|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 04. June 2007 09:41
Miosim,
Variations on the type of theory you advocate have been around for decades and probably centuries and have been pretty exhaustively tested and absolutely no evidence to support such theories have been found.
The basic test for your type of theory is to isolate some small element or component of a living or intelligent system then demonstrate that there is some fundamental difference between the isolated component of the intelligent or living system and an equivalent component of a non-living or non-intelligent system. Loads and loads of experiments of this general type have been performed and no such experiment has ever produced any supporting evidence.
The counter or contrary type of theory asserts that there is no fundamental consistent physical difference between intelligent and non-intelligent systems or between living and non-living systems. The basic support for this alternative type theory is to isolate and formally define examples of intelligent causation. Then the researcher demonstrates that the same defined intelligent behavior can be reproduced or simulated in a completely different physical form or medium. Commonly, the researcher starts by defining some intelligent behavior in a human, then demonstrating the behavior can be simulated by computers. Currently, there is no known instance of defined intelligent behavior that can not be simulated by computers.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 04. June 2007 12:29
LifeEngineer,
You wrote:
quote:
Currently, there is no known instance of defined intelligent behavior that can not be simulated by computers.
I don’t recall how closely you embraced the intelligence = problem solving characterization. In any case, suppose there was a room with, say, 100 automated computers operating in it. Further suppose that the physical conditions of the room and the computers were such that the heat generated by more than 80 machines would be sufficient to cause all of the machines to overheat and so crash all the computers. What if data could be communicated among the computers but the operating system for each machine was independent from the others?
In a similar human situation where the simple act of breathing by more than 80 people would more than exhaust the fresh supply of oxygen, the problem might be solved in a number of different ways. A large fraction of the 100 humans might gang up on 20 of the weaker ones and “crash” them, thus solving the problem for the other 80. Or, maybe a fifth of the people would “crash” themselves, thus solving the problem for the other 80.
Now, if each machine is given the prime directive KEEP RUNNING, as most humans seem to have been given, could any of them be programmed to solve this problem the way of the fifth?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 04. June 2007 14:11
miosim:
quote:
Do you think that this example is good evidence that “cosmos appears to be finely tuned for life”? Do you have a better evidences that this one?
...
This and other arguments remind me the argument that 1950 Chevrolet sedan is the best car you can get based on the fact that all its parts are perfectly fit each other and an attempt to replace its carburetor with a 2007 Toyota fuel injector failed, because it doesn’t fit at all.
You really need to read the book rather than look at excerpts. The book is 454 pages long and covers a wide range of topics including chapters on water, light, the elements of the earth, carbon, oxygen and CO2, DNA, proteins, metals, the cell, man and fire, evolution, and many more.
The quote you mentioned from page 10 (actually the first page from the first chapter) is one of many evidences cited about the cosmos. Some of the others include the distances between stars - which affect the stability of our planetary orbits and their very formation; the nuclear energy levels of beryllium, carbon and oxygen - without which the carbon-oxygen synthesis could not occur; the gravitational, nuclear or strong, electromagnetic and weak forces - whose exact relation to one another (which varies over several orders of magnitude) must be precisely what it is in order for the building blocks of carbon-based life to even exist; and many others - just in the first chapter. He further states, "If the existence of life had been compatible with a greater range of values for the fundamental constants... then the teleological conclusion would be far weaker. It is the necessity that it be exactly as it is--adjusted to what is in effect near infinite precision in a long train and series of things that makes the teleological conclusion so compelling." [emphasis his].
Later he adds this bold statement: "Just one clear case where a constituent of life or a law of nature is evidently not unique or ideally adopted for life, and the design hypothesis collapses."
Now, this might seem an easy refutation, but if it is, why would Denton offer it? The answer is, because he has researched it and finds the case convincing enough that he has complete confidence that such a bold falsification will stand the test.
The evidences when isolated, might not seem like much, but when taken together as a whole, they represent a compelling conclusion that cannot be avoided.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. June 2007 14:59
There are tens of thousands of otherwise rational human beings who still blindly adhere to the most ridiculous, the most naive, the most discredited and thoroughly failed hypothesis in the history of science. Dawkins in Europe and Myers in America are their primary spokespersons. Neither has ever published a word concerning the only thing that is in question, the MECHANISM of organic evolution. They both support the Darwinian fairy tale for exactly the same reason. Each has made it very clear, time and time again, that they are unable to even conceive that a God or Gods could ever possibly have been involved in the great mystery of organic evolution. Since God cannot be demonstrated at present they both have made the same fatal mistake. They have assumed that one or more Gods never existed. That is not only bad science, it is intellectual blindness and "born that way" bigotry.
