|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. July 2007 08:16
Miosim,
Quote: and end up with opposite to each other results.
People sometimes forget that intelligent causation does not always produce the correct answer. In order to properly understand and account for intelligent causation, you have to be able to address and explain both 'producing the correct answer' and 'producing the wrong answer'. With respect to human scientific decision making, hard science methods produce answers and solutions with a very high degree of reliability (but not perfect). Soft science or academic science decision making methodologies produce answers with a very low level of reliability, but even academic methods don't always produce the wrong answer.
But the key point to note here is that in the scientific analysis of intelligent causation, we have to recognize both successful intelligent causation and failed attempts at intelligent causation.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 23. July 2007 09:45
LE,
quote:
People sometimes forget that intelligent causation does not always produce the correct answer. In order to properly understand and account for intelligent causation, you have to be able to address and explain both 'producing the correct answer' and 'producing the wrong answer'. With respect to human scientific decision making, hard science methods produce answers and solutions with a very high degree of reliability (but not perfect). Soft science or academic science decision making methodologies produce answers with a very low level of reliability, but even academic methods don't always produce the wrong answer.
But the key point to note here is that in the scientific analysis of intelligent causation, we have to recognize both successful intelligent causation and failed attempts at intelligent causation.
Isn't that the raison d'etat (and topic) of this blog, i.e. The Characterization Of Intelligent Causation? After more than 50 pages of discussion does this indicate that we are going around in a circle?
So, in an effort to improve my participation efforts and contributing in a positive manner, I need the following questions answered:
1) Do you know for a fact that something is wrong with the current Secular Academic/Scientific industry's understanding and approach or do you just feel very strongly that something is wrong?
2) If you know something is wrong then exactly what is it (specifically, not generally)?
3) Do you want to correct the problem or do you just want to point out the problem so that more of us understand it in an effort to resolve it more quickly?
Note: In my line of work (technical troubleshooting) the better we can define the problem (and related problems) the sooner it is resolved.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. July 2007 10:00
In reading over yesterday’s post, I realized the list of 4 decision making components should have included a fifth component- environmental conditions.
COMPONENT 4- THE GOALS OF SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
In discussing any type of human decision making, a useful starting point is the goal or end-point. In the analysis presented here, the goal of scientific decision making is to ‘select the best available testable predictive scientific theory’. If defining the goal of this type of decision making, we are defining the basis for determining what constitutes the best theory.
There are, as most readers are probably aware, different opinions on the true goal or purpose of scientific analysis. Some people, for example, firmly believe that science is some type of quest for truth and absolute knowledge, although this belief would appear to directly contradict the recognized limits of human knowledge.
For the sake of discussion here, two goals of hard science analysis are recognized. First, the goal of human science is viewed here as problem solving. In order to effectively solve problems, scientists need the ability to make reliable predictions of future behaviors. The primary goal of scientific theories is thus viewed as ‘producing reliable and useful predictions’. This goal ties in directly with the concept that the ‘best’ theory is the theory that best stands up to testing and best fits the available body of data.
The second goal of hard science theories is to resolve conflicts and to achieve consensus at least among those who accept hard science standards and are willing to accept the results of hard science analysis. As should be obvious from the discussion here, hard science analysis based on open and objective testing is the only form of decision making that can achieve consensus and even that consensus is limited to people capable of and committed to hard science analysis.
In general, the decision making goals of academic science (and, if fact, the decision making goals of any subjective political decision making) are not explicitly expressed, or at least not all of the goals are explicitly expressed and available for open review. It can be reasonably argued that the primary goal of any authoritarian decision making process is to preserve the authority and self interests of the authoritarian decision makers. As we look at the decision making logic and input values used by academic scientists in justifying their theory decisions, we can only conclude that maintaining authority is a much more important goal than selecting the best available theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 23. July 2007 13:44
miosim:
quote:
If a problem has only one unique correct solution and large numbers of possible incorrect solutions, the group solves this problem if at least two members of the group come up with the same answer, while everybody else will come with different results...
The more members are in the group, the higher is the probability that a system comes up with a correct answer and therefore the higher its Problem Solving Abilities (PSA)is.
The problem I see with this is: the more members there are in a group, the more chances there will be that the incorrect answer will also be duplicated. Say there are 100 members in the group and you end up with three sets of duplicated answers... how do you know then which one is correct? This is especially possible when real intelligent agents are involved. Faulty reasoning can be quite common, even to the point of being more common than correct reasoning. Therefore, I predict that if such a test where ever performed amongst real intelligent agents, the numbers of duplicate false answers would equal or exceed the number of duplicate correct answers. This is why I don't see the "bottom up" approach to intelligent causation as workable. I think that - given the sophistication of natural solutions to difficult problems - a "top down" intelligence is required. Something that sees the overall picture is more likely to come up with 'life as we know it' than tiny particles trying to achieve their own limited solutions to their own limited problems. There are just too many dependent variables.
quote:
I agree with you on this. However, within my hypothesis, the cause and emergence of particle’s elementary intelligence could be studied, while inquiry into emergence of ID (God) is a taboo.
