|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. May 2007 09:54
IF,
Quote: Are there Universities, Corporate Research Facilities or Organizations (like the Santa Fe Institute), that might have this information?
As I discussed in another post, successful productive scientists from many different fields appear to be successful in picking up the knowledge and skills required for productive hard science analysis despite the fact that the knowledge does not appear to be nicely laid out or presented in the literature. Part of the explanation for this is that so much of what is learned is learned by ‘hands on experience’ and by ‘informal passing of information and knowledge between successful analysts’. Certainly in the area of systems design, where I have a fair amount of first hand experience, successful designers were very good at picking up on successful tricks used by other programmers. A lot of these tricks involved ‘spotting and fixing specific types of problems’ and a lot of the problems that arise in programming relate to defining variables and causal or functional relationships among variables.
It might at first seem counter-intuitive, but Universities and Research Organizations appear to often distort and corrupt scientific knowledge rather than effectively teach the knowledge. The problem appears to be that there is a big difference in skills and interests between those who get involved in the political aspects of organizations and those who actually know how to do the analysis. In the absence of a highly effective accountability process or mechanism, the views and opinions of an organization begin to reflect the views of those with political interests and skills. Again, in the absence of effective accountability mechanisms, these views and opinions diverge quite dramatically and quickly from the views and opinions of those actually capable of performing analysis. This phenomenon is probably better documented in bureaucracies and businesses, but it also appears to occur in scientific institutions. [ The phenomenon is demonstrated by formally testing generally accepted academic theories against hard science predictive theories.]
Quote: What are the inconsistencies? Is it important for individuals, organizations, governments, etc., to strive for consistency?
In the academic organizations intelligent causation is characterized as some unknown phenomenon. We can not, academics such as aiguy argue, explain complex biological design in terms of intelligent causation because we don’t yet have an acceptable definition of intelligent design. Systems designers, in direct contrast, can and do define, analyze and simulate all sorts of types of intelligent causation.
It should be obvious that logical consistency is one of the essential cornerstones of scientific analysis. If you determine the validity of scientific theories based on subjective political opinions, then what you have is not science. Science is based on the requirement that theories be testable and the only theories that are currently valid are those that stand up to the ‘one failure falsifies’ standard and to the ‘one theory is rejected if it can be replaced by a theory that provides a better fit to the data’ standard.
All organizations generally attempt to impose or require a certain degree of logical consistency in the views of members. The logical consistency imposed is not, however, always compatible with hard science standards.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. May 2007 11:24
LE, quote:
Quote: Are there Universities, Corporate Research Facilities or Organizations (like the Santa Fe Institute), that might have this information?
As I discussed in another post, successful productive scientists from many different fields appear to be successful in picking up the knowledge and skills required for productive hard science analysis despite the fact that the knowledge does not appear to be nicely laid out or presented in the literature. Part of the explanation for this is that so much of what is learned is learned by ‘hands on experience’ and by ‘informal passing of information and knowledge between successful analysts’. Certainly in the area of systems design, where I have a fair amount of first hand experience, successful designers were very good at picking up on successful tricks used by other programmers. A lot of these tricks involved ‘spotting and fixing specific types of problems’ and a lot of the problems that arise in programming relate to defining variables and causal or functional relationships among variables.
How about from Psychology's current Cognitive Science view? If not there then, maybe, a paper written by you and submitted for peer review may be beneficial even lucrative for all concerned but especially for you, don't you think? quote:
It might at first seem counter-intuitive, but Universities and Research Organizations appear to often distort and corrupt scientific knowledge rather than effectively teach the knowledge. The problem appears to be that there is a big difference in skills and interests between those who get involved in the political aspects of organizations and those who actually know how to do the analysis. In the absence of a highly effective accountability process or mechanism, the views and opinions of an organization begin to reflect the views of those with political interests and skills. Again, in the absence of effective accountability mechanisms, these views and opinions diverge quite dramatically and quickly from the views and opinions of those actually capable of performing analysis. This phenomenon is probably better documented in bureaucracies and businesses, but it also appears to occur in scientific institutions. [ The phenomenon is demonstrated by formally testing generally accepted academic theories against hard science predictive theories.]
Does all of that apply to all institutions in every part of the world? quote:
Quote: What are the inconsistencies? Is it important for individuals, organizations, governments, etc., to strive for consistency?
In the academic organizations intelligent causation is characterized as some unknown phenomenon. We can not, academics such as aiguy argue, explain complex biological design in terms of intelligent causation because we don’t yet have an acceptable definition of intelligent design. Systems designers, in direct contrast, can and do define, analyze and simulate all sorts of types of intelligent causation.
