|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 17. July 2007 11:59
LE,
quote:
IF,
Quote: That is a wonderful objective! The methods are in place and have been used successfully in the past.
That is clearly not true. Certainly, there are in many fields existing procedures for identifying the existence of ECE’s. In the investment community, for example, there are established and highly validated methods of identifying investment bubbles. But the existence of such methods does not prevent bubbles from being created and doing a great deal of harm before they burst.
I think everyone agrees that incorrect "beliefs" are at the root of most social problems! So I thought Science was implemented to act as mediator, so to speak, to help resolve these kinds of problems as regards to nature and natural events but not super-natural events or processes. Do you think that Science has clearly failed in this regard? Could you provide a good example of when this happened in the past?
quote:
In ‘science’, there are clearly defined methods for testing and rejecting faulty theories and for replacing such theories with valid theories. But when you get to fields like AI the existence of established methodologies has not prevented academic sciences from rejecting valid theories and definitions of phenomenon like intelligent causation. In a field like evolutionary biology, the existence of established methodologies for evaluating and falsifying theories has not prevented the continued support of theories that have clearly and unambiguously been falsified.
Where/when were they clearly and unambiguously falsified?
quote:
There are established procedures for demonstrating that the emperor is walking down the street naked. There are, however, no known or reliable procedures for overcoming ECE’s and getting people to recognize or admit the emperor is naked.
N-Rays, Mesmerism, phlogiston, earth-centric universe, witches/warlocks, many-many etcs.
quote:
Quote: Beliefs are held by individuals and theories are the current reigning understandings/explanations in certain fields of study. Individual beliefs in civil societies are overturned/defeated by convincing/emotional appeals but theories/explanations replaced by unemotional analysis of evidence using valid logical/mathematical/experimental techniques that are presented to and reviewed/judged by designated officials. At least that's the way I understand it.
That’s the accepted belief or theory, but that is not what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that ‘under ideal conditions’ both beliefs and theories reflect the best available information. But under realistic non-ideal conditions, both beliefs and theories can and do become seriously corrupted and distorted.
What is your best example of this?
quote:
It is kind of amusing that you believe in the existence of procedures for “theories/explanations replaced by unemotional analysis of evidence using valid logical/mathematical/experimental techniques that are presented to and reviewed/judged by designated officials”, but you are either unable or unwilling to actually submit these beliefs to objective testing.
What exactly do you mean? What do you want me to submit? Are you saying that modern Academics/Science is a sham all over the world?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 17. July 2007 12:55
miosim:
quote:
For example, some properties (functionalities) of computers, cars, and spaceships cannot be reduced to the properties of its components, because these properties are caused by external ID (human). However, in case of living systems, I belief, I can reduce all their properties to the goal-achieving properties of their elements, and therefore no external ID is needed in this case.
I don't think a process such as protein synthesis can be reduced to the properties of it's elements. It appears to be "put together" - just as a house, car or spaceship are - to function as a whole. The elements by themselves exhibit no "goal directed" behavior. They appear to be selected like parts off a shelf for their particular function and then assembled like a machine (only with the capacity to self replicate).
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 17. July 2007 22:13
quote:
Daniel:
I don't think a process such as protein synthesis can be reduced to the properties of it's elements. It appears to be "put together" - just as a house, car or spaceship are - to function as a whole.
The elements by themselves exhibit no "goal directed" behavior. They appear to be selected like parts off a shelf for their particular fully function and then assembled like a machine (only with the capacity to self replicate).
I do not perceive a cell as a machine because of a lack of determinism in its behavior. Instead a cell demonstrates a high degree of self-organizational dynamics that reminds me of a social organizations.
The analogy between intracellular processes and a machine are probably coming from simplified models/illustrations of these processes and also from notion that underlying biochemical reactions are mechanistic – some sort of natural nanotechnology. In my opinion, this is an illusion.
