|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. May 2007 09:05
Miosim,
Quote: 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.
You are discussing the interesting and important subjects of 1)the efficiency of intelligence or problem solving efficiency and 2) the relative efficiencies of biological intelligence and artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, you appear to using non-scientific or soft science methods of resolving the issue. It might be useful to consider how these issues are addressed using teleological theories.
As will be recalled, it was agreed that at least initially, intelligent causation can be defined in terms of goal-directed results or problem solving. In order to scientifically analyze the efficiency of intelligence we start by analyzing a specific problem solving ability. For the time being, it does not really matter what problem solving ability we use, but it is generally easier to start with some simple type of problem.
From the beginning of our analysis, we can define a teleological theory that says “Under ideal conditions, an intelligent system will generate a solution to the problem being analyzed” Where the goal G is ‘finding a correct solution to the problem being analyzed”, and R is the ‘correct solution’, this teleological theory has the standard format “Under ideal conditions, F(G)=R”.
Within the framework of this simplistic, but useful teleological theory, we can start by defining binary efficiency values of 0 when solution not found and an efficiency value of 1 when a solution is found. Note that per standard scientific conventions, predictive theories only generate predictions ‘under ideal conditions’ or ‘within defined constraints’ which means ‘when efficiency is at its maximum’.
Having developed initial definitions of variables and an initial predictive theory, the next step in hard science is to make observations, fit observed results to our theory, test the theory and refine our predictive theory based on the results of testing.
One of the problems with testing teleological theories, is that in most instances the results are so ‘intuitively obvious’ to the average man on the street, that the average man on the street can’t recognize that testing is occurring or is relevant. Most scientists are probably aware that ‘intuitively obvious’ and ‘scientifically obvious’ are not the same thing.
One important conclusion from testing is that the ideal conditions (intelligence) required to solve any particular problem are absent in most time-location points in the universe. If you search the universe for places capable of solving the problem ‘2+3’ you will find very few instances of ‘ideal conditions’. You will also find, if you do this analysis for many different types of problems, that problem solving ability (intelligence) tends to be problem specific rather than general. (But that is another topic).
But back to efficiency and comparing biological intelligence (problem solving efficiency) to artificial or external intelligence. First, if you analyze any system with any problem solving ability/intelligence, you will find that the system is not completely efficient. It will always be possible to create situations where the system will fail to solve the problem.
Second, if you start with a biological system with a measurable or definable level of efficiency, it will always to possible to create a machine or artificial system with a higher degree of efficiency. [It is also always possible to create a machine with a lower degree of efficiency.] Note also that if you start with a specific biological system with a specific level of efficiency, it should always be possible to find or evolve or create a biological system with a higher level of efficiency.
The point here is that if we use teleological theories and hard science methodologies, we can learn a lot about how intelligence and problem solving efficiency actually work in the real world.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. May 2007 19:19
LE:
quote:
What is your concept or understanding of scientific variables and quantification rules?
College Calculus, Chemistry, Biology, but mostly I have been reading at least 1 non-fiction book (subjects =physics, history of ..., mathematics, psychology/psychiatry, evolution, etc.) a week starting in 1999 but the past six months only 1 book a month. quote:
Where did you develop your understanding?
Besides my personal catch-up style of reading, I have been an electronic technician since 1968. quote:
Do you have personal hands on experience at defining variables and quantification rules?
If certain aspects of troubleshooting large telecom networks or computer systems counts then yes, otherwise no. quote:
Have you taken courses in set theory?
Unfortunately, no but I've read several books that included them as chapter subjects. quote:
Mathematical modeling?
No, not directly. quote:
Scientific methodologies?
Not directly as explained above. quote:
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.
You are correct but don't they usually work as a starting point?
Now, where can I, at least, find one example of a current and good working teleological theory?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. May 2007 19:25
quote:
What is your concept or understanding of scientific variables and quantification rules?
Some College Calculus, Chemistry, Biology, but mostly I have been reading at least 1 non-fiction book (subjects =physics, history of ..., mathematics, psychology/psychiatry, evolution, etc.) a week starting in 1999 but the past six months only 1 book a month.
quote:
Where did you develop your understanding?