The one and only thread I was able to introduce at Dawkin's fan club was -
"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed."
In the course of a very few days it produced over 60,000 views before I was not only banned from further comment but denied viewing as well, a condition which still prevails. ARN did the same long ago. Any forum which finds it necessary to employ such cowardly tactics has earned my undying contempt. At present I am allowed to express my convictions here and at no other major internet forum. That constitutes a tribute not only to me as an investigator who has published his convictions over a twenty-three year span, only once to see them referenced in a refereed journal, but just as important, it constitutes a tribute to "brainstorms" and a simultaneous indictment of the kind of mentalities that can only deal with their critics by pretending they do not exist. There is nothing new in this pattern. The same fate awaited William Bateson, Leo Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Soren Voltrup and every other vocal critic of the Darwinian mythology. The critics date back to Mivart in Darwin's own time right up the the present and the response by the "establishment" has unwaveringly been the same. We do not exist, we are not allowed to exist, we must never exist because, if we are permitted to exist, the biggest hoax in the history of science will be exposed for what it has always been, nothing but a figment of the human imagination. It has been 148 years of cynical denial and ideological blindness which apparently must have an innate congenital basis as the separated identical twin studies strongly suggest. I can conceive of no other explanation.
It is also apparent that of the most vocal supporters of the Darwinian fairy tale, Mayr, Gould, Provine, and Dawkins, not one ever did an experiment in his life or dirtied his hands at a paleontological dig. Without exception they pontificated from the illusory safety of their endowed chairs at some of our otherwise most distinguished institutions, Oxford, Harvard and Cornell. Not one of them ever published the results of an experiment in their entire lives. It constitutes an indictment of the scientific scene unparalleled in the history of science, a condition which I am confident cannot endure very much longer. There is nothing in the Darwinian hypothesis that ever had anything whatsoever to do with organic evolution, absolutely nothing! Albert Einstein said it best-
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
With Einstein, Leo Berg said the same thing about both ontogeny and phylogeny:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance,"
Nomogenesis, page 134.
It is perfectly obvious to this investigator that the entire scenario was planned from beginning to end and the end is now!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
"La commedia e finita."
Pagliacci
[ 05. June 2007, 04:41: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 04. June 2007 20:23
LifeEngineer
quote:
The basic test for your type of theory is to isolate some small element or component of a living or intelligent system then demonstrate that there is some fundamental difference between the isolated component of the intelligent or living system and an equivalent component of a non-living or non-intelligent system.
Both of these are expressions of intelligent systems.
The real comparison is to show how intelligence challenge is obtained from nature. e.g., for "non-living" systems is to show origin of "intelligent" living systems from non-living four forces of nature.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 05. June 2007 06:00
David,
Quote: The real comparison is to show how intelligence challenge is obtained from nature. e.g., for "non-living" systems is to show origin of "intelligent" living systems from non-living four forces of nature.
The ‘real challenge’ in the scientific analysis of intelligent behavior and of design is to formulate predictive scientific theories that address the ‘progressive’ change from ‘non-existence of intelligent goal directed solution’ to ‘existence of intelligent goal-directed solution’ (and theories that can address the loss of ability to generate goal-directed solutions).
All of the traditionally recognized forms of predictive hard science theories are based on the simple assumption that the past predicts the future. None of the traditionally recognized deterministic or stochastic forms of predictive theory can address the progressive or dynamic nature of design and intelligent causation.
Teleological theories meet this fundamental challenge. They satisfy the scientific challenge in making it both possible and practical to fit predictive hard science theories to instances of design and intelligent causation. Such theories do not satisfy the grandiose desire to explain the creation of life or a simple explanation of all intelligent causation.
To repeat, the ‘challenge’ in the scientific analysis of intelligent causation is to identify a type of theory that both satisfies the requirements of the scientific paradigm and fits the progressive dynamic nature of design and intelligent causation. The traditional deterministic and stochastic forms of predictive theories used in the physical sciences are not compatible with intelligent causation. It may be technically and mathematically difficult to recognize, but teleological theories satisfy both requirements.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 05. June 2007 07:19
Mel,
Quote: I don’t recall how closely you embraced the intelligence = problem solving characterization. In any case, suppose there was a room with, say, 100 automated computers operating in it.