The process in which molecules rearrange themselves to achieve a minimum of free energy, we call spontaneous. This term doesn’t explain anything and just covers up a gap in our knowledge about molecular dynamics. This term masks a gap in our understandings between physical forces acting in a linear manner, and the complex three dimensional molecular self-assembly mechanism described in term of a goal to achieve a minimum of a free energy. That is why, even enzyme-substrate interaction is still not fully understood. The current model of this process, induced fit model, demands an enzyme to, somehow, adjusts its conformation to fit substrate.
Reducing goal-directed properties of macromolecules further down to goal-directed properties of elementary particles seems to contradict everything we know about physical forces. However, this approach should demonstrate superior ability to explain wide range phenomena from life science to quantum physics.
[ 18. July 2007, 05:20: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. July 2007 06:30
IF,
Quote: What exactly do you mean? What do you want me to submit? Are you saying that modern Academics/Science is a sham all over the world?
I am saying that if you evaluate ‘select the best logically consistent set of predictive hard sciences theories compatible with phenomenon or data being evaluated’ decisions and decision processes, for almost any subject in any of the life sciences, and many topics in other fields, you will find that academic peer review science 1) fails to produce a valid set of predictive theories, 2) supports invalid or falsified theories, and/or 3) refuses to even evaluate valid sets of hard science theories.
Furthermore, I am suggesting that in most instances academic scientists lack the technical skills, knowledge and objectivity to evaluate relevant predictive theories. Even in the limited situations where academic scientists have the ability to subject their positions and conclusions to hard science analysis, the political structures of academic science will not permit the evaluations.
The term ‘sham’ is an interpretation. I am saying more specifically that academic science is unable and unwilling to submit its theories and conclusions to open and objective hard science evaluation. I am further saying that if you do subject academic science results and conclusions to hard science evaluations, you will find that the positions currently supported are, in many instances, materially (and often dramatically) different than the positions supported by hard science analysis.
Academic scientists are apparently aware that their belief systems will not stand up to hard science evaluations since they actively engage in political manipulation to avoid participating in open and objective evaluations of their results and conclusions and because they actively refuse to even consider such analysis performed by others.
The centerpiece of the academic approach is the rejection of intelligence based teleological theories. When such theories are rejected, it becomes impossible to formulate valid predictive theories. When you have no valid theories to evaluate, you are gradually led to rejecting the testing process. Once you abandon scientific testing and substitute subject evaluation methods, any kind of illogical beliefs can be supported. Although may not be intuitively obvious, the abandonment of scientific theories and scientific testing leads quite rapidly to the deterioration and corruption of beliefs.
But no one needs to rely on my interpretation. Participate in formal testing, and see for yourself what is happening in academic science.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. July 2007 08:02
SOME PRACTICAL TIPS OF HARD SCIENCE TESTING
Formal hard science testing of competing theories and beliefs is a fair amount of work and can involve some relatively challenging technical issues. However, for anyone interesting in seeing such analysis performed, technical assistance is available to help structure such tests. Furthermore, in almost all tests between academic theories and intelligence based teleological theories, the academic theories either will not exist or will fail to meet the minimum requirements for hard science testing. In almost all formal testing, relatively simplistic teleological theories will succeed over academic theories and beliefs because academic theories can meet elementary standards.
For anyone interested in seeing hard science testing performed, the first two steps are to 1) identify the specific life science topic or theory to be tested and 2) identify someone or some group willing to argue and defend the academic position and willing to adhere to hard science standards. The most difficult part of any effort to perform this type of hard science testing is finding a competent or semi-competent academic scientists willing to participate in hard science testing.
Once you have a topic and someone to defend the academic science position, the next step is presenting the two competing theories or sets of theories. I will be glad to offer assistance in formulating intelligence base teleological theories to compete with the academic theories.
The next step is to list the criteria that must be satisfied by all hard science theories. While most of the requirements for hard science theories are well known and documented in numerous sources, it is not unlikely that the supporter of academic science will object to some or all of the requirements.
