|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. July 2007 07:57
Quote; 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.
Daniel's comment point out one of the the fundamental problems with defining and analyzing intelligent causation. At what point, as you analyze smaller and smaller components of an intelligent system, and as you analyze subsystems indirectly related to or produced by an intelligent system, does the intelligence disappear?
In scientific analysis, or hard science analysis, the criteria for an elementary unit of intelligence, is the predictive theory. If a unit of behavior or a subsystem can be described and scientifically explained by a testable predictive (non-trivial) intelligence based theory, then the unit qualifies as intelligent.
If, like miosim, you indefinitely postpone formulating predictive theories, then you can never determine what constitutes a simple element of intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. July 2007 10:11
INTELLIGENT AGENCY
A lot of people who want to be experts on intelligent causation are unwilling to accept definitions of intelligence based on observed behavior because such definitions are not compatible with their beliefs. Biologists, as only one example, refuse to accept definitions of design based on the improbably of the phenotype form because this does not agree with their ideological belief that biological systems are not designed by intelligence. Many, probably most, ID supporters are equally unwilling to accept scientifically object definitions of intelligent causation because such definitions are incompatible with their religious or metaphysical beliefs.
Most of these people seem to believe that they can come up with definitions compatible with their ideological beliefs by insisting that intelligent causation be defined in terms of intelligent causes or intelligent agency. There are, it would appear, three general types of potential intelligent causation or intelligent agency- 1) mental causation, 2) goal or teleological causation, and 3) material causation.
A lot of people would like to believe that intelligent causation must always involve mental causation. The rather simplistic logic behind this argument is something like ‘If intelligent behavior involves humans then human mental causation was responsible, and if humans weren’t involved then 1) the result could not the result of intelligent causation because there was no mind involved or 2) the result must involve mental causation produced by God because hers was the only mental causation that could have been involved.” I will leave it to Ilion and aiguy to explain why one of these two options is completely moronic and the other is completely logical.
In order to scientifically resolve the question of intelligent agency or intelligent causation we need to recognize two facts. First, as has been noted many times by many experts, science does not and can not formulate theories based on mental causation because such causal factors can not be defined, observed and quantified. Science does not reject mental causation by God or man because of beliefs regarding the existence of such causation. Science rejects mental causation of all sorts, human and divine, because such causation is not observable.
This leaves science with two choices, defining intelligent causation or intelligent agency in terms of teleological variables or in terms of materialistic variables. It will be noted that both types of variables meet the scientific requirements for defining, observing and quantifying. Yes, Virginia, real scientists recognize that goal variables are observable, definable and quantifiable.
In formally or scientifically analyzing any form of intelligent behavior, we will always be able to define and quantify one or more goal variables. And while it is usually far more difficult, scientists can reasonably expect to find multiple sets of material causes for intelligent behavior (at least for intelligent behavior within a limited or trivial set of conditions). It is safe or reasonable to assume that for any instance of intelligent causation it will be possible to identify, define, quantify, and observe both teleological causes and material causes.
Thus scientists in studying intelligent causation must reject formulating theories based on mental causation because such factors or variables, while they may exist, are not observable. The scientist then has a choice between teleological causation and materialistic causation. Contrary to what many ideologues would like to believe, theories based on teleological causation are preferable because 1) they are easier to formulate at early stages of analysis (which is critical to using the scientific paradigm to perform analysis) and 2) the use of teleological causation produces non-trivial testable theories while the use of materialistic causal variables produces trivial theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 10. July 2007 12:02
LE,
quote:
INTELLIGENT AGENCY
A lot of people who want to be experts on intelligent causation are unwilling to accept definitions of intelligence based on observed behavior because such definitions are not compatible with their beliefs.
There are other reasons to segregate/partition conflicting ideas/concepts but I agree with you that beliefs/feelings/emotions are at the root of the conflict. The fact that a person seeks to investigate in the privacy or his own home (nowadays via the internet) is, to me, a modern virtue.
quote:
Biologists, as only one example, refuse to accept definitions of design based on the improbably of the phenotype form because this does not agree with their ideological belief that biological systems are not designed by intelligence.
