fail. Any successful scientific theory must recognize and account for the limitations in human knowledge.
But in real science or hard science, it is not sufficient to simply falsify one theory. Hard science requires that the scientists testing and rejecting one predictive theory, replace it with a non-trivial testable alternative. The alternative or alternatives to Daniel’s rather grandiose stored knowledge theory are a large set of rather mundane teleological theories. Each such theory, rather than addressing all intelligent behaviors, addresses only a very limited specific form of intelligent behavior. Such a theory, in its elementary or initial form simply asserts that “Under ideal conditions (or within defined constraints), the intelligent behavior or output produced is predicted by a goal or goal variable.” With knowledge acquired from observing the intelligent behavior and from formal testing, such a theory can be gradually refined to incorporate additional detail on what defined or ideal conditions do or do not produce goal compatible responses. As the theory is refined by study and formal testing, the teleological theory can be refined to account for specific knowledge and inputs that control or influence the intelligent goal-directed behavior under specific sets of conditions.
I will address miosim’s theory tomorrow.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. May 2007 09:46
Daniel and Miosim,
TESTABILITY
Quote miosim: I propose that “Intelligence” is the fundamental property of MATTER that is not observable in non-living, equilibrium systems
As far as I am aware, there are two major forms or versions of the ‘intelligence as a property of matter’ theories. The first is aiguy’s “intelligence is exclusively a property of the human mind” type theories. The second and somewhat more interesting version is misoim’s “intelligence is exclusively a property of living matter” type theories.
Personally, I find the “intelligence as human” theories as silly and illogical. I don’t see how, without rigorous evidence, you can argue that human designed airplanes are a product of design by intelligence but the vastly more sophisticated bird is not the result of design by intelligence. The illogic of the “intelligence as human” theories probably explains why people like aiguy rely entirely on political manipulation to support their non-scientific beliefs.
But at least as a concept, miosim’s intelligence as a property of living matter appears to make intuitive sense. If you exclude manmade phenomenon, there would not appear to be any evidence for any significant or substantial forms of intelligent behavior outside living systems. The validity of miosim’s theory depends on two factors. First, if, as the evidence suggests, intelligence can be transmitted from one living system to another, is it possible for intelligence to also be transmitted to non-living systems like computers and thermostats.
The basic type of prediction produced by miosim’s theory is that there is some demonstrable form of intelligent causation associated with living matter that does not exist and can not be created outside a living system. What miosim and many other supporters of this type of theory fail to recognize is that from a formal scientific perspective this type of theory MUST LOGICALLY always fail.
In order to perform a formal scientific test of the presence or absence of a specific form of intelligent causation, you must first clearly or precisely define the behavior being tested. But once you have a precise logical definition of the behavior, you automatically have the basis for reproducing the behavior outside a living system. The scientific test of miosim’s theory must logically always fail.
I suspect a lot of people have a difficult time with this concept. From a broader cosmic or all knowing perspective, miosim’s theory may be valid. But within the constraints of human scientific knowledge, the theory MUST fail. Contrary to common misconceptions, human scientific knowledge is not the same thing as god-like knowledge.
But as discussed yesterday, it is not sufficient in hard science to simply falsify one theory or type of theory. Real science requires that a falsified theory be replaced with some alternative.
Just to briefly review, miosim’s theory attempts to explain intelligent causation in terms of some unknown internal property or process. It is not logically possible to scientifically explain intelligent causation using this approach. Daniel’s theory attempted to explain intelligent causation in terms of imported knowledge. Again, scientific theories of that general type don’t work.
The fundamental problem with analyzing intelligent causation is the changeable or dynamic properties of intelligent causation. For any currently observable form of intelligent causation that ‘produces goal-directed behavior or solutions to a problem’, at some time in the past (and probably at some time in the future) the intelligent causation did not and will not produce goal-directed solutions or behavior. Furthermore, it is possible and even likely that at some point in the future (or the past) the intelligent causation being analyzed will produce better solutions or behavior more likely to achieve goals than the current system.
A lot of people believe or continue to believe that complex intelligent causation can be scientifically explained by a better understanding of the internal processing associated with intelligent causation or by a better understanding of the knowledge or information inputted into intelligent living systems. A lot of people continue to believe in this “if we had a much better understanding of …” approach to the scientific analysis of intelligent causation. They continue to believe in this approach despite pretty overwhelming evidence that it won’t and probably can’t work.