Besides my personal catch-up style of reading, I have been an electronic technician since 1968 and a computer enthsiast since 1979.
quote:
Do you have personal hands on experience at defining variables and quantification rules?
If certain aspects of troubleshooting large telecom networks or computer systems counts then yes, otherwise no.
quote:
Have you taken courses in set theory?
Unfortunately, no but I've read several books that included them as chapter subjects.
quote:
Mathematical modeling?
No, not directly unless developing database programs counts.
quote:
Scientific methodologies?
Not directly as explained above.
quote:
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.
You are correct but don't they usually work as a starting point?
Now, where do you recommend that I find at least one example of a current and good working scientific teleological theory?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 25. May 2007 21:56
Daniel Smith,
I think I can summaries our positions as follow: We both accept the evolution, however not as result of blind random mutations, but due to “purpose and goal-directed adaptive behavior” even we disagree where this driving force coming from. I agree with you also about attempts to stop the aging process will not succeed, but just for a different reason.
The major difference between us is that you believe in God and I am not. I am satisfied with understanding of your position and I realize that no arguments would change your standing, because genuine Religion shouldn’t be based on arguments, but on "direct experiencing" of God instead.
In the same time, believers often insist on Logical explanations of the Bible events. For example:
[QUOTE] 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. QUOTE]
So according to this doctrine the perfect God created the perfect man who eventually sinned, not because he was imperfect, but because God gave him a free will to choose and man misused it. If you are agree with this explanation, how do you explain that free will can cause imperfect behavior of perfect man?
[ 26. May 2007, 04:49: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. May 2007 22:36
miosim:
quote:
So according to this doctrine the perfect God created the perfect man who eventually sinned, not because he was imperfect, but because God gave him a free will to choose and man misused it. If you are agree with this explanation, can you explain how free will can cause imperfect behavior of perfect man?
No one is "perfect" but God alone (according to the Bible). Therefore, man was not created "perfect". He was however, given a choice: obey God and live forever, or sin and die. He (and all of us) have chosen the latter.
Miosim, you are right that this "religion" is not so much based on logic as it is experience. I have experienced the living God and can sense His handiwork in all that I see. From that perspective, this world seem eminently logical - to me. For someone who does not have that experience, my "logic" will probably seem foolish. So it's kind of a "Catch 22".
The Bible says that the "things of God" are "spiritually discerned", and that they are "foolishness" to the "carnal" (unspiritual) man. If you want to understand God, you must ask Him to reveal Himself to you. We can't understand Him with our physical mind. It's a spiritual thing.
I apologize to everyone for getting too preachy. I'll shut up now!
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. May 2007 22:42
LifeEngineer:
quote:
Second, if you start with a biological system with a measurable or definable level of efficiency, it will always to possible to create a machine or artificial system with a higher degree of efficiency...
Note also that if you start with a specific biological system with a specific level of efficiency, it should always be possible to find or evolve or create a biological system with a higher level of efficiency.
I don't believe either of these statements can be demonstrated to be true. I think most biological systems are as efficient as they can be and cannot be improved upon - especially when considering all factors (energy utilization, self-repair, self-replication, quality control, etc.).
The example I gave earlier of man's attempts at molecular nanotechnology certainly bears this out.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 26. May 2007 00:57
quote:
Smith: I have experienced the living God and can sense His handiwork in all that I see. From that perspective, this world seem eminently logical - to me.
On this, Smith has excluded himself from any further consideration.
If supernatural beings form a part of his world-view, then any rational conversation with him is impossible, since the nature of such entities is unknowable. Daniel has dealt himself a trump-card that no-one can beat, since he has access to other-world authorities, apparently.
Why would anyone waste their time discussing anything with him, since he could always call upon his invisible super-friends to defend himself when the going got rough?
[ 26. May 2007, 09:42: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 26. May 2007 08:25
LifeEngineer
quote:
You are discussing … the efficiency of intelligence or problem solving efficiency… Unfortunately, you appear to using non-scientific or soft science methods of resolving the issue. It might be useful to consider how these issues are addressed using teleological theories …
… we can define a teleological theory that says “Under ideal conditions, an intelligent system will generate a solution …”
… One important conclusion ... is that the ideal conditions … required to solve any particular problem are absent in most time-location points in the universe…
... First ... you will find that the system is not completely efficient...