That only depends on the individual biologist! Biology itself is bound to the naturalistic/materialistic view by definition/agreement since it is a subset of science itself which is obligated to refuse to consider any super-natural involvement whatsoever. However, the individual biologist is not bound by any such restriction.
quote:
Most of these people seem to believe that they can come up with definitions compatible with their ideological beliefs by insisting that intelligent causation be defined in terms of intelligent causes or intelligent agency. There are, it would appear, three general types of potential intelligent causation or intelligent agency- 1) mental causation, 2) goal or teleological causation, and 3) material causation.
1) & 2) are the same thing in an ontological sense, aren't they?
quote:
In order to scientifically resolve the question of intelligent agency or intelligent causation we need to recognize two facts. First, as has been noted many times by many experts, science does not and can not formulate theories based on mental causation because such causal factors can not be defined, observed and quantified.
Yet! They are working on this aspect at this time, i.e. PET, Magneto Resonance techniques, and computer analysis.
quote:
This leaves science with two choices, defining intelligent causation or intelligent agency in terms of teleological variables or in terms of materialistic variables. It will be noted that both types of variables meet the scientific requirements for defining, observing and quantifying. Yes, Virginia, real scientists recognize that goal variables are observable, definable and quantifiable.
I.E. materialistic.
quote:
... The scientist then has a choice between teleological causation and materialistic causation.
By your implication/definition, the same thing, no?
quote:
Contrary to what many ideologues would like to believe, theories based on teleological causation are preferable because 1) they are easier to formulate at early stages of analysis (which is critical to using the scientific paradigm to perform analysis) and 2) the use of teleological causation produces non-trivial testable theories while the use of materialistic causal variables produces trivial theories.
Without a reference or link or something this is a very confusing statement!
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. July 2007 07:44
Quote: That only depends on the individual biologist! Biology itself is bound to the naturalistic/materialistic view by definition/agreement since it is a subset of science itself which is obligated to refuse to consider any super-natural involvement whatsoever. However, the individual biologist is not bound by any such restriction.
You are presenting a rather biased and misleading description of the issue of teleological causation. Real science or hard science and philosophy of science have always recognized the distinction between metaphysical or ‘god did it’ teleological causation and scientific ‘predicted by goal variable’ teleological causation.
Hard science and hard science philosophy of science have always recognized the scientific soundness and validity of scientific teleological causation.
What has happened in biology, and quite a number of other academic sciences, is that for non-scientific political reasons, scientific teleological causation has been rejected and suppressed along with metaphysical teleology. There are, or appear to be, some interesting historical reasons for this anti-teleology position that probably date back to the very beginning of modern science.
But the point here is that you are seriously misrepresenting the issue of acceptance/rejection of scientific teleological causation. The issue has nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection of metaphysical teleology. And the issue is definitely not an issue of personal choice, but rather an issue of very powerful political suppression.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. July 2007 07:52
LE: It will be noted that both types of variables meet the scientific requirements for defining, observing and quantifying. Yes, Virginia, real scientists recognize that goal variables are observable, definable and quantifiable.
IF: I.E. materialistic.
An interesting suggestion, but lots of people would treat a goal as an abstract rather than a material cause or variable. The correct or more useful perspective is to view all scientific variables and all scientific causation as abstractions rather than materialistic.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. July 2007 08:14
LE: Contrary to what many ideologues would like to believe, theories based on teleological causation are preferable because 1) they are easier to formulate at early stages of analysis (which is critical to using the scientific paradigm to perform analysis) and 2) the use of teleological causation produces non-trivial testable theories while the use of materialistic causal variables produces trivial theories.
IF: Without a reference or link or something this is a very confusing statement!
This is an interesting if somewhat illogical point. If you have a working understanding of non-teleological predictive theories, then there is no reason why you should have any particular difficulty in understanding goal variables and teleological theories. If you understood the two types of theories, you should be in a position to discuss their relative merits in specific applications.