As mentioned above, you should write all of this up and submit it to whoever you deem to be qualified enough to review and comment on. Lacking that, it seems to ill-informed me that you, like Mel, are only describing a feeling you have for processes that are simply compatible with your views and background.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 29. May 2007 11:35
IF,
I am not attempting to make an argument here. I understand the difficulties [spiritual – imaginative – non-existent]. I can’t prove to you anything about Jesus but everything I have said is valid, given the open system assumption and physical evidence. What I am making is an appeal. You have the option to refuse it.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 29. May 2007 12:59
LifeEngineer:
quote:
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.
Medicine deals with defects in what are normally functioning systems. While it is true that one could argue that these defects are due to a lack of efficiency, it is more likely that they are due to either aging or some anomaly. The design of the system is still optimum.
If you want to argue that there are not enough protections against anomalies and aging in the system, that's a valid argument, but you must find a way to implement these into the design of the system. No easy task.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. May 2007 13:00
Mel,
quote:
I am not attempting to make an argument here. I understand the difficulties [spiritual – imaginative – non-existent]. I can’t prove to you anything about Jesus but everything I have said is valid, given the open system assumption and physical evidence. What I am making is an appeal. You have the option to refuse it.
There are many similar appeals even among those who feel as you do! So how can I tell which is the correct choice? I don't think I am unique in wanting to be correct in what I do, say, teach, fight for, be willing to die for, etc. Don't I owe that much to my fellow citizens and especially to my loved ones?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 29. May 2007 17:21
If,
You wrote:
quote:
I don't think I am unique in wanting to be correct in what I do, say, teach, fight for, be willing to die for, etc. Don't I owe that much to my fellow citizens and especially to my loved ones?
You are not alone. I commend you or anyone else who wants to be correct in what they do, say, teach, fight for, are willing to die for, etc. Further I commend any scientist as they strive to understand the physical world. But we need to get over ourselves. If we know anything for certain, than it is very little, perhaps it is only that we can’t know everything for certain. Given the work of Tarski, Godel, and Heisenberg, you would think we would more readily accept our limitations.
So, we want to be correct and we do owe that much to our fellow citizens and especially our loved ones. Therefore, let us state correctly: We can’t, by our own understanding, know much for certain. Yet, our desire to know things, all things, suggests that it is reasonable to assume that some being does. Can we just conjure such a being up out of our imagination? We can try but each ones imagination will be different and the best we can do is carve elaborate beasts made of wood, stone, or precious metal. But these objects can do nothing.
No, our only hope is that this being loves us and will reveal Himself to us. For if He will not, want as we might, we can’t do, say, teach, fight for, be willing to die for, what is correct. And so we come to a point where we understand that we can continue in the certain confusion of our feeble understanding or we can call, with our whole being, on the name of the Lord for our rescue. If He is only imagined, then we are lost in any case and what have we to loose besides our pride?
The good news is that He has revealed and will reveal Himself to us. About 2,000 years ago a very strange man lived who said something most unlike anything a mere human might say: “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father accept through me.” Much hard evidence was attested to by many and attributed to Him during those times.
Now, if you truly believe we owe our loved ones to want to be correct in what we do and teach, then you must at least consider the possibility He is the Way, Truth, and Life. Ask yourself then: “Is my pride worth an eternity of darkness and dispare?”
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. May 2007 19:03
Mel,
Thanks for the vote of confidence! Especially, quote:
So, we want to be correct and we do owe that much to our fellow citizens and especially our loved ones.
But, quote:
Therefore, let us state correctly:We can’t, by our own understanding, know much for certain.
Exactly! Why can't we try to work together as a team? Each contributing our own skills (there's several billion of us afterall)for the good of the team! Correcting and helping each other to seek the truth! quote:
Yet, our desire to know things, all things, suggests that it is reasonable to assume that some being does.
What do you base this premise on? quote:
Can we just conjure such a being up out of our imagination?
Obviously! That's the problem that we need to tackle! quote:
We can try but each ones imagination will be different and the best we can do is carve elaborate beasts made of wood, stone, or precious metal. But these objects can do nothing.
Exactly! You describe the historical and current dangerous situation!
quote:
..., we can’t do, say, teach, fight for, be willing to die for, what is correct.
But we do! Is that a good thing? quote:
And so we come to a point where we understand that we can continue in the certain confusion of our feeble understanding
Exactly! Do you think that it is important to continue even contribute to the confusion? quote:
or we can call, with our whole being, on the name of the Lord for our rescue.
