|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 26. May 2007 21:40
LifeEngineer:
quote:
Go talk to an engineer. Near optimal efficiency within a rigid defined set of constraints is not the same as optimal efficiency.
I understand the difference. My contention is that biological systems are at optimal efficiency already.
Can you demonstrate one case where a biological system's efficiency has been (or can be) improved upon?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 27. May 2007 02:55
IF,
What I have described to you are not my “feelings” and I did very little to put my life back together. I have described to you my personal experience and YES this evidence is, for me, rock solid. What is more this phenomenon is repeatable and has been duplicated millions of times. In fact the procedure has never failed. What is the procedure?
Man sins. Man is broken. Man humbles himself before all mighty God, confesses his sins, and with all his heart calls on the name [Jesus] of the Lord his God to save him. Man is saved. This procedure has never failed and will never fail. Don’t believe me, try it for yourself. You have already completed the first step.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 27. May 2007 09:27
Daniel,
Quote: I understand the difference. My contention is that biological systems are at optimal efficiency already. Can you demonstrate one case where a biological system's efficiency has been (or can be) improved upon?
This actually fairly easy. The basic goal of any living system is survival. For any biological organism or species, there situations where the individual will die and the species will become extinct. For any individual or species there are potential changes which would increase (or decrease) the range of conditions under which the individual or species survive. Such changes would represent increases in efficiency.
The same general concept applies for any set of goals and associated goal directed behavior and efficiency in achieving the defined goals. For essentially any set of goals, there will be limiting conditions where the existing forms and behaviors fail, and there will be potential changes in form or behavior that could increase efficiency.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 27. May 2007 10:12
IF,
Quote: 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.
It is kind of interesting to look at the different sources of information such as Google, the literature used in teaching, and some of the more specialized materials used in specific fields. When you use something like Google, you seem to get almost nothing on such basic scientific methodologies as 1) defining variables, 2) rules for quantifying variables, 3) identifying function relationships between the values of causal variables and the values of effect variables, and 4) defining environmental conditions. I am sure these topics are at least mentioned in some basic science course work, but I suspect that in most fields the materials on formulating predictive theories doesn’t go into much detail.
In some of the more technical fields, there is lots of material on measurement errors and the use of statistical techniques to evaluate theories. In my experience, however, very few people even in the fields that actually use formal statistical analysis actually have an effective working knowledge of the subject. Most people, even in the fields that routinely use statistical techniques, can’t tell the difference between proper statistical analysis and statistical analysis used to intentionally mislead.
My point is that you are going to have a difficult time finding really useful literature on formulating and testing any type of predictive mathematical theories. Once you understand the basic concepts of predictive mathematical theories it is not a big change to consider teleological mathematical theories.
Although I suspect it will be difficult to find useful literature dealing with the technical aspects of mathematical predictive theories and mathematical theories, particularly in the life sciences, you will find all sorts of practical applications where scientists are using methodologies that are logically equivalent to the use of mathematical predictive theories. Scientists and engineers and systems designers are always formally analyzing things like “How does this system achieve this goal?”, “How can I improve this systems efficiency in achieving this goal?”, “How can I create a system that achieves this goal under a particular set of conditions?” In most instances in the world today, scientists will attempt to answer these questions with computer information processing with well defined and quantified input variables (causal variables), processing algorithms, and quantified output variables (effect variables).
I find it very interesting how little is actually taught about ‘hard science methodologies’ and ‘predictive mathematical theories’, how little the subject appears to be addressed in the literature, how few ‘scientists’ appear to actual learn this subject, yet how universally these techniques are used in different forms of successful scientific analysis. A successful computer model or simulation will have thousands or millions of well defined and quantified variables (including well defined goals and goal variables) and well defined and properly tested processing algorithms. Yet if you look at the literature, you don’t seem to find much information on how these tasks are to be performed.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. May 2007 12:37
Mel,
quote:
What I have described to you are not my “feelings” and I did very little to put my life back together. I have described to you my personal experience and YES this evidence is, for me, rock solid..
Should it be evidence for everyone? For example, as stated in your example, quote:
posted 26. May 2007 10:59 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.
What if everyone who came by described a different sunset to him, would he still be restricted to only those two choices?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. May 2007 12:39
LE,
quote:
Although I suspect it will be difficult to find useful literature dealing with the technical aspects of mathematical predictive theories and mathematical theories, particularly in the life sciences, you will find all sorts of practical applications where scientists are using methodologies that are logically equivalent to the use of mathematical predictive theories. Scientists and engineers and systems designers are always formally analyzing things like “How does this system achieve this goal?”, “How can I improve this systems efficiency in achieving this goal?”, “How can I create a system that achieves this goal under a particular set of conditions?” In most instances in the world today, scientists will attempt to answer these questions with computer information processing with well defined and quantified input variables (causal variables), processing algorithms, and quantified output variables (effect variables).