Once the minimum requirements are established, the next step is to determine if both the academic and competing teleological theories satisfy minimum requirements. In most instances, such testing or evaluation will show that there is no academic theory that satisfies the minimum hard science requirements.
If you get to the point of having two competing hard science theories, the next step is to develop formal tests that can be met by one theory but that will falsify the other theory. In essentially all instances, it will be not be difficult to find tests that falsify the non-teleological academic theory.
Performing hard science testing is not unlike testing engineering designs for a new bridge. There may be a lot of work involved and certainly not everyone will have all the skills required to perform the testing. But if you are dealing with competent and honest scientists, the results obtained will usually be unambiguous.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 18. July 2007 10:59
LE,
quote:
I am saying that if you evaluate ‘select the best logically consistent set of predictive hard sciences theories compatible with phenomenon or data being evaluated’ decisions and decision processes, for almost any subject in any of the life sciences, and many topics in other fields, you will find that academic peer review science 1) fails to produce a valid set of predictive theories, 2) supports invalid or falsified theories, and/or 3) refuses to even evaluate valid sets of hard science theories.
Furthermore, I am suggesting that in most instances academic scientists lack the technical skills, knowledge and objectivity to evaluate relevant predictive theories. Even in the limited situations where academic scientists have the ability to subject their positions and conclusions to hard science analysis, the political structures of academic science will not permit the evaluations.
The term ‘sham’ is an interpretation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sham To me the definition exactly fits your description!
quote:
I am saying more specifically that academic science is unable and unwilling to submit its theories and conclusions to open and objective hard science evaluation. I am further saying that if you do subject academic science results and conclusions to hard science evaluations, you will find that the positions currently supported are, in many instances, materially (and often dramatically) different than the positions supported by hard science analysis.
Academic scientists are apparently aware that their belief systems will not stand up to hard science evaluations since they actively engage in political manipulation to avoid participating in open and objective evaluations of their results and conclusions and because they actively refuse to even consider such analysis performed by others.
Wow! If all of the above is true then you should start with the American Liberal Press and/or major TV stations and send them your evidence and if that doesn't work then send it to other countries who already complain that Americans are too big of an influence on the world e.g. Russia, France, N. Korea, any of the Middle Eastern Countries, China, etc.! Maybe, now that I think about it, this is a significant part of what the Middle Eastern conflict is all about!
quote:
The centerpiece of the academic approach is the rejection of intelligence based teleological theories. When such theories are rejected, it becomes impossible to formulate valid predictive theories. When you have no valid theories to evaluate, you are gradually led to rejecting the testing process. Once you abandon scientific testing and substitute subject evaluation methods, any kind of illogical beliefs can be supported. Although may not be intuitively obvious, the abandonment of scientific theories and scientific testing leads quite rapidly to the deterioration and corruption of beliefs.
But no one needs to rely on my interpretation. Participate in formal testing, and see for yourself what is happening in academic science.
I don't think I am allowed to intrude on other peoples work plus I don't have the time! Hopefully, you can provide a report of exactly what it is that you have witnessed during the testings in which you have participated.
quote:
SOME PRACTICAL TIPS OF HARD SCIENCE TESTING
Why do you think that these simple tips haven't been performed by anyone anywhere?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. July 2007 11:41
IF,
Quote: Why do you think that these simple tips haven't been performed by anyone anywhere?
Put this in a somewhat different perspective, do you actually know anyone who has performed such analysis? Anyone who is capable of performing such analysis? Do you actually know anyone who is both willing and technically able to challenge the conclusions presented by academic science?
Common sense or a general belief in the rigors of academic science might lead you to believe that if there is a simple straight forward type of analysis that would challenge ‘the emperor’s nakedness’ then such a challenge would already have been met. But that apparently is not how human social organizations work. Quite a number of people may be aware that problems exist and quite a number may be aware of the types of technical analysis that would display the problems. But even when ‘it should be obvious that there are problems that need to be addressed’ it can take a very long time before all the pieces are in place to challenge the emperor’s nakedness.
