|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 06. June 2007 17:22
Miosim,
Quote: 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?
As I recall, physiology courses and philosophy of sciences courses back in the 60’s discussed your type of theory. The theories were, as I recall, considered outdated way back then. The theories related to various efforts to physically locate things like the soul, the mind, intelligence, or a ‘life force’. I certainly don’t have any textbooks or lecture notes from back then, but I can’t imagine the subject has been completely lost to history.
It is my understanding or maybe just impression, that there are pretty effective analytical tools for isolating hypothesized physical compounds or forces. At this time in history, I doubt that anyone would take the ‘intelligence as a special force’ concept seriously unless there was positive evidence to support it.
I find it kind of interesting that since you are obviously interested in the subject you haven’t come across any materials on the subject. The efficiency or inefficiency of communicating technical information on scientific subjects like intelligence is rather interesting.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 06. June 2007 20:50
Life Engineer,
Thank you for reply.
I am not aware about any similar theory discussed in the 60’s, maybe because that I time I was behind an “iron curtain” where even "Nature" magazine was restricted to public. Neverless I knew about “Vitalism” because it was actively criticized by our academic science. But “Vitalism” is nothing to do with my hypothesis.
I wouldn’t surprise that other people in the past had worked on the similar hypothesis, but probably wasn't able to publish it. I am just lucky to live in the era of Internet and able to discuss this idea.
[ 06. June 2007, 21:01: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 07. June 2007 13:39
IF:
quote:
Which is the best teleological theory that you feel should be considered to replace RM/NS?
I don't know which one is "best" but there are several to consider. There's Dr. Davison's "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis", Leo Berg's "Nomogenesis", Dr. Lee Spetner's "Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis" and Michael Denton's "Anthropocentric Design Hypothesis" (my name - not his) among others.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 07. June 2007 17:31
Daniel,
quote:
I don't know which one is "best" {Teleological Theory}but there are several to consider.
Who should know which is the best and what would be the deciding factor?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 07. June 2007 17:32
Daniel,
quote:
I don't know which one is "best" {Teleological Theory}but there are several to consider.
Who should know which is the best and what would be the deciding factor?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 08. June 2007 06:32
It is rather interesting to observe the dramatic differences between the hard science-teleological theories concept of intelligence and the soft science approaches to the analysis of intelligence.
From the hard science teleological perspective, intelligence is the force or phenomenon responsible for transforming a system that can not produce a solution or goal directed response into a system that can produce a solution or goal directed response. Using the computer or logic machine analogy, intelligence is the set of forces or processes that first transforms a fixed algorithm system into a programmable logic machine. Once a system is adaptable or programmable, intelligence is the set of forces or process or phenomena that results in inputting program that results in the system producing a solution or goal directed response.
For most people, probably the most difficult part of the hard perspective to understand is the fact that scientists can formulate valid predictive teleological theories with only limited understanding of processes or forces involved. Scientists, for example, can formulate predictive theories without understanding what is involved in transforming a system from a fixed algorithm system into a programmable logic machine. Scientists don’t need to understand the sources of the programs the result in goal directed behavior. Scientists can formulate predictive teleological theories simply by recognizing that the causal relationship being analyzed fits the general pattern of intelligent causation.
Also confusing for scientists who actually get involved with hard science analysis, is the fact that teleological theories are not invalidated by knowledge of the sources of programs or knowledge of the processes involved in making systems programmable. For example, a hard science teleological theory is not invalidated if we learn that one of the sources of a program is a simple chemical input.
Soft science approaches, by contrast, attempt to provide explanations of intelligent causation in terms of broad general essentially magical forces that provide complete general explanations of complex phenomenon. In the soft science approach, a man envisions a spaceship to the moon and poof it happens. In the soft science, God or RM&NS envisions an elephant and poof it appears.
Certainly a big part of the problem most people have in accepting hard science analysis of intelligence is the fact that soft science (and magical) explanations of intelligent causation are so much easier to understand and so much more intuitively satisfying.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 08. June 2007 11:03
LE quote:
In the soft science, God or RM&NS envisions an elephant and poof it appears.