I find it very interesting how little is actually taught about ‘hard science methodologies’ and ‘predictive mathematical theories’, how little the subject appears to be addressed in the literature, how few ‘scientists’ appear to actual learn this subject, yet how universally these techniques are used in different forms of successful scientific analysis. A successful computer model or simulation will have thousands or millions of well defined and quantified variables (including well defined goals and goal variables) and well defined and properly tested processing algorithms. Yet if you look at the literature, you don’t seem to find much information on how these tasks are to be performed.
Are there Universities, Corporate Research Facilities or Organizations (like the Santa Fe Institute), that might have this information?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. May 2007 12:45
Daniel,
quote:
Can you demonstrate one case where a biological system's efficiency has been (or can be) improved upon?
One current and very painful example would be our teeth! Why couldn't we have the same system that sharks have, for example?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. May 2007 18:11
LifeEngineer:
quote:
This actually fairly easy. The basic goal of any living system is survival. For any biological organism or species, there situations where the individual will die and the species will become extinct. For any individual or species there are potential changes which would increase (or decrease) the range of conditions under which the individual or species survive. Such changes would represent increases in efficiency.
The same general concept applies for any set of goals and associated goal directed behavior and efficiency in achieving the defined goals. For essentially any set of goals, there will be limiting conditions where the existing forms and behaviors fail, and there will be potential changes in form or behavior that could increase efficiency.
That's a very nice theoretical generality, but I asked for a specific demonstrable example.
Would you present the peppered moth as an example of increased efficiency? If so, which color? The fact that the peppered moth can exist in two distinct colors - both of which have aided the species to survive at different times, shows that the coloration system within the peppered moth is already at maximum efficiency.
Once again it's my contention that the biological systems within living organisms are at essentially maximum efficiency and cannot be improved on - without harming or adversely affecting some other system within the organism.
If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. May 2007 18:22
IF:
quote:
One current and very painful example would be our teeth! Why couldn't we have the same system that sharks have, for example?
I've often wished for a third hand as well! Implementing such a system would require massive restructuring of the skeletal, muscular, cardiovascular, nervous and internal organ structures of the human body though.
Things can always be improved theoretically, but can you come up with a realistic way to implement shark type teeth in a human organism? I'm sure you'll find that it either can't be done, or that it would adversely affect other human biological systems.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. May 2007 18:35
Zarathustra:
quote:
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?
I have not once resorted to the "according to my invisible super-friends" position in defending myself against your statements - yet you still seem to have trouble countering my arguments (as evidenced by your non-answers).
What's your excuse?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 28. May 2007 19:34
IF,
You wrote:
quote:
What if everyone who came by described a different sunset to him, would he still be restricted to only those two choices?
I believe that everyone that came by would describe a slightly different sunset. Could be, for some dark reason, some might intentionally describe a false sunset, perhaps even without a sun at all. Here our blind man might become confused and even though he can feel the warmth of the sun on his face, he might be somewhat afraid of a large fiery ball choosing then to believe the dark tale.
I admit the analogy breaks down here because, unlike the blind man who can’t see, we all have spiritual eyes but some choose to walk around with a veil over them. Why? I believe that they are afraid. They do not want to see the Son because they know He would change their life. They could no longer decide for themselves, based on their own understanding, what is so and what is not so. For if we decide individually what is so and what is not so, then we can all be right all of the time, the logic of your ok I’m ok. I think you would agree that this quickly breaks down into chaos.
Science to the rescue, right? But, all have admitted here that science is handy-capped with respect to spiritual matters. Spiritual things are often invisible to our senses thus rendering science, at best, a hit and miss proposition for understanding them. The scientist might then be tempted to announce spiritual things then can’t exist. And so, the veil is firmly in place.
Everyone for whom the Son has been revealed paints a strikingly similar picture. I am not suggesting you take my word for it, simply remove the veil and, being ready to receive, ask.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 28. May 2007 21:38
Mel,
Your argument, to me, is summed up by, quote:
... we all have spiritual eyes ...
So, how can we tell the difference between the spiritual, the imaginative, and the non-existent?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 28. May 2007 21:54
Daniel,
quote:
I've often wished for a third hand as well! Implementing such a system would require massive restructuring of the skeletal, muscular, cardiovascular, nervous and internal organ structures of the human body though.
