|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 28. June 2007 20:34
Daniel,
quote:
Since viruses need a host (a living entity more complex than themselves), I don't see how this applies.
Sorry, I guess that since I read about using viruses as agents (I think they call them vectors) in an attempt to correct, with the hopes of eventually curing, genetic diseases, I now see viruses more as complex chemical compounds that replicate simply because of their chemical environment. They can be modified so that they do not replicate while still in the host and in that case they are like medicine or powerful drugs if used correctly.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 29. June 2007 23:27
IF:
quote:
...I now see viruses more as complex chemical compounds that replicate simply because of their chemical environment. They can be modified so that they do not replicate while still in the host...
Can they be modified to replicate outside of a host (IOW, live on their own)?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. June 2007 04:45
Daniel,
quote:
Can they be modified to replicate outside of a host (IOW, live on their own)?
Unfortunately, I don't know for sure! My guess is that they could probably be "grown" artifically in a vile somewhere. My point is that they are a complex chemical molecule that duplicates in the right environment. The fact that the environment is a living cell is the only restriction that I know of. Are they alive in your view?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 02. July 2007 07:46
OBSERVING INTELLIGENT CAUSATION
Intelligent causation provides an interesting illustration of the fundamental differences between ‘soft science or armchair observations’ and ‘hard science observations’. Miosim and Daniel and IF and aiguy can discuss soft science or armchair observations till the cows come home, and they will never make any progress in resolving the scientific issues associated with intelligent causation.
Most of the basic technical methodologies for scientific observation of intelligent causation are well established. Intelligent causation is analyzed in terms of information processing. Scientific observation of information processing involves defining and quantifying input and output variables, defining the applicable environmental conditions, and ‘fitting’ the observed values to programs or processing algorithms.
The major or fundamental ‘currently unresolved’ technical problems associated with scientific observation of intelligent causation involve 1) identifying unambiguous examples of intelligent causation and 2) finding algorithms and thus testable predictive theories that fit the observed input and output values.
The main obstacle to identifying examples of intelligent causation is the non-scientific ‘it has to be something else’ argument promoted by lots of academics including many AI academics like aiguy. Once you recognize or accept that intelligent causation can be defined in terms of problem solving or goal directed behavior, then there are lots of real world behaviors that meet the criteria for intelligent causation and that can be subjected to formal scientific observation and analysis using well established and highly refined methodologies for modeling and simulating information processing.
Once you have identified examples of intelligent causation, then using established methodologies you can begin real scientific observation and study. With real scientific observations and data, you can begin attempting to solve the problem of fitting data to algorithms and theories.
The point that needs to be repeated over and over again until it finally sinks in, is that scientific analysis is a formal methodology for analyzing all sorts of problems including intelligent causation. If we want to determine if a particular analytical approach qualifies as real scientific analysis, all we need to do is check closely to determine if the analysis includes the basic elements and components of the formal scientific paradigm. Formal scientific observations and the gathering of formal scientific data are clearly essential parts of the scientific process or paradigm.
When we look at approaches to analysis of intelligent causation like ‘intelligence is something other than what is modeled by computers’ or intelligent causation is abiogenisis or intelligent causation is come unobservable physical process, then we do not find hard science observations and data. We find lots of interesting armchair speculation but we don’t find hard scientific data.
If an approach does not produce hard scientific data, then the approach is not real scientific analysis no matter how impressive the credentials of the people performing the analysis. The difference between real science and non-science really is as simple as looking for the presence of hard scientific data.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 02. July 2007 10:43
LE,
Your last post is interesting to me because it seems that with regards to Intelligent Causation you are laying out all of the problems as you see them without suggesting how to implement your view! Aiguy says that Intelligent Causation is simply a name for a very vague process that describes a "human" activity and that applying that same name to some naturally occurring process is the reason for the confusion. On top of that is the fact that Science "believes" that at the root of human activity are nothing but natural processes! Hopefully, you will inspire someone to clear up the issue for you.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 02. July 2007 13:54
IF:
quote:
Are they alive in your view?
Technically they are "alive" but they do not meet the standards for any theory of abiogenesis - since they require a living host to survive.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 02. July 2007 14:22
Daniel,
quote:
Technically they are "alive" but they do not meet the standards for any theory of abiogenesis - since they require a living host to survive.