Doesn't that sound like one of the many descriptions of a sunset? quote:
If He is only imagined, then we are lost in any case
Wow! I certainly don't think you should give up hope in your brothers, sisters, and life in general! I am sure honest folks will not be offended if you are only seeking facts and evidence on which to base your commitments at least while you still have time to investigate. I am confident, that there are alternatives that are honorable and worthy of pursuit!
quote:
About 2,000 years ago a very strange man lived who said something most unlike anything a mere human might say: “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father accept through me.” Much hard evidence was attested to by many and attributed to Him during those times.
How do you know?
quote:
Now, if you truly believe we owe our loved ones to want to be correct in what we do and teach, then you must at least consider the possibility He is the Way, Truth, and Life. Ask yourself then: “Is my pride worth an eternity of darkness and dispare?”
Is using "intelligence" to try to figure things out being prideful?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 29. May 2007 23:56
quote:
Fox: The good news is that He has revealed and will reveal Himself to us.
Are you talking about the demi-god Mithra, who was born of a human woman around the time of the winter solstice, did miracles, suffered death but came back, and was sent to save all of humanity with the promise of eternal life? I'd definitely become a Mithraist if someone could convice me that it was true.
quote:
Fox:About 2,000 years ago a very strange man lived who said something most unlike anything a mere human might say: “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father accept through me.” Much hard evidence was attested to by many and attributed to Him during those times.
There is no "hard" evidence relating to the false demiurge referred to as "Jesus". This Satanic impostor's demands that everyone worship him mean that four billion people alive today will have to be tortured in hellfire for eternity. Any claims that he was sent to "save" everyone have to be treated as preposterous.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 30. May 2007 06:19
IF,
You wrote:
quote:
Wow! I certainly don't think you should give up hope in your brothers, sisters, and life in general! I am sure honest folks will not be offended if you are only seeking facts and evidence on which to base your commitments at least while you still have time to investigate. I am confident, that there are alternatives that are honorable and worthy of pursuit!
If our hope lies only in this life, then it is false. Or, does the team intend to override the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I don’t think so. You and I, our brothers and sisters, and life in general face a never ending “heat” death if the universe is a closed system. I am personally not offended if we honorably scramble about in a worthy pursuit to prolong the inevitable but I am not about to rest my hope in the finite collective of human intelligence. This is especially true in light of the graceful offer made to us of which I have already written.
Now this saving grace is not one that will take us captive. If four billion of us alive today desire to refuse it, as Zarathustra has reported, then they are free to do so. As for me and my house, we choose to serve the Lord.
It is not my intent to take captive this thread. Therefore, I will resist further comment here even though you have raised some valid concerns I would like to address. I have checked out the sites recommended by Zarathustra and perhaps I will participate in those, I don’t know. The participants on those blogs are not nearly as well behaved as those I find at this forum.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 30. May 2007 07:36
IF and Mel,
Quote: Exactly! Why can't we try to work together as a team? Each contributing our own skills (there's several billion of us afterall)for the good of the team! Correcting and helping each other to seek the truth!
A very idealistic sentiment and one that a major portion of mankind has been trying to figure out how to make work efficiently for millennium. For reasons that are only partially egocentric, the human ability to work cooperatively has produced some spectacular examples of complex intelligent causation. Human’s working cooperatively have developed relatively effective methods of feeding billions. We have put a man on the moon. We have found cures for countless diseases.
On the other hand, human’s allow millions to starve while huge food surpluses exist. Human’s have managed by one means or another to massacre millions. And in the world today we may be threatening the existence of many species including our own with global warming.
Human cooperative behavior turns out to be one of the more interesting and useful places to study how intelligent causation actually operates. Despite our misleading self image, human beings in isolation do not appear to be dramatically more intelligent or capable of dramatically more intelligent problem solving behaviors than other primates. But human’s operating in social groups are capable of intelligent problem solving that dwarfs the abilities of other primates. [It is interesting to note that the only examples of intelligent problem solving that appear to dwarf the abilities of human social groups are evolutionary designs produced by groups of organisms.]
Human cooperative behavior can involve a number of different types of social organizations including governmental, military, religious, business, academic, and scientific. There are obviously many possible variations within the different types or classes of social organizations.
Essentially all human social institutions have life cycles that are not unlike the life cycles of individuals. Described in terms of problem solving efficiencies, human social organizations start with limited capabilities or ability to solve problems. For a period of time the organization grows as does its problem solving efficiency. However, at some point in time, problem solving efficiency reaches a peak and begins to become corrupted and loose efficiency or effectiveness. Eventually the organization will disappear and be replaced. Some organizations survive much longer than others and in many instances the pattern of increasing and decreasing efficiency is far more complex than a simple up and down. But the same basic life cycle pattern of increasing problem solving efficiency (intelligence) followed eventually by deterioration or corruption of problem solving efficiency appears to apply to all human social organizations.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 30. May 2007 08:36
Daniel,
Quote: Medicine deals with defects in what are normally functioning systems. While it is true that one could argue that these defects are due to a lack of efficiency, it is more likely that they are due to either aging or some anomaly. The design of the system is still optimum.