How does RM&NS "envision" anything if it only represents a natural process? Or, are you using the term in an analogical/anthropomorhic sense?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 08. June 2007 11:53
Quote: How does RM&NS "envision" anything if it only represents a natural process? Or, are you using the term in an analogical/anthropomorhic sense?
Good question. Some human sees an elephant and a period of time in the past when elephants did not exist. He or she then envisions that the elephant was created by 1)god, 2)some magical process and/or 3) RM&NS. Technically the envisionig in all magical explanations occurs in the human mind. Similarly the goal or purpose in a teleological process exists or is created in the mind of a scientist. Hard science and soft science are both forms of human behavior involving the use of human imagination. The difference between the two types of behavior centers on the use of formal theories and formal testing in hard science.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. June 2007 09:03
FITTING DATA TO THEORIES
As almost everyone probably learned in one of their first science courses, one of the key stages in developing a scientific theory is fitting or matching the theory to an existing body of data. Only after a theory has been identified that fits the relevant existing data, do we need to concern ourselves with satisfying the testability requirement.
For even the simplest examples of design or intelligent causation, fitting data to a theory means addressing the issue of the transformation from ‘can not generate solutions and can not generate goal directed behavior’ to ‘can generate solutions and can generate goal-directed purposeful behavior’.
At first blush, the requirement that scientific theories describe or address ‘permanent and universal’ laws of nature, would appear to be in direct contradiction to the dynamic characteristics of intelligent causation. However, if you understand abstract mathematics, you will understand that dynamic functions and relationships and models can be viewed as simply a different way of expressing permanent and universal functions relationships and models for finite sets of data. Humans, it will be noted, can only collect finite sets of data.
The trick or technique for fitting the dynamic behavior of intelligent causation to the permanent and universal requirement of the scientific theory is the use of the “under ideal conditions’ or ‘with defined constraints’ component of the scientific theory. A system generates solutions or goal directed behavior under ideal conditions or within defined constraints. A system does not generate solutions or does not generate goal directed behavior under non-ideal conditions or outside of defined constraints.
If you understand mathematical modeling, you should recognize that this use of the ‘under ideal conditions’ requirement can be used to fit data to teleological functions and theories, to simple deterministic theories and models and to stochastic theories and models. The scientific superiority of teleological functions and theories only arises when we attempt to satisfy the testability requirements. Teleological theories are testable. Simple deterministic and stochastic theories of intelligent causation are trivial. This means it is always relatively easy to find test conditions where these theories are falsified.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 09. June 2007 18:03
IF:
quote:
Who should know which is the best and what would be the deciding factor?
Since "best" is a subjective term, I guess the answer to both questions is "You decide for yourself".
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 10. June 2007 00:05
Daniel,
quote:
Since "best" is a subjective term, I guess the answer to both questions is "You decide for yourself".
Wow! That sounds to me like a recipe for contention! Are you sure the word "best" means that when used in a scientific sense?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 10. June 2007 00:27
IF,
When has science not been contentious?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 10. June 2007 08:18
IF,
You wrote:
quote:
Which is the best teleological theory that you feel should be considered to replace RM/NS?
When you ask Daniel the above question, you are conceding that “best” is a subjective term by asking his opinion. Latter, when you ask him “what would be the deciding factor”, again you admit that “best” is subjective. Further, you agree the matter is contentious as you lie in wait to counter any offering made by him which does not fit your particular criteria for “best”.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 10. June 2007 09:35
Daniel,
quote:
When has science not been contentious?
Never! However, the peer review process seems to have been used to great advantage in deciding the contentious issues in a civilized manner. Where equally valid choices are found then both are pursued. No?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 10. June 2007 09:46
Mel,
I was thinking of the word "best" in a cold, analytical, rational sense as defined in most dictionaries (eg. dictionary.com) when used in a "scientific" context. I am simply trying to raise the awareness of a very difficult distinction to make between objective and subjective views especially for subjects with emotional baggage, so to speak.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