So they are not self-replicating cells but they are technically "alive", ... hmmm! So, you don't think they are just a few steps up from a replicating molecule in a soup of suitable chemicals? Since you said, quote:
I believe, if you look into what constitutes "life" at it's most basic level (self replicating cell)
can you explain how you justify it? Also, if they can be modified so as to not replicate but just stay attached to existing DNA are they still alive or dead or what in your view?
IP: Logged
|
|
Danpech
Member
Member # 163
|
posted 02. July 2007 15:31
In reply to the initial post of this thread, especially to one statement:
The design inference asserts an identity relation: "Whatever cause enables human beings to design artifacts is the same thing as the cause of biological complexity".
To start with, I, as a human being, make design inferences all the time. I do this both of objects that I and other human beings design-and-make, and of objects that non-human animals design-and-make.
I also don't find it logically impossible that I myself am a product of intelligent design, nor that the whole universe is a product of intelligent design.
Nevertheless, I see no direct empirical basis for assuming that any natural object is, or can be, designed-and-made by a natural intelligence.
(((Two notes:
1. By 'natural intelligence', I mean nothing more than that the intelligence is actually aware (like me), contra what we (or I) normally assume for, say, grains of sand, stars, chunks of fire wood, grandma's cookies, etc..)
2. I make a distinction between 'caused' and 'designed'. I, or at least some part of my body, and in combination with some part a female body, can be the cause of another natural intelligence, but I do not believe that my own cognitive deliberation is the cause of that other intelligence.
But, regardless of my lack of direct empirical support for my own inference of design for the entire universe, my inference of said design does not assert that whatever cause enables human beings to design artifacts is the same thing as the cause of biological complexity.
In fact, my own direct experience of my own natural intelligence does not even include any awareness of the connection between my material composition and my natural intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 03. July 2007 08:15
IF,
Quote: Your last post is interesting to me because it seems that with regards to Intelligent Causation you are laying out all of the problems as you see them without suggesting how to implement your view!
We keep coming back to the bizzaro land of academic science where discussion and analysis based on ‘misleading assumptions approved by academic authorities’ is supposed to be treated as some type of reality.
The reality, once you get away from academic bizzaro land, is that there are well established and highly sophisticated procedures for observing, analyzing, simulating and engineering (improving or redesigning) instances of intelligent causation. In bizzaro land, academic authority figures like aiguy argue that “If, as an authority figure, I refuse to recognize any behaviors subject to scientific analysis as intelligent based on my personal subjective authoritative claim, then I can further claim that there is no scientific analysis of intelligent causation”.
In the real world of real systems designers and real scientific analysis of intelligent behavior, scientists routinely observe and model and simulate all sorts of intelligent behaviors. There are certainly complex technical challenges associated with this analysis and even a few yet to be solved technical challenges. But there clearly exists currently an extremely sophisticated ability to scientifically analyze complex intelligent behaviors.
The real issue here is a choice between 1) an established, sophisticated, hard science approach to defining and analyzing intelligent causation and 2) approaches that use subjective authority to artificially establish the validity of unsound assumptions.
For lots of interesting reasons, most ID supporters are as unwilling to embrace the established hard science methods of defining and analyzing intelligent causation as the academic disciplines of AI and biology.
The post that you found interesting suggests that anyone interested in the scientific analysis of intelligent causation actually look at the scientific requirements for ‘formal observation of intelligent causation and collecting relevant scientific data’. Then compare the actual ‘observations and data collection’ produced by the various soft science approaches to the ‘observations and data collection’ produced by established hard science methodologies. Anyone actually willing and able to make this comparison will reach the obvious conclusion.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. July 2007 09:45
LE,
quote:
We keep coming back to the bizzaro land of academic science where discussion and analysis based on ‘misleading assumptions approved by academic authorities’ is supposed to be treated as some type of reality
The reality, once you get away from academic bizzaro land, is that there are well established and highly sophisticated procedures for observing, analyzing, simulating and engineering (improving or redesigning) instances of intelligent causation. In bizzaro land, academic authority figures like aiguy argue that “If, as an authority figure, I refuse to recognize any behaviors subject to scientific analysis as intelligent based on my personal subjective authoritative claim, then I can further claim that there is no scientific analysis of intelligent causation”. .