Your comments seem to come down simply to the question of who is responsible for defining terms and when they get to change definitions. If you propose a theory that asserts that biological designs are optimal, then the responsibility rests with you to define exactly what is meant by optimal. Engineers, for example, can provide precise definitions of what they mean by an optimally efficient engine.
Once you have provided your theory and your definition, then, by hard science standards, your theory is subject to open and independent testing. If I can demonstrate the existence of inefficiency in a biological design based on the definition you provided, then your theory has been falsified. The rules of science don’t permit you to play after the fact word games to claim the falsification presented doesn’t really count because “I assign a different term to that phenomenon”.
If you make the claim that a design is optimal, then you are making the claim with respect to a precisely defined function or set of functions, and you are asserting that there is no physically possible design that could perform the defined function better than the optimal design. You have not even defined the functions that would be used to test your claim of optimal design.
By contrast, the theory or assertion that biological designs are non-optimal is based on specific well defined functions or sets of functions, and by demonstrations that 1) the biological designs can fail to perform the defined functions and 2) there are known design that will not fail. Medical ‘discoveries’ provide clear evidence in support of the ‘biological designs are non-optimal’ theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 30. May 2007 08:58
IF,
Quote: How about from Psychology's current Cognitive Science view? If not there then, maybe, a paper written by you and submitted for peer review may be beneficial even lucrative for all concerned but especially for you, don't you think?
This presents another interesting subject for all types of design science. On the surface your ‘play by the peer review rules and your ideas will be evaluated’ sounds reasonable. But you have to be extremely naïve not to know that the first, and often only evaluations, in peer review are credentials and conformity to peer review beliefs. Any attempt by outsiders to present non-traditional ideas or point out flaws in peer reviewed materials are rejected on an a priori basis.
If you suggest to an academic group that practices peer review, that rather than use the peer review process, competing theories be evaluated based on formal scientific hypothesis testing, you will find, as I have, that not only are the academic peer review sciences not willing to have their beliefs subject to scientific testing, but the practitioners of peer review science don’t even understand hard science testing.
Again, if you evaluate competing theories using peer review or soft science processes, the soft science theories will always win and design or teleological theories will always loose. If you evaluate competing theories using hard science methodologies, then well defined hard science teleological or design theories will always win over peer review theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. May 2007 09:48
LE,
There is bound to be someplace where like-minded comparably skilled investigators would be glad to comment and not simply through it out due to subject matter. Have you researched this?
Also, quote:
If you evaluate competing theories using hard science methodologies, then well defined hard science teleological or design theories will always win over peer review theories.
Could you provide an example or reference/link that supports this assertion?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. May 2007 09:52
LE,
quote:
But the same basic life cycle pattern of increasing problem solving efficiency (intelligence) followed eventually by deterioration or corruption of problem solving efficiency appears to apply to all human social organizations.
To what do you attribute the causes of the deterioration? What can we do to prevent it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 30. May 2007 12:56
LifeEngineer:
quote:
If you make the claim that a design is optimal, then you are making the claim with respect to a precisely defined function or set of functions, and you are asserting that there is no physically possible design that could perform the defined function better than the optimal design. You have not even defined the functions that would be used to test your claim of optimal design.
OK, let's take the mammalian oxidation system. This system utilizes the unique properties of the oxygen and carbon atoms to their fullest potential. It also pushes the limits of hydraulics and the physical limitations of cell structures in order to force oxygen to the utmost regions of the body and to extract it's CO2 byproduct. Those who have studied it extensively will tell you that it's hard to envision any other system that could work better. If you know of any design improvement for the mammalian oxidation system, please provide it.
quote:
By contrast, the theory or assertion that biological designs are non-optimal is based on specific well defined functions or sets of functions, and by demonstrations that 1) the biological designs can fail to perform the defined functions and 2) there are known design that will not fail. Medical ‘discoveries’ provide clear evidence in support of the ‘biological designs are non-optimal’ theories.
I take issue with #2. I don't believe you can provide any examples of "known designs" that actually improve upon the design of biological systems.
Medicine, for example, merely utilizes the existing design to change the function. Take vaccinations: They introduce a small dose of a virus into the system so that the already optimized immune system can acclimate itself to the virus - thus ensuring it's ability to fight a "real" virus attack. There is no actual "change to" or "improvement of" design.
If you know of any improvement of a specific biological design, please cite it.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