I am suggesting that the solution to the ‘scientific analysis of intelligent causation’ problem lies not in a better understanding of the systems involved in intelligent behavior, but rather in a much better understanding of the requirements of the scientific process. Most people believe that “If we have sufficient knowledge of intelligent causation, then we should be able to formulate a relevant predictive theory”. The alternative, an more correct formulation of this concept is “If we formulate and test predictive theories relating to intelligent causation, then we can increase our scientific understanding of intelligent causation”. The correct relationship in scientific analysis is ‘theory first then understanding”.
Teleological theories of intelligent causation start by recognizing that the goal of analysis is to understand and simulate ‘how systems produce goal-directed behaviors and solutions”. Teleological theories thus start with the assertion that ‘under ideal conditions intelligent systems produce goal directed behavior and solutions to problems.” Statements such as this, while they represent only a trivial expression of scientific understanding, do fit the formal requirements for a non-trivial testable predictive theory”. More detailed and useful scientific knowledge is acquired by testing and refining these basic teleological theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 23. May 2007 17:32
LE: quote:
Teleological theories of intelligent causation start by recognizing that the goal of analysis is to understand and simulate ‘how systems produce goal-directed behaviors and solutions”. Teleological theories thus start with the assertion that ‘under ideal conditions intelligent systems produce goal directed behavior and solutions to problems.” Statements such as this, while they represent only a trivial expression of scientific understanding, do fit the formal requirements for a non-trivial testable predictive theory”. More detailed and useful scientific knowledge is acquired by testing and refining these basic teleological theories.
What entities recognize this definition of teleology and go about their work implementing it?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. May 2007 19:28
Quote: What entities recognize this definition of teleology and go about their work implementing it?
As far as I have been able to determine, all successful designers and successful analysts and successful scientists use some version of this approach. How else do you go about solving complex problems?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 23. May 2007 20:21
LE: quote:
As far as I have been able to determine, all successful designers and successful analysts and successful scientists use some version of this approach. How else do you go about solving complex problems?
Trial and error? One step at a time? I always thought that teleology had to do with natural not human goals! Unless you go all the way down to the electro-chemical processes of human beings like Hofstadter explains in "Goedel, Escher, Bach" then I can see the analogy. Is that what you are explaining?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 23. May 2007 20:48
LifeEngineer
quote:
The basic type of prediction produced by miosim’s theory is that there is some demonstrable form of intelligent causation associated with living matter that does not exist and can not be created outside a living system…
It could be some misunderstanding here. In my proposal “Intelligence” does exist outside a living system also. I may even argue, that per my definition of “Intelligence” non-living system are more “Intelligent”, having 100% score in their respective tasks, but living systems cannot achieve this score.
quote:
What miosim and many other supporters of this type of theory fail to recognize is that from a formal scientific perspective this type of theory MUST LOGICALLY always fail.
In order to perform a formal scientific test of the presence or absence of a specific form of intelligent causation, you must first clearly or precisely define the behavior being tested. But once you have a precise logical definition of the behavior, you automatically have the basis for reproducing the behavior outside a living system. The scientific test of miosim’s theory must logically always fail.
Again, I think this conclusion is based on misunderstanding (as I explained above), because I do “…reproducing the behavior outside a living system”.
Regarding falsifiability, it is possible only if there are limited and mutually conflicting solutions, so by demonstrating correctness of one we falsify rest of them. However in practical sciences, there number of different solutions that often overlaps each other. In this particular case, my proposal does not contradict directly with IDT: IDT may claim that matter and its “Intelligence” is due to some sort of “Designer”.
Therefore I agree with Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont that have criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are accepted because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories.
Regarding prediction and testability of proposed hypothesis, I should be ready in the next week or two.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. May 2007 08:23
Miosim,
Quote: It could be some misunderstanding here. In my proposal “Intelligence” does exist outside a living system also. I may even argue, that per my definition of “Intelligence” non-living system are more “Intelligent”, having 100% score in their respective tasks, but living systems cannot achieve this score.
You seem to be missing the point or points here. First, no matter how general or grandiose your theory, formal testing of a theory always comes down to how a theory functions and how it fits the data in relatively simple, isolated, easy to study situations.
Second, theories that attempt to define intelligent causation in terms of “imported knowledge” or “internal processing logic” always fail. Either they fail because 1) they fail to produce definitions of the processing logic or imported knowledge associated with test situations, or because 2) the theory is trivial (only holds in a trivial set of conditions) and does not meet scientific standards for testability.
The fundamental problem with the scientific analysis of intelligent causation is that it “the causal relationships involved have has the appearance of being dynamic” and scientific testability requires that “the causal relationships expressed in scientific theories must have a permanent and universal form”. Lots of people in lots of fields have studied this problem in excruciating detail and with all sorts of levels of sophistication without finding a solution. Most people who have seriously studied this problem start out with the belief or assumption that if you have sufficient knowledge of intelligent processing and the processes responsible for changing intelligent processing, then you will eventually be able to formulate a predictive theory. Most people who seriously study the problem end up concluding that the more you know the less likely it seems that knowledge of intelligent processing will produce a true predictive theory.