Who, then, is supposed to make the decisions? It seems to me that if a group of like minded folks felt as you do then an alternative decision making authority could be funded and then let the chips fall where they may! This happens in sports, for example, all of the time! ABA in opposition to the NBA, AFL and NFL, etc. As long as there is improvement in the long run it is a good thing.
quote:
In the real world of real systems designers and real scientific analysis of intelligent behavior, scientists routinely observe and model and simulate all sorts of intelligent behaviors. There are certainly complex technical challenges associated with this analysis and even a few yet to be solved technical challenges. But there clearly exists currently an extremely sophisticated ability to scientifically analyze complex intelligent behaviors.
Where did those participants get their training? Why hasn't anyone else noticed this?
quote:
The real issue here is a choice between 1) an established, sophisticated, hard science approach to defining and analyzing intelligent causation and 2) approaches that use subjective authority to artificially establish the validity of unsound assumptions.
I think both of those points have been with us from the very beginning!
quote:
The post that you found interesting suggests that anyone interested in the scientific analysis of intelligent causation actually look at the scientific requirements for ‘formal observation of intelligent causation and collecting relevant scientific data’. Then compare the actual ‘observations and data collection’ produced by the various soft science approaches to the ‘observations and data collection’ produced by established hard science methodologies. Anyone actually willing and able to make this comparison will reach the obvious conclusion.
Why haven't they?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 07. July 2007 20:45
Daniel,
Sorry that it took so long for me to respond to your 23 June 2007 15:32 posting.
quote:
Daniel:
I'm trying to follow your logic, but am having a hard time grasping some of it. You are positing that basically everything is intelligent - correct? Is this "intelligence" anything like human intelligence?
Yes and No.
Yes, because the nature of intelligence, the way I see it, is the same for any physical or biological body - from elementary particle to human. Therefore I expect elementary particles possess self-awareness.
No, because elementary particles’ and humans’ intelligences are different in their unique collection OF SPECIFIC ABILITIES TO SOLVE A SPECIFIC CLASS OF PROBLEMS (see my posting from 25 May 2007 05:23), same way as any two humans have a different type of intelligence.
To compare intelligence we need to assign a SUBJECTIVE WEIGHT FACTOR to each specific ABILITY. For example, if we accept the higher Weight Factors for scholar abilities, Bob who can speak Latin and has five PHDs, should have a higher combined intelligence score than Steve who is a High School dropout. However, if Steve is a good hunter, and could be judged by the members of the primitive Hunter-gatherer band, Steve would have a higher intelligence score, because judges would be more impressed with Steve’s hunting instinct that with Bob’s five PHDs.
It is possible, that in the future, the shift of the WEIGHT FACTOR may occur in favor to other human abilities that are not recognized today, same way as in the past linguistic talents weren’t recognized as valuable, by the members of the primitive Hunter-gatherer bands.
quote:
Daniel:
For instance, you say that intelligent "elementary particles" "collectively established and follow laws of Nature". How were these laws of Nature "collectively established"? Were they agreed upon? Voted upon?
I think that fundamental mechanisms of collective decision making and self-organization are the same for physical matter and human society.
In my posting from 11 May 2007 06:00, I mentioned Marx’s Dialectic that views the development of human society as a Helix, where each stage of the social system evolution is a repetition of the past forms, but on the higher level. If we accept that evolution of all systems, living and non-living, follows a Helix, we would able to utilize analogies between social and physical systems. For example, in my posting from 16 May 2007 20:34, I presented an example of a similarity between the role of money in human society (money field) and physical forces. Following the analogy between physical forces and processes in human society, political economist R.J. Rummel introduced a notion of force field into social environment: UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT AND WAR, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE11.HTM
“…The socio-cultural field is a space-time continuum generated by individual needs. The activation of needs, their transformation from potentiality to actuality provides regions of energy in the field. The media carrying this energy are our socio-cultural meanings, values, and norms…This medium of the socio-cultural field is the seat of social forces. Spread throughout this field, meanings, values, and norms carry within themselves potential forces which may be actualized at any point in the field. Thus, the socio-cultural field is a force field…”
If we accept that evolution of our universe follows a Helix, from elementary particle to human society, it gives us a powerful methodological tool that enable us to project our knowledge from one level of the Helix to another level and this way, to help fill “blanks” in the “crossword” of our knowledge.