Lots of people, including people with the power to address the problems, are aware of the frauds currently occurring with respect to sub-prime loans and derivatives and government regulations, but despite the fact that these problems can be readily documented, despite the fact that people in power have the ability to solve /prevent the problems they don’t.
Finding the serious problems that exist with the theories and beliefs promoted by academic science does not require any particularly new or sophisticated analysis. But despite the fact that it SHOULD be quite easy to convince people that academic theories are unsound, such theories are not being effectively challenged and academia continues to support and promote unsound theories and unsound analysis.
You can bluff and bluster and pretend that ‘that analysis has already been performed’, but you can’t produce anyone who can or has performed the analysis. ECEs occur and persist in all sorts of fields despite the fact that it should be easy to show that they are unsound.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 18. July 2007 12:04
LE,
quote:
You can bluff and bluster and pretend that ‘that analysis has already been performed’, but you can’t produce anyone who can or has performed the analysis. ECEs occur and persist in all sorts of fields despite the fact that it should be easy to show that they are unsound.
I don't want to appear to be bluffing and blustering! I just want to know the reasons for your inimical stance against Academia/Science. If your intentions are honorable I feel like it is your obligation to share your evidence with the rest of us. Otherwise, your position may confuse some of us.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 18. July 2007 13:03
quote:
I do not perceive a cell as a machine because of a lack of determinism in its behavior. Instead a cell demonstrates a high degree of self-organizational dynamics that reminds me of a social organizations.
It's true that a cell is much more complex than any machine, and it exhibits many "social" abilities but it is still machine-like. Many machines now also exhibit "social" behaviors and communicate over networks and such. quote:
The analogy between intracellular processes and a machine are probably coming from simplified models/illustrations of these processes and also from notion that underlying biochemical reactions are mechanistic – some sort of natural nanotechnology. In my opinion, this is an illusion.
The analogy (for me) is based on my years of experience working on complex machinery. It's what I do for a living. I see many, many parallels between the machinery I troubleshoot and fix every day and the "machinery" within complex biological structures. quote:
The process in which molecules rearrange themselves to achieve a minimum of free energy, we call spontaneous. This term doesn’t explain anything and just covers up a gap in our knowledge about molecular dynamics. This term masks a gap in our understandings between physical forces acting in a linear manner, and the complex three dimensional molecular self-assembly mechanism described in term of a goal to achieve a minimum of a free energy.
I don't believe the goal of the cell is to "achieve a minimum of free energy". This seems like an overly simplistic explanation for the many complex and intricate functions of cells. Cells seem to act as if guided by a master plan. There is no rational hypothesis to explain the formation of the trillions of complex, interactive, perfectly balanced (((systems ((within systems (within systems...))) that exist within life's circle via the simplistic mechanism of achieving a minimum of free energy. quote:
Reducing goal-directed properties of macromolecules further down to goal-directed properties of elementary particles seems to contradict everything we know about physical forces. However, this approach should demonstrate superior ability to explain wide range phenomena from life science to quantum physics.
I think you're onto something miosim, I really do. All the elementary particles do act as if they are "intelligent" (as if they have a goal). But I don't think they are intelligent in and of themselves, I think they are either programmed to be that way, or they are guided by intelligence in their day to day workings.
[ 18. July 2007, 13:05: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. July 2007 13:16
IF,
You apparently understand or recognize that winner of a hard science versus academic science debate depends on the methodology used evaluate the evidence. Use subjective academic standards and let the academics be the judges, and surprise, surprise academic science always wins. Evaluate hard science versus academic science by having both side produce testable scientific theories, and have the winner determined by formal falsify and replace testing, and hard science methodologies using intelligence based teleological theories will always win.
You can suggest ‘submit your ideas to peer review’ and I can suggest ‘submit academic theories to hard science testing’ and nothing will happen. We both, apparently, know the rules and we both apparently know what happens depending on which set of evaluation rules are used.