Your request for links and references must thus be interpreted as a request for information on hard science predictive theories. In other words, you are asking for references to basic educational materials. Is this what you are looking for?
It appears that most of the apparent confusion surrounding teleological theories arises because most of the people who get involved in discussions of the subject don’t actually have the basic skills and knowledge required to discuss the topic in a productive manner. This can be demonstrated by giving simple tests on subjects like ‘how to define and quantify a variable?’ or ‘what are the mathematical functions included in predictive theories?’
It is admittedly a somewhat unexpected result, but it appears that very few individuals actually can demonstrate the knowledge and understanding required to evaluate scientific theories. Not as surprising is the fact that lots of people make unsupported claims about understanding basic scientific concepts and these people are generally unwilling to subject their knowledge to objective testing.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. July 2007 08:36
LE,
quote:
It is admittedly a somewhat unexpected result, but it appears that very few individuals actually can demonstrate the knowledge and understanding required to evaluate scientific theories.
Do you have names of scientists or the name of a scientist or the name of a group that does have the "skills" that you are talking about?
quote:
Not as surprising is the fact that lots of people make unsupported claims about understanding basic scientific concepts and these people are generally unwilling to subject their knowledge to objective testing.
Like who for example?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. July 2007 08:45
LE,
quote:
But the point here is that you are seriously misrepresenting the issue of acceptance/rejection of scientific teleological causation. The issue has nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection of metaphysical teleology. And the issue is definitely not an issue of personal choice, but rather an issue of very powerful political suppression.
That power extends all over the world?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. July 2007 08:17
IF,
Quote: Do you have names of scientists or the name of a scientist or the name of a group that does have the "skills" that you are talking about?
An interesting question. It is not terribly difficult to identify individuals who lack the ability to formulate and test theories. Certainly on Internet sites there are lots of people like aiguy who claim to be scientists but who when challenged don’t even know how to define and quantify the variables relevant to intelligent causation.
On a somewhat more serious basis, you can take almost any article published in an life science journal and find evidence that the author either does not know how to perform analysis or express finding in terms of clearly defined predictive theories. (Although I understand from conversations with academics that ‘expressing finding in terms of predictive theories is strongly discouraged if not out right prohibited.)
But your question is ‘who has the knowledge?’ not ‘Who does not?’ In attempting to answer that question, it is probably important to start by recognizing the difference between ‘Individuals who demonstrate the ability to formulate and test predictive theories’ and the much smaller group of ‘Individuals who can explicitly express their analysis in terms of predictive theories’.
The largest group of individuals I am aware of who are capable of formulating and testing predictive theories are those who design complex computer systems. Designing such system can often require defining and quantifying thousands even millions of variables (It is actually quite common to deal with computer systems els involving billions of variables or potential variables, although successful analysis of such problems generally requires limiting or reducing the set of variables). Designing such systems involves formulating and testing and refining thousands of cause and effect relationships among the defined variables.
In my personal experience, only a tiny percentage (probably something in the 1% area) of those involved with systems design actually had the ability to do moderately complex real design work involving large number of variables and large numbers of causal relationships. It was interesting to note that individuals with the ability to do real analysis could communicate very effectively and efficiently among themselves, but it was essentially impossible to communicate effectively with individuals who lacked the design capabilities.
In my experience, people who design systems tend to concentrate on a fairly narrow range of related systems. However, the design techniques and concepts used in different specialties appear to be quite similar.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. July 2007 08:40
IF,
Quote: That power [the power to suppress teleological theories] extends all over the world?
Another interesting question. This is what might be labeled the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ effect. Very large groups of human’s are quite capable creating and enforcing the appearance or impression that they are all in agreement on some position, even when the position is clearly in direct conflict with the available facts. The dot.com bubble and other stock market bubbles provide some well documented and widely studied examples of the phenomena.