Human society is based on self-organization generated by members having individual, often conflicting, needs. So, to coexist, humans established social laws. Using an analogy method, we may project the self-organization principle of human society to non-living matter and suggest that its hierarchical organization is also based on elementary particles’ individual needs. To coexist, elementary particles established laws that we recognize as laws of nature.
Any collective actions of elementary particles’ societies (atoms, molecules, macro objects, planets, starts, etc.) are resulted from collective decision making, similar to solving a problem by a group. As I described in my posting from 18 May 2007 20:46, solving a problem by a group occurs as follows: members of the group solve a problem independently and then compare their results. The different results are random, and therefore will be canceled out as incorrect, but identical results represent the answer defined by the group.
If we project this problem solving mechanism to a physical body, we may say that each individual element of this body, subjected to an external physical force, independently examines the external conditions (independently reacts upon applied force), comes up with a solution to achieve tangible benefits (minimum free energy, equilibrium, etc), compares the results among the members of the system (superposition of their reactions), and only then the group acts upon the decision dictated by majority(conflicting reactions are canceled out, but identical reactions are summed). A nail, hit on the head by a hammer, moves downward, penetrating the wood not just because of the brutal force of a hammer, but because the nail’s constituent parts resolute the "conscious" decision to move downward, penetrating the wood (instead of arguing with a hammer). Regardless of the absurd description of this example, it would not contradict to a nail's motion described by the classical mechanic. In case of protein folding, electrons that are delocalized over an entire molecule collectively shape the molecule to achieve an overall “minimum of free energy”. Electrons’ collective decision making should be similar to, as described above, the group decision making process.
To work collectively on problems, particles have to communicate. There are at least four types of interactions/communications among particles: strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational. These communication channels differ in intensity and range. An analogy could be projected to multiple communication channels in human civilization that also differ in the information intensity and range (speech, writing, radio, TV, Internet, etc.). It is interesting to view gravitational long range interaction among cosmic bodies as long range informational interactions. If following the analogy with communication channels that gradually evolved in human civilization, a gravitation field may not have existed at the time of Big Bang, and was “invented” by particles later to communicate over increasing distance of expanding universe. Absent of a gravitational field at the Big Bang, would solve the contradiction between initial eruption of our universe and the infinite gravitational field (gravitational singularity) that should prevent this from happening if gravitational force existed at that time.
quote:
Daniel:
What system exists which provides any evidence of "particle intelligence"?
I think that a limitation of our perception prevents us to recognize intelligence around us.
Intelligence is the goal-achieving ability to solve a problem. We believe, that more complex problem requires more efforts and higher degree of intelligence to solve it. However, if a system solves a problem instantly and without any noticeable efforts, we assume that no intelligence is involved in this process that we call spontaneous
When scientists eventually were able to built a robot that can barely walk, recognize and respond to commands, we call this machine and the process it created intelligent. But, if we observe a person who effortlessly walks and talks on a cell phone, we wouldn’t perceive this as a true intelligent behavior. A scientist who is working on a problem of protein folding, by our perception, is intelligent, but a protein molecule itself that performs folding process effortlessly, per our judgment, does not deserve to be called intelligent.
Non-living systems are not expected to make mistakes in their spontaneously occurring dynamics. An electron always finds a positive charge that causes the electron’s motion. A chemical reaction always yields the same result, regardless how often we repeat it. A thrown stone always finds its way to the ground. It is remarkable that regardless of a 100% success rate, we refuse to admit intelligence of these non-living systems, but living systems that are underachievers (make mistakes) we award with a title of intelligence.
Because of our perception of intelligence, we expect to observe its goal-directed activity constantly; otherwise we may assume that system, even intelligent in the past, is dead by now. However, what if an intelligent system achieved its goal and is just resting?
A man, who is building a house, demonstrates his goal-directed ability, but after finishing it (100% success) he will rest and we may never observe this ability again. Though if a house didn’t perfectly accommodate all needs for this man, (less that 100% success) he will continue working on rebuilding, improving, expanding his house and this way making his goal-directed activity constantly observable. A person, who has been working hard to achieve his financial success, will stop working when his goal is achieved (100% success). But if a person failed to achieve his financial goal, he continues working hard, making his goal-directed activity observable.
We observe a goal-directed activity of living systems, because they never achieve their goal and therefore constantly are involved in building, rebuilding and maintaining their structures. Non-living systems fully achieve their goal (minimum of free energy) and are resting. A rock "achieved its goal" millions years ago and now is in rest. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize its goal-directed ability.