The point here is that if we use teleological theories and hard science methodologies, we can learn a lot about how intelligence and problem solving efficiency actually work in the real world.
Based on this post, I have impression that “teleological theories and methodologies” create more confusions than explanations.
You do not need introducing new category of ”the efficiency of intelligence”, because it already defined by initial condition and a Score. You do not need introducing new category of “Under ideal conditions “, because it is a part of initial condition of the problem. For example initial condition includes arithmetic problem 2+3 to be solved within limited time frame and under condition of increased noise, emotional abuse, elevated temperature, etc.
Often jumping to solve a problem we not fully comprehend its initial conditions. This is a problem #1 in all our communications, when we start arguing without fully understanding position of an opponent. While arguing about TRUTH we do not realize that we actually arguing about different problems, because they based on the different initial conditions, that also includes our personal and unique experience that may not be fully disclosed or even realized. These initial conditions could differ from person to person, are changing from time to time or from culture to culture, thus causing the different correct answers or a TRUTH.
For example, what is the TRUTH about the structure of our universe? The CORRECT answer may vary. A thousand years ago, the CORRECT answer was - the Sun, the few planets, and the stars are rotated around the Earth. Since then we learned a grate deals about our solar system (new initial conditions) and have another CORRECT answer. Tomorrow we may learn more profound facts about our universe and the CORRECT answer could be different from today’s one. By manipulating of initial conditions we may influence a TRUTH. This manipulation is constantly used by all sort of ideologists to influence our decisions. Therefore “Lie is a truthful, but incomplete facts”.
quote:
… the goal G is ‘finding a correct solution to the problem being analyzed”, and R is the ‘correct solution’, this teleological theory has the standard format “Under ideal conditions, F(G)=R”.
Within the framework of … useful teleological theory, we can start by defining binary efficiency values of 0 when solution not found and an efficiency value of 1 ...
I do not have adequate background in mathematics, but I am very skeptical about effectiveness of this discipline as a leading tool to understand the scientific phenomenon.
The physical reality could not be replaced with the mathematical formalism and especially in Life sciences. It is useful to remember that the most fundamental discoveries in Biology (Evolution or DNA Code) were explained as a phenomenon first and mathematics was helpful, but played a secondary role.
Life sciences still do not have a solid foundation like other mature disciplines. We do not know what the Life is, how it emerged and even a single cell organism is still a mystery. It may take more than advance modeling to solve these problems. Attempting to model the system that is misunderstood would lead to even more misunderstanding. Mathematical formalism is finding the applications in Biology, but the particular mathematical tool should be chosen not because it was effective in other disciplines. The microscope, regardless how useful it for many applications is useless if you want to build a house. The regular hammer would be fine.
If we do not restrict our analytical tools to be as simple as possible, you will spend all our efforts to maintain its complexity instead of addressing an initial problem. Theoretical Biology needs new ideas, but the method to communicate them, sophisticated modeling or just plain language, will be dictated by the substance of the idea and not by sophistication of available analytical tools.
[ 26. May 2007, 08:30: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. May 2007 08:37
Quote: If supernatural beings form a part of his world-view, then any rational conversation with him is impossible, since the nature of such entities is unknowable.
This assertion is somewhat ridiculous. There is no inherent conflict between religion and science, nor is there any inherent conflict between the supernatural and supernatural impacts and the observable testable impacts subject to scientific analysis.
Conflicts, or the appearances of conflicts, are created when people misunderstand or misinterpret the line between knowledge of the supernatural and scientific knowledge. Some of the conflict is created when so-called science supporters attempt to extend human scientific knowledge beyond the constraints and limitations of human knowledge. Some of the conflict arises when when individuals or groups begin to assert that their personal subjective religious beliefs represent god-like knowledge that is more reliable than even limited human scientific knowledge.