If you are abandoning the ‘intelligence is property of living matter’ concept, then I am not sure what remains of your theory. I am simply pointing out that lots of people have pursued approaches that are logically similar to your and the approaches have proved unworkable.
The solution to the apparent conflict between dynamic intelligent causation and permanent and universal scientific causation arises not from a better understanding of the physical mechanisms involved in intelligent processing. Rather, the solution arises (appears to arise) from an improved understanding of the human behavior of scientific analysis and the role testable theories play in that behavior. The scientific process does not involve or require theories that explain how and why things happen. The scientific paradigm simply requires theories that 1) are logically compatible with current knowledge, 2) produce testable predictions, and 3) can be improved or refined as a result of testing. Teleological theories have been around forever, although not always recognized as such, satisfy the testability requirements of the scientific paradigm, and provide a resolution to the apparent contradiction between dynamic causation and the scientific requirement for permanent and universal causal relationships.
Quote: Therefore I agree with Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont that have criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are accepted because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories.
In many ways this is the central problem in the scientific analysis of intelligent causation. Given the apparent difficulty/impossibility of producing ‘one failure falsify’ testable predictive theories, lots of academics have abandoned the real science or hard science paradigm in favor of the ‘we will evaluate theories based on our subjective opinions’ soft science approach. A lot of people can make this approach sound like real science, but in reality it is no different than the old non-scientific human behavior of letting “the high priests in the temple determine what is and what is not truth”. It is rather amazing how rapidly ‘sciences’ become seriously corrupted when the formal ‘one failure falsifies’ testing is abandoned. If you are willing to use and accept the results of one failure falsifies testing, it is not terribly difficult to demonstrate the massive distortions produced by soft science procedures.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. May 2007 08:52
IF,
Quote: Trial and error? One step at a time? I always thought that teleology had to do with natural not human goals! Unless you go all the way down to the electro-chemical processes of human beings like Hofstadter explains in "Goedel, Escher, Bach" then I can see the analogy. Is that what you are explaining?
One of the many misconceptions about science is the nature of scientific variables. Scientific variables are abstractions precisely defined by and communicated among scientists reflecting real world properties. Science and scientific teleology deal with goals or goal variables defined by human scientists. Whether goals or temperatures or pressures are ‘natural’ or ‘created by humans’ is not scientifically relevant.
You question suggests you don’t actually understand 1)the processes used by successful scientists and designers, 2) the scientific process or 3) teleological theories. I am suggesting or proposing that successful scientists and designers all use a highly efficient search process that can be described or modeled as involving formulating, testing, and refining hard science teleological theories. I believe this position is compatible with the available evidence.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 24. May 2007 14:02
miosim:
quote:
But, do you know how long we have to wait for all biological phenomena to be explained, before concluding that IDT is correct? Therefore, could you suggest other method to prove IDT, so result to be expected at least within life of this generation?
It's not necessary to explain everything in order to evaluate ID. All that is necessary is a side by side comparison of all viable hypotheses.
quote:
“…"The 2nd law says everything tends toward increasing entropy (randomness and disorder). BUT THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE INVOLVES THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREAT COMPLEXITY AND ORDER (opposite to equilibrium Miosim)...”
You are putting the cart before the horse here. The question of how biological complexity arose cannot be answered if it assumed a priori that it evolved. The question is: "Can biological complexity arise through undirected evolution (random mutation and natural selection)?". There is no evidence that it can. If life's complexities arose through evolution - it was definitely directed or prescribed evolution of the kind set forth by Chambers, Berg, Davison, Denton and many others.
quote:
The story about “fall of man and the curse” don’t make much sense to me. Next time, could you help me to understand it?
In a nutshell, the basic Christian doctrine is that when man sinned, God cursed both him and the earth - which brought forth death and disease. This answers the question of how a perfect God could create imperfect creations. It also sets forth what amounts to a biological law: Every living organism will die.
quote:
Another word, Bible, written at the time when “all organisms was bound to death”, predicted that “all organisms will be bound to death” – I am having problem to follow logic of this prediction.