We refuse to see intelligence around us, because we strive for the simplest explanation of Nature. A falling down object is described in the terms of applied external forces. However, chemical reactions cannot be reduced to external forces, so a description in the simplified terms of teleologicaly sound thermodynamics is provided: self-assembly of atoms into molecules is directed by goal to achieve a minimum of free energy, by randomly trying all possible combination. In more complex case of protein folding, the random search doesn’t work any more, because there are too many combinations to try within a limited time. Admitting that elementary particles possess intelligence should help explain this and other complex self-assembly mechanisms. This hypothesis may also help to solve a wide range of problems from quantum mechanic and origin of life to cosmological phenomena. It may contribute to future Unifying Theory of Matter and Intelligence that will restore a sensible interpretation of our universe away from nonsense interpretation insisted by quantum mechanics.
quote:
miosim:
Suddenly, we may notice one car that is violating all traffic rules (probably because of a drunk driver) causing turmoil and all sorts of chaotic behaviors of traffic that violate deterministic laws. The greatest irony is that this car that violates “traffic laws” would be associated with emergence of life-like and goal-directed behavior (escaping from police chasing this car, for example).
Daniel:
Actually, the car that violates laws is most unlike life. It is more like cancer or something destructive to life. Life acts much more like the cars obeying the traffic laws - only with much more fidelity that humans do.
You view a Life as a perfect creation and therefore it is like “the cars obeying the traffic laws”. This is also in agreement with traditional science that views Life as a process that opposes to entropy and therefore is associated with an order.
However in my example I describe not life itself, but its EMERGENCE only.
This example describes an analogy between turmoil in a traffic and phenomenon of bifurcation in the chemical systems that emerges “at the age of chaos”. Therefore, for me, the process of life EMERGENCE is associated with disorder and chaotic dynamics. Developments of this chaotic process eventually could be transformed into its negation – order. In case of chemical bifurcation, they could be transformed into biological systems and in case of traffic bifurcation, they could be transform into additional road infrastructure (surveillance cameras, additional police posts etc.) preventing this bifurcation in the future. According to Marx’s dialectics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics#Hegelian_dialectic
“…Contradiction is the key to all other categories and principles of dialectical development: … negation of the initial moment of development and negation of this very negation, and repetition at a higher level of some of the features and aspects of the original state…”
quote:
miosim:
The destructive character of natural selection is entirely adequate with the natural development ... However, it is absolutely unacceptable from the Design perspective. Could you imagine a machine in which its parts compete and even destroy each other? If life was designed, how wasteful is this design?
Daniel:
You mean like a car engine burns (destroys) gasoline in order to translate it into usable energy? Yes, I can imagine it. In fact it's common amongst designs.
No, I mean a design of car by which an engine, competing for power, tries to kill air conditioner system or automaker that makes small cars just to be destroyed by bigger cars in order to obtain a usable energy.
quote:
Daniel:
…Have you ever heard of a TV show called "Extreme Makeover Home Edition"? It's a show where they "makeover" a needy family's home in a week. They almost always begin by demolishing the original home and building a new one in it's place. This too is common in design
However, I never heard that in order to build a home, the neighboring well built homes have to be destroyed to obtain building materials.
quote:
Daniel:
I can find flaws with any design. Why is my chair not more comfortable? Why doesn't my car fly? And etc... These types of arguments don't take into account the overall effectiveness of the designs and their place within a larger system.
When in my posting from 17 June 2007 13:16 I mentioned deficiencies of life, I explained, that I don’t mean deficiency if a creature cannot flies like a bird, cannot swims like a fish, isn’t strong like a lion, and isn’t smart like a human. I mean fundamental deficiencies that are incompatible with the idea of Intelligent Design. The Design that intended destroying new homes to obtain building materials, doesn’t contribute to overall effectiveness.
[ 08. July 2007, 08:19: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 08. July 2007 13:02
IF: quote:
So, you don't think they are just a few steps up from a replicating molecule in a soup of suitable chemicals?