You forget that there have been many cases of humans born with two-heads, six fingers and toes, extra teeth, etc. and living well. The supporting structures seem to adapt surprisingly well. Grant you, many attempts at "improvements" fail often before birth but some do live and exist quite well.
quote:
Things can always be improved theoretically, but can you come up with a realistic way to implement shark type teeth in a human organism? I'm sure you'll find that it either can't be done, or that it would adversely affect other human biological systems.
There have been cases of extra teeth so, hopefully, someone will come up with the genetics/mechanics of this so that future humans won't suffer as some of us do. Of course, there are much more important "improvements" to look for first, birth defects, mental-illness, etc., so the tooth system will have to go on the back-burner, I guess.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. May 2007 08:11
Daniel,
Quote: Once again it's my contention that the biological systems within living organisms are at essentially maximum efficiency and cannot be improved on - without harming or adversely affecting some other system within the organism.
The concept of efficiency nicely illustrates at four of the defining characteristics of hard science analysis of intelligent causation. First, efficiency is a central abstraction in all hard science analysis. Essentially all hard science analysis involves some variation of 1) measuring the limitations of some type of efficiency of biological systems, 2)attempting to create non-biological systems that efficiently perform tasks, or 3)attempting to improve the efficiency of either real world systems or of non-biological systems. Real scientific analysis is essentially always about understanding and improving efficiency.
Daniel, if you want demonstrations that biological systems are not perfectly efficient, look at medicine. The goal of all medicine is to improve ‘survival efficiency’. The goal or purpose of essentially every medical discovery is to improve some type of efficiency. There are a very large number of demonstrations that biological systems are far from optimally efficient.
Second, the concept of efficiency illustrates that formal definitions and methods of measurement are defined by scientists. There are certainly many instances where scientists have developed measures of ‘survival efficiency’ that latter proved inadequate. Improvements in one measure of efficiency can, and frequently do, result in unanticipated consequences. However, when the inadequacy of one scientist defined measure of efficiency is discovered, the definitions and measurements are replaced with other definitions and measurements developed by scientists. There are no absolute measures efficiency relating to the goal of survival. It is meaningless and misleading to suggest that biological systems represent optimal efficiency (unless you can provide the definitions and demonstrations in support of a concept of absolute efficiency).
The third hard science principle demonstrated by the concept of efficiency, is that productive scientists always know how to develop definitions and measures of efficiency. This occurs despite the fact that you generally can not point to a lot of good literature explaining how a scientist is supposed to define and measure efficiency. It is rather interesting to talk to productive scientists from different fields. Despite very different types of formal training, and in some fields like systems design some of the best ‘designers’ or scientists often have relatively little relevant formal training, successful scientists all appear to understand the complexities associated with defining variables, when variables are not adequately defined, how to quantify variables, how to define the goal or purpose of a type of analysis, and how to objectively measure whether the results of analysis are successful (achieve the desired degree of efficiency).
The fourth hard science principle demonstrated by the concept of efficiency, is that only a very small percentage of people involved in any field of science actually have a working knowledge of the techniques involved in defining and measuring efficiency. It has long been known that only a very small percentage of programmers are actually any good at designing complex systems. It has long been known that only a tiny percentage of scientists in any field have any real talent at resolving complex problems. What is not as widely recognized, but what appears to be demonstrable by fairly simple objective testing, is that while successful ‘scientists’ in essentially all fields understand basic concepts and principles like defining and measuring efficiency, very few of the ‘non-productive’ scientists appear to have a working knowledge of the concept and principles.
The formal scientific analysis of intelligent causation involves defining and measuring different scientist defined types of efficiency associated with different scientist defined types of goal-directed intelligent causation. Scientific understanding of intelligent causation is closely tied to being able to define, measure and understand the dynamics of the efficiency of intelligent causation. This formal scientific analysis of intelligent causation is apparently greatly complicated by the fact that such a tiny percentage of scientists appear to have the basic abilities or knowledge required to define, measure and understand efficiency.
Looked at from a somewhat different perspective, human behavior, human intelligence, and human intelligence used to solve complex problems, involve very large individual differences and a very high degree of specialization. More specifically, the formal hard science analysis of intelligent causation requires specialized skills and knowledge possessed by only a tiny percentage of people. Furthermore, the specialized skills and knowledge required to exert political control of academic science are different from the skills and knowledge required to perform hard science analysis of intelligent causation. As a result, we see today huge inconsistencies between 1) the academic/political understanding of intelligent causation and 2) the hard science understanding of intelligent causation.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. May 2007 08:32
LE,
quote:
As a result, we see today huge inconsistencies between 1) the academic/political understanding of intelligent causation and 2) the hard science understanding of intelligent causation.
What are the inconsistencies? Is it important for individuals, organizations, governments, etc., to strive for consistency?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