The only hope for breaking the deadlock arises if we have a real problem like global warming or bird flu or an economic depression that requires a real solution. Academic science produces solutions to practical problems with a certain degree of effectiveness and efficiency and hard science produces solutions to the same practical problems with a very different degree of effectiveness and efficiency. Only when faced with a real problem requiring real solutions are we ever likely to see a resolution of the hard science versus academic science issue. In the mean time, all we can hope to achieve is letting a few people know that an alternative to academic science exists.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 18. July 2007 17:58
LE,
quote:
You apparently understand or recognize that winner of a hard science versus academic science debate depends on the methodology used evaluate the evidence.Use subjective academic standards and let the academics be the judges, and surprise, surprise academic science always wins. Evaluate hard science versus academic science by having both side produce testable scientific theories, and have the winner determined by formal falsify and replace testing, and hard science methodologies using intelligence based teleological theories will always win.
I think I understand but I still would like a clarifying example of a recent debate concerning a scientific position and a conflicting academic position.
quote:
In the mean time, all we can hope to achieve is letting a few people know that an alternative to academic science exists.
Where is it practiced?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 18. July 2007 20:09
Life Engineer You apparently understand or recognize that winner of a hard science versus academic science debate depends on the methodology used evaluate the evidence. Use subjective academic standards and let the academics be the judges, and surprise, surprise academic science always wins. Evaluate hard science versus academic science by having both side produce testable scientific theories, and have the winner determined by formal falsify and replace testing, and hard science methodologies using intelligence based teleological theories will always win.
Is there any way to stop LE from going on and on and on with this kind of vacuous drivel? Had LE ever achieved anything by way of recognition for his self-assumed intellectual prowess, he wouldn't have to resort to this incessant bleating here.
I nominate the term "hard science" for the ISCID Cliche-of-the-Month prize for July.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 19. July 2007 05:15
quote:
Daniel:
I don't believe the goal of the cell is to "achieve a minimum of free energy". This seems like an overly simplistic explanation for the many complex and intricate functions of cells. Cells seem to act as if guided by a master plan. There is no rational hypothesis to explain the formation of the trillions of complex, interactive, perfectly balanced (((systems ((within systems (within systems...))) that exist within life's circle via the simplistic mechanism of achieving a minimum of free energy.
In general, a minimum of a free energy corresponds to a maximum stability of a system. In application to living systems, their goal also can be described in terms equivalent to achieving a maximum stability - survival. Taking in account a complexity of living systems, finding this stability is a problem of enormous complexity. This is why this “problem solving process” causes sophisticated processes within cells and even more sophisticated processes within social systems.
quote:
All the elementary particles do act as if they are "intelligent" (as if they have a goal). But I don't think they are intelligent in and of themselves, I think they are either programmed to be that way, or they are guided by intelligence in their day to day workings.
At this point, I cannot rule it out that some sort of ID causes particle’s intelligence, but per scientific method, the simplest explanation is preferable. I think that the distributed among particles elementary intelligence is a simpler explanation that existence of infinite intelligence of ID who guides every particle and every peace of dust in universe.
[ 19. July 2007, 06:56: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. July 2007 05:41
IF,
Quote: I think I understand but I still would like a clarifying example of a recent debate concerning a scientific position and a conflicting academic position.
You do ask some interesting questions. Conflicts of this general type are quite common, but they are most commonly framed in terms of an ‘applied science’ versus ‘theoretical science’ conflict. In general, most people involved in these conflicts recognize that if they directly challenge academic science they will loose and they will not be able to find resources or support to continue the challenge. One approach that sometimes allows the hard science position to succeed is developing a marketable product and taking the product directly to the marketplace.
If you look closely at the recent ‘bird flu’ issue, you will note that the strategies suggested by academic theories were very different than the hard science strategies offered by health care professionals. In that conflict, the hard science advocates appear to have prevailed.
There are lots of examples from the field of applied systems design versus theoretical AI. Theoretical AI, it will be noted, continually argues that intelligence is indefinable and beyond our ability to simulate on computers. Systems designers, in contradiction to the academic science position, routinely develop systems to successfully simulate all sorts of intelligent behavior.