I agree that intelligence or intelligent causation can be defined and analyzed in terms of problem solving. Analyzing intelligent causation in terms of problem solving means recognizing that there are limits and constraints on the abilities of intelligent systems to solve problems. If, at a point in time, the solution to a problem exists within the set of possible solutions evaluated by a system, and if the system can efficiently and with appropriate speed evaluate the set of available solutions, then the system will most probably find an appropriate solution. If either the set of possible or evaluated solutions doesn’t contain a solution or if the search is too slow or too inefficient, the system may not produce a solution.
Analyzing intelligence in terms of problem solving, we need to recognize that both the set of possible solutions and the search processes used are changeable. Thus a system may fail to find a solution at one point in time, but may be able to find an acceptable solution at another point in time.
Your example of a 100 units in an environment that can only support 80 illustrates how intelligence and problem solving work. Under what would be labeled non-ideal conditions, this type of problem might end in the failure of 20 or even all 100 units. Under more ideal conditions, the ‘system’ described might be able to come up with some third option like increase ventilation or conserve energy that insures the survival of all 100 units.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 05. June 2007 08:04
THE PROPERTIES OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
The defining or key difference between 1) real or hard science and 2) the whole array of subjective human behaviors variously labeled academic science, soft science, religion, and primitive beliefs, is the existence of testable predictive theories. The rule for determining the presence or absence of real or hard science analysis is very simple. Analysis qualifies as real scientific analysis if and only if analysis involves a steadily refined series of testable predictive theories meeting all the formal requirements for formal scientific theories. In blunt terms, if an academic or business discipline can not demonstrate the existence of hard science predictive theories, then the discipline is not real science and does not engage in real scientific analysis.
To determine if something qualifies as a real scientific theory, we can check to see if each of the following criteria has been satisfied. Some of these requirements will be at least partially familiar to most readers. Some of the requirements will be less familiar.
1. Format- Scientific theories may be expressed in many different forms, but it will always be possible to transform the theory into a standard format such as “Under ideal conditions, F(C) determines or predicts E”
2. Causal Variables- The causal variables in the theory will be well defined.
3. Quantification of Causal Variables- The rules for quantifying causal variables will be well defined.
4. Effect Variables- The effect variables in the theory will be well defined.
5. Quantification of Effect Variables- The rules for quantifying effect variables will be well defined.
6. Functional Relationship- The functions mathematical relationship between the values of causal variables and effect variables will be well defined.
7. Environmental Conditions- The environmental conditions that constitute ‘ideal conditions’ will be well defined.
8. The theory will satisfy the requirements for scientific determinism.
9. The theory will satisfy the requirements for scientific permanence and universality.
10. The theory will fit a standard recognized causal structure or format.
It should be noted that these requirements are more complex than they may appear on the surface.
[ 05. June 2007, 08:05: Message edited by: LifeEngineer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. June 2007 08:38
Nonsense. Science is nothing more than the disclosure of what has always been there just waiting to be revealed.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 05. June 2007 13:07
miosim:
quote:
This and other arguments remind me the argument that 1950 Chevrolet sedan is the best car you can get based on the fact that all its parts are perfectly fit each other and an attempt to replace its carburetor with a 2007 Toyota fuel injector failed, because it doesn’t fit at all.
This would apply to the subject at hand if it could be demonstrated that the equivalent of the 2007 Toyota exists. As it stands right now (using your analogy) all we have is the 1950 Chevrolet, no 2007 Toyota has ever been found. If you are going to use this analogy, show us the Toyota!
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 05. June 2007 16:56
LE, quote:
In the mean time evolutionary biologists refuse to permit any competing teleological theories to be presented or discussed.
Which is the best teleological theory that you feel should be considered to replace RM/NS?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 06. June 2007 06:06
IF,
Quote: Which is the best teleological theory that you feel should be considered to replace RM/NS?
One possible candidate for best teleological theories would be the teleological theories used in the falsify and replace analysis of the predictive (if somewhat trivial) form of RM&NS. Examples would include the teleological theories that address the intelligent goal directed control processes involved in preventing harmful mutations.