The reality seems to be that apparent conflicts between religion and science arise when people assign religious or scientific labels to their personal subjective political beliefs. These individuals then attempt to misuse the authority of science or religion to promote their own political advantages.
We cam approach the issue of intelligent causation from either a religious or from a scientific perspective, and unless we misuse or misinterpret either religion or science we will not create a conflict.
It may be difficult for some to understand, but there is no conflict between a scientific explanation involving teleological theories, and a religious belief that god controls change.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 26. May 2007 08:38
Daniel Smith
quote:
I apologize to everyone for getting too preachy.
I think that you defended your belief on your "territory" using relevant to the subject arguments.
[ 26. May 2007, 08:41: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. May 2007 08:54
Daniel,
Quote: I don't believe either of these statements can be demonstrated to be true. I think most biological systems are as efficient as they can be and cannot be improved upon - especially when considering all factors (energy utilization, self-repair, self-replication, quality control, etc.).
Go talk to an engineer. Near optimal efficiency within a rigid defined set of constraints is not the same as optimal efficiency.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 26. May 2007 10:59
Zarathustra,
Now don’t go running off into a corner stomping your feet just because you can’t have it your way. Daniel has stated a simple fact. He has experienced the living God, as have I. Thus, this living God is more than just apart of our world-view, the living God is a verified agent in this universe, in fact He created it.
If I were to describe a sunset to a man born completely blind, then that man would have two choices; 1) He could refuse to believe it because he can’t see it for himself or, 2) He could believe the testimony because it fits perfectly with all of his other experiences.
It is most reasonable to assume the universe an open system, since we have never observed a system that is not. It follows that any outside force might be unrecognizable using techniques designed to detect internal forces. Since we have been created in the image of God [spirit], we are able to recognize God by this spiritual gifting. However, we have also been given the free will. You, I am sad to say, have decided, it seems, to close your spiritual eyes to God manifest in His creation.
It is true that any conversation between you and Daniel will be difficult, but this is not due to Daniel’s acceptance of what is obvious; rather, it is due your stiff necked refusal to acknowledge what is all around you.
The only way you and Daniel would come to an agreement is if one of you were to modify his set of axioms. Daniel is not about to deny the living God to escape the scorn of man.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 26. May 2007 11:56
Mel,
quote:
Since we have been created in the image of God [spirit], we are able to recognize God by this spiritual gifting. However, we have also been given the free will.
How do you know? What convinced you?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 26. May 2007 20:15
IF,
I was a promising, not so young, graduate student. I was married with two children and pursuing a PhD in pure mathematics. I had been most successful in every endeavor up until that point and in no need, I thought, of a god for any reason what so ever. The very last thing I could have imagined doing was ditching my family for my own selfish pursuits, whether noble or ignoble.
To make a long story short, that is exactly what I did. And, in that process I became estranged from every individual that had been a part of my life. I had gone, in the space of six short months, from a complete success to an utter failure. All the while, every single bad turn was the work of my own self seeking hand.
Broken and alone, I found myself in a hotel room in Rehoboth Beach Delaware. There is where I remembered the words of many individuals from my past and their talk about this Savior named Jesus, the only begotten Son of God. At this most pivotal moment of my existence I contemplated my remaining two options; reaching out to Jesus in faith, or making use of the Swiss Army knife I had purchased that day for one specific purpose.
Obviously, I put down the knife and got on my knees where from the bottom of my heart I asked Jesus to forgive me of my sins and rescue me from the nightmare of a life I had created.
Dear IF, you ask me how I know. I know because at that very moment Jesus Christ revealed Himself to me in spirit. At that moment I knew that my sins were forgiven me and I was reconciled with God. I knew that my wife and I would be reconciled and my kids would have their dad in their home once again. In time everything was restored to me, and much more. Not only that but all things now appear in a different light.
This all may sound unbelievable to you, somewhat like a description of a sunset to a man born blind. On the other hand, you may want to hear it in more detail. I assure you the details are striking and telling.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 26. May 2007 20:24
Mel,
I am very happy for you! I am glad that you put your life together to the benefit of those around you especially those who depend on you. That is always a good thing. However, do your feelings qualify as good evidence?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