It would seem a safe bet. But it's a prediction none the less. As I said before, all the mechanisms for an organism to live forever exist within the organism. There is no good explanation as to why those remarkable blind random mutations - which have supposedly crafted such ingenious systems as the human brain, flight of birds, sight, etc. - have not managed to come up with a loophole that would allow these mechanisms to keep on functioning. It would seem that a prediction of evolution theory would be that some day an organism will stop aging. In fact, with all these self-repairing, self-replicating, error correcting systems in place, it is amazing that no organisms have ever "evolved" a means to stop aging.
So the Bible says that everything will die - no matter what - but science is working feverishly on methods to stop the aging process. The Bible predicts they will never succeed. I guess we'll see.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 24. May 2007 18:05
LE: quote:
One of the many misconceptions about science is the nature of scientific variables. Scientific variables are abstractions precisely defined by and communicated among scientists reflecting real world properties. Science and scientific teleology deal with goals or goal variables defined by human scientists.
Could you please provide an example, book, link, etc, so that I can catch up with your understanding?
quote:
You question suggests you don’t actually understand 1)the processes used by successful scientists and designers, 2) the scientific process or 3) teleological theories.
1) & 2) I think I do have a general understanding but it probably isn't as clear as yours.
3) Here you are absolutely correct and that is why I need your help so that I can understand the logic of your arguments.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 25. May 2007 05:23
LifeEngineer quote:
If you are abandoning the ‘intelligence is property of living matter’ concept, then I am not sure what remains of your theory. I am simply pointing out that lots of people have pursued approaches that are logically similar to your and the approaches have proved unworkable.
I probably reach a limit to understand your points and communicate my. I think that if I will continuer, a gap of misunderstanding will be just widened.
In the same time, your posting made me think that Ebb_Dimskill is right that my conception of intelligence just isn't very useful because it defeats a common sense insisting that non-living matter is more “Intelligent” that Living organism. Therefore to address this concern I have to clarify definition of Intelligence (without quotation marks).
1. INTELLIGENCE or more precisely, COMBINED INTELLIGENCE could be defined as a SET of the DEMONSTRATED RELEVANT ABILITIES to solve PROBLEMS.
2. A PROBLEM is an obstacle to a desired goal or objective and includes, but not limited to, any purpose or goal-directed adaptive behavior and all processes occurring spontaneously in Nature viewed as computations following the basic laws of nature.
3. RELEVANT ABILITIES is an ability solving a specific class of PROBLEMS and could be objectively measured in the process of interacting with a these problems.
4. RELEVANT ABILITIES could be OBJECTIVELY measured and compared among systems, but to calculate system’s COMBINED INTELLIGENCE, a SUBJECTIVE weight factor assigned to each individual RELEVANT ABILITIES is needed.
So, on the bases of COMBINED INTELLIGENCE Bob who can speak Latin and has 5 PHDs, should have a higher combined score than Steve who is a High School dropout, but on the scale of RELEVANT ABILITIES as expert on Star Trek, Steve will be a winner.
For the same reason, living organisms should have a higher COMBINED INTELLIGENCE score than non-living systems, even on the scale of RELEVANT ABILITIES these systems could overperform living organisms.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. May 2007 07:52
IF,
Quote: Could you please provide an example, book, link, etc, so that I can catch up with your understanding?
I suppose if you want to get a basic understanding of variables and properties and quantification rules and functional relationships, you should start with a good basic course in set theory. A course in formal mathematical modeling concepts might also be useful. If you are looking for a more practical background, you might start by getting involved in creating computer programs to model and simulate complex behaviors. In any such application you should find yourself defining 100's of variables and quantification rules.
What is your concept or understanding of scientific variables and quantification rules? Where did you develop your understanding? Do you have personal hands on experience at defining variables and quantification rules? Have you taken courses in set theory? Mathematical modeling? Scientific methodologies?
You are raising the rather interesting question of "How do I learn to understand the abstract concepts and techniques involved in defining scientific variables?" I certainly don’t remember ever having a single course or seeing a single reference that addressed the topic. I remember (vaguely at this time) a number of courses that discussed set theoretic concepts and mathematical modeling and philosophy of science. I then worked for many years in jobs where precise definitions of variables were important.
I don’t believe there is anything particularly new or controversial about my assertion that scientists DEVELOP precise definitions of scientific variables. Variables don’t define themselves and a significant portion of the challenge and work associated with scientific analysis arises from defining variables and refining definitions to deal with novel situations. Scientific definitions are not developed by looking a term up in the dictionary and they are not developed simply by looking at a phenomena as it exists in the real world.
When trying to understand how scientists define variables, it is useful to note that it is well known that there are huge differences among people in their ability to design computer systems and in their ability to perform creative scientific analysis. Part of this difference, involves differences in the ability to define variables and differences in the ability to recognize problems and inadequacies in proposed definitions.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