But my personal favorites aren’t the teleological theories associated with genetic change. The theories associated with the aspects of evolutionary changes that are not addressed by genetics are, IMO, far more interesting. For example, the teleological theories addressing the engineering control mechanisms that insure that all generated variations in means of locomotion meet rigorous engineering standards are very interesting.
Also very interesting are the teleological theories addressing all the sophisticated, intelligent, goal directed feedback loops involved in constructing and operating living systems.
But I suppose my personal favorites involve the teleological theories addressing the intelligent goal directed evolutionary processes associated with human decision making.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 06. June 2007 06:21
John,
Quote: Nonsense. Science is nothing more than the disclosure of what has always been there just waiting to be revealed.
It should be noted that biologists of all persuasions, not just Darwinists, have pretty much completely abandoned hard science in favor of what might be labeled belief in subjective political opinions mislabeled as science.
There are lots of authoritative claims to the effect that hard science rules don’t need to be applied to biology or the other life sciences, but there is really no evidence that you can have real productive scientific analysis without real testable predictive scientific theories.
It is important to keep in mind that it is relatively straight forward, using the criteria posted yesterday, to determine if so called scientific analysis is hard science analysis using hard science theories, of if it is soft science analysis involving theories that don’t meet hard science analysis.
Although is more technically challenging, soft science theories can be expressed in a hard science form and formally tested against competing hard science theories. Such testing reveals the extent to which soft science distorts the evidence and corrupts scientific analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 06. June 2007 06:50
HARD SCIENCE THEORIES
One feature of hard science theories that does not appear to be understood by most scientists is the structure, form or type feature. All scientific theories must belong to a recognized type or class of theories with a clearly defined logical and mathematical structure that satisfies all the requirements of the scientific paradigm.
The two best know types or structures that satisfy the requirements of the scientific paradigm are 1) the simple deterministic structure used for theories in the physical sciences, and 2) the stochastic or probabilistic structure used and misused in a variety of different fields.
Two moderately well known causal forms or causal structures that do not satisfy the requirements of the scientific paradigm are 1) the indeterminate causal structure (where the future effect can not be determined or predicted from past observations) and 2) the trivial causal structure where there are only a limited number or type of causal events (and thus the causal relationship is not subject to open testing).
The controversy surrounding intelligence based teleological theories, from a formal technical perspective, comes down to the questions of 1) what are the characteristics of the teleological causation structure and 2) does this structure satisfy all the requirements of the scientific paradigm. The two challenges in resolving this controversy are 1) finding individuals with the appropriate technical skills to evaluate the issue and 2) dealing with the massive irrational political opposition to teleological causation and theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 06. June 2007 07:44
LifeEngineer
quote:
Variations on the type of theory you advocate have been around for decades and probably centuries and have been pretty exhaustively tested and absolutely no evidence to support such theories have been found.
May I have any hope that you will provide me with the references to these theories and their testing or should I be more realistic in my expectations?
Daniel,
quote:
… As it stands right now (using your analogy) all we have is the 1950 Chevrolet, no 2007 Toyota has ever been found. If you are going to use this analogy, show us the Toyota!
I am trying to, and I will be back to this challenge. In the same time this demonstrates the deficiency of analysis that excludes even a possibility of alternative forms based on our limited ability to observe. Using the same deficient analysis, atheists claim that God cannot exist, because nobody sees him.
In this regards there is an example how the question of not existence could be addressed. Around 1980, the famous Ukrainian heart surgeon and AI enthusiast Dr. Nikolai Amosov, during one of his public lectures, was asked if he believes in God. That time and having high visibility position (Academics) to admit the belief in God is to put your self into troubles. So this is his answer: “I am scientist and I belief in the scientific method only that is based on experiment. Therefore, until an absent of God will be experimentally proved, I have reservation regarding a final conclusion”.
But again, your question has a valid point: if multiple forms of life could exist (according to my hypothesis) why none of them ever been found. This is a good question and I need some time to prepare a good answer? Also I need time to get books "Nature's Destiny" and "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", or at least find on internet facts and arguments they are based on. I need better understanding of their challenges, because I may be faced this question again and again. In the past I didn’t pay attention to arguments that just “glorified the Mother Nature”.
nosivad,
Thank you for http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000548.
It is interesting discussion and I hope to learn from it. I plan to read “FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM” by Phillip L. Engle.
So, I have to do some reading, and taking in account that I do not have an immediate access to descent library, it may take some time.
[ 06. June 2007, 07:52: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