It is not terribly unusual that most fields of academic science can appear to be in agreement on rejecting teleological theories while at the same time most fully competent scientists are aware of the fact that scientific teleological theories are technically valid.
It is important to understand that science and the scientific paradigm are fundamentally not particularly efficient methods of identifying truth. They are instead, primarily methods of dealing with the inherent weaknesses of human social behavior. In the absence of rigorous testability and rigorous open and objective testing, human social groups will develop beliefs that completely illogical and in direct conflict with the available facts. When academic science abandoned formal open testing in favor of peer review, it introduce the risk that scientific knowledge who be severely corrupted. We can currently see clear evidence of such corruption.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 13. July 2007 15:37
LE,
quote:
{...} This is what might be labeled the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ effect. Very large groups of human’s are quite capable creating and enforcing the appearance or impression that they are all in agreement on some position, even when the position is clearly in direct conflict with the available facts.
I think that statement better describes the Mystical/Religious organizations don't you? When the academic/scientific organizations commit this very human error it has historically been corrected after a sufficient time has passed and the evidence becomes more compelling.
quote:
The dot.com bubble and other stock market bubbles provide some well documented and widely studied examples of the phenomena.
Business is another type of organization and it gets too confusing to compare business with academics/science because it would only apply at the overlap.
quote:
It is not terribly unusual that most fields of academic science can appear to be in agreement on rejecting teleological theories while at the same time most fully competent scientists are aware of the fact that scientific teleological theories are technically valid.
It sure would be nice to get a confirming reference or link.
quote:
It is important to understand that science and the scientific paradigm are fundamentally not particularly efficient methods of identifying truth.
It is, however, better now than it was prior to the establishment of science as an organized human endeavor in that we now realize that the definition of everlasting truth is tenuous at best and the definition of falsity is much more enduring. As the saying goes, "Without a good understanding of truth we are disarmed against lies."
quote:
They are instead, primarily methods of dealing with the inherent weaknesses of human social behavior.
If you mean that science provides an organized and self-correcting venue for civilized dispute resolutions in matters of natural events/processes then I agree.
quote:
In the absence of rigorous testability and rigorous open and objective testing, human social groups will develop beliefs that completely illogical and in direct conflict with the available facts.
I don't think that this applies to science as much as to other human endeavors.
quote:
When academic science abandoned formal open testing in favor of peer review, it introduce the risk that scientific knowledge who be severely corrupted.
When did this happen?
quote:
We can currently see clear evidence of such corruption.
Where?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 14. July 2007 07:22
IF,
Quote: I think that statement better describes the Mystical/Religious organizations don't you? When the academic/scientific organizations commit this very human error it has historically been corrected after a sufficient time has passed and the evidence becomes more compelling.
One of the reasons that the Emperor’s clothes effect occurs in all sorts of areas is that people are firmly convinced that ‘it couldn’t happen here’. The issue is not whether we do or don’t believe scientists are capable of ‘massive scientific distortions’ the issue is whether we can detect and demonstrate the existence of such distortions.
To identify instances of the Emperor’s clothes effect you compare key types of decisions and decision making logic used by the social organization being analyzed to an idealized or near optimal form of decision making. To evaluate the possible presence of this effect in a field of science you evaluate the ‘select the best available set of scientific theories’ decisions and decision processes.
The technical aspects of this type of analysis are relatively straight forward and the results produced by the analysis are, in many instances, very unambiguous and often quite surprising.
The very serious challenges or difficulties in this type of analysis are 1) overcoming the very strong political resistance and 2) dealing with the severe shortage of scientists with the technical skills to perform and evaluate this type of analysis. The second part of the difficulty seems to be even more difficult to overcome than the first.
At first blush, you might think most ‘scientists’ know the basic or essential components of a scientific theory (components like defined and quantified causal and effect variables and functional expressions of cause and effect relationships), but it appears that in reality the overwhelming majority of so-called scientists can not identify these components and can not recognize the differences between theories that satisfy these requirements and theories that do not.