One of the more interesting current conflicts involves the issue of global warming. While academic science and hard science are currently in agreement on the existence of a potential climate change problem, the two conflicting approaches produce very different types of solutions and the two approaches suggest very different uses of available resources.
Again, you ask a very interesting question. Conflicts between hard science (or hard science wit teleological theories) and academic science are quite common but are usually not described or framed in terms of a direct conflict between two competing forms of scientific analysis. In general, hard science wins a fair number of these contests when we are dealing with engineering and physical science issues, but hard science wins far fewer contests when dealing with life sciences and particularly when dealing with behaviors viewed as involving human intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. July 2007 08:25
WINNING AND SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
It seems likely that ‘the capabilities associated with performing hard science analysis’ and ‘the capabilities associated with controlling social structures and winning political conflicts’ are two very different sets of human capabilities. It is probably easier to understand, and possibly even resolve, the issues of teleological causation and intelligent causation if we recognize the difference between human political skills and human scientific skills.
In order to understand the existence of separate political skills and scientific skills, it may be useful to start by recognizing that humans are a highly social species. Human intelligence and the ability of humans to solve extremely complex problems depends almost entirely on 1) our ability to work cooperatively and 2) the fact that different individuals have and/or develop different specialized skills. Within the context of humans as social animals with individuals having specialized skills, it makes logical sense that a relatively large portion of individuals would have the political skills required to establish and maintain complex problem solving social structures and a much smaller portion of individuals would have the specialized scientific skills associated with finding and evaluating solutions to complex problems.
Under ‘ideal’ conditions, individuals with political skills work in a synergistic manner with individuals with scientific skills (and probably a wide range of other skills). The net result of successful synergistic interactions can be highly productive and can rapidly and efficiently produce solutions to very complex problems. But the available evidence suggests that highly efficient and highly effective human social structures are relatively rare and highly unstable. Productive social structures are subject to relatively rapid corruption and loss of productivity.
Human social structures deteriorate or become corrupted when individuals who lack the required skills get into key positions. For example, human social structures are known to deteriorate when people with scientific skills get into positions requiring political skills and people with political skills get into positions requiring scientific skills. The points that are relevant to the discussion here are that 1) there is ample available evidence for the existence of differences between scientific and political skills and 2) there is ample available evidence for the negative impact of the wrong skills in the wrong position.
Once we recognize the existence of different skills sets, we can switch our attention from macro-behavior of social organizations down to the micro-level of individual decisions made by individuals in social organizations. If we look at a specific question such as “Is theory A better then theory B?” we have the following three questions to address-
1. Would the answer to the question be different if the question was addressed using political skills rather than scientific skills?
2. In the current academic/scientific environment which skills have been used to address the issue? And
3. Which set of skills SHOULD be used in answering the question?
For essentially any issue in any of the life sciences we can define an intelligence-based teleological theory A. We might or might not actually be able to formulate a competing non-teleological, non-intelligence based theory B.
If the choice between the two theories is based on hard science methods, theory A will be selected and, under the current environment, if political methods are used, theory B will be selected even if we can’t actually currently formulate a theory B satisfying scientific standards. This conclusion is not really controversial.
If we look at the second question, we will find that in almost every current scientific/academic situation, the theory choice decision was made using political standards. Again, this conclusion is not really controversial.
The question that is controversial and that has been controversial for a very long time is the question of what methodology or skills SHOULD be used in making the decisions. The problem, or perceived problem, is that if you if recognize and permit intelligence based teleological theories in scientific analysis, then every human decision whether political or religious or scientific, becomes subject to analysis by the scientific method.
If purposeful intelligent causation, which includes human behavior, is recognized as subject to formal scientific analysis, then every decision made by a human being becomes subject to formal scientific analysis. This presents a direct challenge to the ultimate authority and ultimate decision making currently recognized as the belonging to those using political skills.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