Why taboo? Let me ask you this: If there is a real thing or being approximating what we call "God", could science ever be permitted to look for evidence of the existence of such a thing? I mean, the whole concept of the "supernatural" is really only an unexplored (at least scientifically) area. Shouldn't science be prepared to delve into it and explore it as best it can? Perhaps it will be discovered that the so-called "supernatural" is really "natural" after all and is just an unseen extension of the known universe.
I believe the "God taboo" is an artificial restriction created by atheists who wish to maintain the illusion that science has negated the concept of "God" from any serious consideration. "Science", as it now stands, has an artificial, self-imposed blind spot, yet claims (in many instances) to be the final authoritative word on the subject.
I believe there can be a scientific search for God. All that is necessary for it is the acknowledgment that a thing like a "God" is a possibility. It's just as valid a hypothetical starting point as the assumption that God is not a possibility - don't you think?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 23. July 2007 15:08
Daniel, quote:
I believe there can be a scientific search for God. All that is necessary for it is the acknowledgment that a thing like a "God" is a possibility. It's just as valid a hypothetical starting point as the assumption that God is not a possibility - don't you think?
By definition, Science can not consider anything that is determined to be supernatural/non-existent/imaginary/etc. Otherwise, someone eventually would have to declare where and why exactly we would quit trying to waste resources pursuing things. Where would you draw the line on expending resources if you were the "decider".
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. July 2007 06:19
IF,
Quote: 1) Do you know for a fact that something is wrong with the current Secular Academic/Scientific industry's understanding and approach or do you just feel very strongly that something is wrong?
2) If you know something is wrong then exactly what is it (specifically, not generally)?
3) Do you want to correct the problem or do you just want to point out the problem so that more of us understand it in an effort to resolve it more quickly?
I think I have answered these questions many times, but to repeat academic life sciences have abandoned (or possibly never practiced) real or hard science methodologies and standards. The result of abandoning scientific methodologies is that academic science rejects valid scientific theories and lends support to invalid scientific theories.
This corruption of academic science can be readily tested and demonstrated by evaluating and comparing the scientific theory decisions made by academic science to scientific theory decisions that are produced using hard science methodologies and standards.
The problem is clearly correctable and I would like to see it corrected, but I have yet to figure out an effective means of challenging the political power supporting academic science’s ECEs.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 24. July 2007 06:33
LE,
quote:
I think I have answered these questions many times, but to repeat academic life sciences have abandoned (or possibly never practiced) real or hard science methodologies and standards.
Which posts? quote:
The result of abandoning scientific methodologies is that academic science rejects valid scientific theories and lends support to invalid scientific theories.
Isn't your post a general statement and not very detailed? Or am I wrong?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 24. July 2007 07:14
quote:
Daniel:
The problem I see with this is: the more members there are in a group, the more chances there will be that the incorrect answer will also be duplicated.
It is true. However, because the possible incorrect answers are distributed over large range of all possible answers, say over infinite range of all natural numbers, the probability that any incorrect answer will be duplicated is much smaller that duplication of correct answers. An absolute number of repeated answers is not important. What is really important is a ratio of correct to incorrect repetitions. This ratio increases exponentially with increasing number of members in a group.
quote:
Daniel:
... How do you know then which one is correct?
I don’t, but a majority (peer review) decides what is a correct answer (”Truth”). There is no absolute TRUTH (unless God exists), but a relative TRUTH only, This TRUTH depends on initial conditions of a problem. We often use different (disclosed and undisclosed) initial conditions for allegedly the same problem and than wonder why we end up with different results. For example what is a “TRUTH” about existence of God? Regardless that this problem has been solving by people having equal analytical ability and allegedly the same facts, they end up with opposite results. Are opponents and proponents of existence of God solving the same problem? I do not think so, because our beliefs, feelings, or unique individual experiences are UNDISCLOSED part of initial conditions, that cause different problems leading to different results.
Manipulation of initial conditions of a problem is used in politics to produce a desirable outcome. This is why, the truthful but intentionally incomplete facts I call a lie.
The initial conditions of problems could be changing from time to time or from one culture to another culture, thus causing an evolution of TRUTH. For example, what is the TRUTH about the structure of our universe? The CORRECT answer varies. A thousand years ago, the CORRECT answer was - the Sun, the few planets, and the stars are rotated around the Earth. Since then we learned a grate deals about our solar system and have another CORRECT answer. Tomorrow we may learn more profound facts about our universe and the CORRECT answer could be different from today’s one.
quote:
Daniel:
...I don't see the "bottom up" approach to intelligent causation as workable.