Intelligent causation, whether in developmental processes or evolution or human behavior, provides many clear demonstrations of the Emperor’s clothes effect. So called scientists using the peer review process accept as valid theories that don’t even begin to satisfy scientific requirements and they consistently reject predictive theories that clearly satisfy the formal scientific requirements.
From a technical or scientific perspective, it should not be difficult to demonstrate the rather massive ‘Emperor’s clothing’ type distortions in academic science. Unfortunately, it is difficult to overcome the severe political resistance and even more difficult finding scientists with the required integrity and technical skills.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 14. July 2007 07:56
LE,
quote:
One of the reasons that the Emperor’s clothes effect occurs in all sorts of areas is that people are firmly convinced that ‘it couldn’t happen here’.
Could other reasons be embarrassment, fear, and/or intimidation?
quote:
The issue is not whether we do or don’t believe scientists are capable of ‘massive scientific distortions’ the issue is whether we can detect and demonstrate the existence of such distortions.
If someone were to discover this then it should make headlines, especially in the Middle East, don't you think?
quote:
To identify instances of the Emperor’s clothes effect you compare key types of decisions and decision making logic used by the social organization being analyzed to an idealized or near optimal form of decision making.
And then what?
quote:
To evaluate the possible presence of this effect in a field of science you evaluate the ‘select the best available set of scientific theories’ decisions and decision processes. The technical aspects of this type of analysis are relatively straight forward and the results produced by the analysis are, in many instances, very unambiguous and often quite surprising.
What is the current method that is being used?
quote:
The very serious challenges or difficulties in this type of analysis are 1) overcoming the very strong political resistance and 2) dealing with the severe shortage of scientists with the technical skills to perform and evaluate this type of analysis. The second part of the difficulty seems to be even more difficult to overcome than the first.
Why is that so?
quote:
At first blush, you might think most ‘scientists’ know the basic or essential components of a scientific theory (components like defined and quantified causal and effect variables and functional expressions of cause and effect relationships), but it appears that in reality the overwhelming majority of so-called scientists can not identify these components and can not recognize the differences between theories that satisfy these requirements and theories that do not.
Is the problem then the educational/academic process here in this country and in the rest of the world?
quote:
Intelligent causation, whether in developmental processes or evolution or human behavior, provides many clear demonstrations of the Emperor’s clothes effect. So called scientists using the peer review process accept as valid theories that don’t even begin to satisfy scientific requirements and they consistently reject predictive theories that clearly satisfy the formal scientific requirements.
A reference or link to support this?
quote:
From a technical or scientific perspective, it should not be difficult to demonstrate the rather massive ‘Emperor’s clothing’ type distortions in academic science. Unfortunately, it is difficult to overcome the severe political resistance and even more difficult finding scientists with the required integrity and technical skills.
Is that same political process active at this site?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 14. July 2007 08:16
LE,
quote:
LE: It will be noted that both types of variables meet the scientific requirements for defining, observing and quantifying. Yes, Virginia, real scientists recognize that goal variables are observable, definable and quantifiable.
IF: I.E. materialistic.
An interesting suggestion, but lots of people would treat a goal as an abstract rather than a material cause or variable. The correct or more useful perspective is to view all scientific variables and all scientific causation as abstractions rather than materialistic.
I used the word materialistic as opposed to using the word non-supernatural as the word teleological usually conjures up supernatural processes. An abstract anything implies a natural human activity, right? Anyhow, all abstractions, to me, are by definition non-supernatural, aren't they? How would you define a supernatural abstraction? Also, that whole comment seems to contradict your previous comment about scientists not really having the skills (At first blush, ... etc. ) to recognize valid teleological variables, doesn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. July 2007 17:39
In contrast with the views expressed by Life Engineer. I am now going to make a prediction based on the information now at our disposal. No new naturally produced species will appear in the future, just as no verified ones have appeared in historical times. We will continue to see extinction without replacement.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 14. July 2007, 17:40: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