If you are proposing a theory of abiogeneis, you have a long way to go. The pathway from "here" to "there" is fraught with insurmountable obstacles. This is why those who have actually researched the subject in depth have been unable to come up with a workable theory. Of course it's easy to just stand back, without doing any research, and say "It looks possible to me.", but when you do that, the only person you're convincing is yourself.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 08. July 2007 13:32
miosim:
I think your hypothesis is more philosophical than scientific (It reminds me of some types of eastern mysticism which hold that God is in everything and is everything) and depends upon a somewhat flawed definition of intelligence.
quote:
A man, who is building a house, demonstrates his goal-directed ability, but after finishing it (100% success) he will rest and we may never observe this ability again.
We see here the main flaw in your definition: you attribute goal directed behavior (intelligence) to the man building the house, but not to the house itself. According to your application of the definition elsewhere however, the house is also intelligent and exhibits goal directed behavior merely by "allowing itself" to be built and by providing shelter and comfort. Not only is the house intelligent, but all the tools and building materials the man uses must also be called intelligent by your definition: quote:
A nail, hit on the head by a hammer, moves downward, penetrating the wood not just because of the brutal force of a hammer, but because the nail’s constituent parts resolute the "conscious" decision to move downward, penetrating the wood (instead of arguing with a hammer).
In essence you are reducing "intelligence" to functionality by saying that anything that performs a function (even a thrown stone) is intelligent. I don't think anyone will accept such a broad, all-inclusive definition of intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 08. July 2007 15:34
Daniel,
quote:
IF: quote:
So, you don't think they are just a few steps up from a replicating molecule in a soup of suitable chemicals?
If you are proposing a theory of abiogeneis, you have a long way to go. The pathway from "here" to "there" is fraught with insurmountable obstacles. This is why those who have actually researched the subject in depth have been unable to come up with a workable theory. Of course it's easy to just stand back, without doing any research, and say "It looks possible to me.", but when you do that, the only person you're convincing is yourself.
So you don't see them as chemicals in a soup of chemicals and how they got from there to whatever you think they are today is a tough problem! That's a good thing because it means to me that you think the real answers have yet to be determined. As you know, education, research, analysis, etc. have been successfully applied in the past to similar but somewhat "easier" (at least in hindsight) kinds of problems i.e. spontaneous generation, plagues and curses, etc. Whatever the ultimate answers are to the questions that we have about nature will never be settled unless we keep trying to discover them. Questions, controversies, and contention have always been the fun part (to me anyway) of all of these kinds of debates throughout human history. Ideas are the sometimes violent sparks and they always have been but human effort is the fuel that has kept our learning energized and advancing. I just don't believe these kinds of problems are really "insurmountable" they're just very tough.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 08. July 2007 23:56
quote:
Daniel:
I think your hypothesis is more philosophical than scientific (It reminds me of some types of eastern mysticism which hold that God is in everything and is everything)
and depends upon a somewhat flawed definition of intelligence.
Indeed this idea is only a road map to a hypothesis, I may develop in the future. Regarding flawed definition of intelligence, the only problem I see it includes non-living systems and therefore became a highly controversial. Otherwise, it is pretty ordinary definition, and I don’t expect much difficulty to defend it.
quote:
Daniel:
We see here the main flaw in your definition: you attribute goal directed behavior (intelligence) to the man building the house, but not to the house itself. According to your application of the definition elsewhere however, the house is also intelligent and exhibits goal directed behavior merely by "allowing itself" to be built and by providing shelter and comfort. Not only is the house intelligent, but all the tools and building materials the man uses must also be called intelligent by your definition:
Per my definition, intelligence is a collection of demonstrated goal-achieving, problem solving abilities. Man demonstrated some of his abilities by building a house. House itself didn’t demonstrate any ability. House, as a place to provide shelter and comfort is a CONCEPT invented and implemented by a man, but not abilities of a house itself. I cannot characterize house as intelligent even its parts are reducible to intelligent elements. Same way, I cannot characterize as intelligent, arranged human pyramid, even it consists of intelligent individuals.
quote:
Daniel:
In essence you are reducing "intelligence" to functionality by saying that anything that performs a function (even a thrown stone) is intelligent. I don't think anyone will accept such a broad, all-inclusive definition of intelligence.
Indeed, I view any, even spontaneous process as intelligent one. However my goal isn’t making everybody accept this hypothesis, but just to consider it, as an explanation for life phenomenon and, as alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some time, I also think that this is my delusion only, but I didn’t come up yet with a good reason to dismiss this idea.
[ 09. July 2007, 05:53: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