This means that you refuse "bottom up" intelligent causation of human society that originated from human groups and from individual humans.
quote:
Daniel:
I think that - given the sophistication of natural solutions to difficult problems - a "top down" intelligence is required.
The proposed mechanism of group decision making indicates that there is no limit to PSA (Problem Solving Ability) of a group to solve a problem of any complexity, if group has a sufficient number of members.
You may argue that too often small groups - start up company, for example, demonstrate a superior PSA compare to huge companies. But this doesn’t contradict to proposed views, because PSA of a group depends on PSA of individual members and strong interactions, that often are superior in a small group.
quote:
Daniel:
I believe there can be a scientific search for God. All that is necessary for it is the acknowledgment that a thing like a "God" is a possibility. It's just as valid a hypothetical starting point as the assumption that God is not a possibility - don't you think?
There is a science about existence of God, and this science is called Theology. Supported by religion institutions it should have enough means to conduct scientific study and provide evidence about existence of God. I wish Theology would do a better job to increase our knowledge about this subject. Instead, Theology is busy defending an old doctrine. Within Cristian doctrine the knowledge about God is not encouraged and limited to notion that God is infinite and perfect. The biblical story about punishment of Adam and Eve, the biggest punishment God impose on humans for trying a “fruit of knowledge”, indicates that knowledge about God within religions based on Old Testimony is a sin and therefore is a taboo.
The Natural Sciences are spreading thin to deal with most practical aspects of human knowledge. These sciences emphasize an instrumental method of thinking and are not equipped to deal with supernatural phenomena. I think that within eastern Theology, we may have a better chance to study supernatural phenomena including phenomenon of God.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. July 2007 07:29
Miosim,
QUOTE: Say a group of m individuals is solving the same problem that has one correct answer chosen among a vast amount of incorrect ones. Suppose also that these individuals solve this problem independently and then compare their answers at the end. The identical results, most probably, are the correct answer, but the different results are random, and therefore will be canceled out as incorrect. Therefore, the identical results represent the correct answer defined by the group.
Your comments provide an interesting illustration of the differences between 1) actual scientific observations of human decision making behavior and 2)armchair theorizing. If you test actual groups of people of realistic complex problems, you will not find random solutions but rather clusters of solutions with large numbers of people agreeing on the same solution or solutions. In some, possibly many instances, the solution supported by a large number of people will be the valid solution, but the majority view can also be wrong. The number of people advocating a particular solution, has little or nothing to do with the correctness of the solution.
Contrary to commonly accepted mythologies, human beings almost never attempt to solve complex problems by rational evaluation and reasoning. Apparently, very, very few people have the skills and knowledge required to actually solve complex problems. Even if a individual has the skills to solve complex problems by rational analysis, the amount of work required to solve a single problem in such a manner is huge. All of these conclusions could be readily confirmed by actually studying and observing how human intelligent causation actual operates.
Most people, including most academic scientists, have in their minds an image or model of how human intelligence works. If anyone actually bothered to go out and observe how people actually solve problems, they would quickly learn that the common ‘rational problem solving’ model is not compatible with the evidence and is not valid.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 24. July 2007 08:12
LE,
quote:
Most people, including most academic scientists, have in their minds an image or model of how human intelligence works. If anyone actually bothered to go out and observe how people actually solve problems, they would quickly learn that the common ‘rational problem solving’ model is not compatible with the evidence and is not valid.
How did you determine that?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. July 2007 08:39
MORE DEMONSTRATING HARD SCIENCE DECISION MAKING
Once you identify or define the goal of a ‘select the best theory’ decision process, the next step is to identify the set of possible solutions or the theories to be evaluated.
The key concept in real science is open testing or evaluation of theories. This means that real science does not limit itself to testing and evaluating only theories presented by a limited number of experts. Real science is open to any theory presented by anyone provided the theory can meet formal scientific requirements and provided the theory stands up to testing.
As anyone familiar with the inner workings of any life science should be aware, one of the central problems has been finding any ‘hard science’ theories that satisfy the types of formal requirements satisfied by formal theories in physics. The term ‘scientific theory’ is used loosely in many life sciences, and lots of people with a popular knowledge of life sciences are convinced that hard science theories exist in the life sciences. This simply is not true and most people who actually understand the issue recognize that there are currently no recognized or accepted hard science theories in any of the life sciences.
Academic sciences have accepted two partial or temporary solutions to this ‘hard science theory’ problem. The first solution is to accept that the formulation of hard science theories can be deferred to some indefinite point in the future. The other solution is to accept or recognize scientific theories that don’t actually satisfy scientific standards. As has been discussed before, both of these ‘temporary’ solutions are problematic. Basically, if you don’t have hard science theories, you can’t use the scientific testing paradigm to evaluate the theories. In other words, if you don’t have valid predictive theories, you don’t have real scientific analysis.
The real or valid solutions to the hard science theory problems in the life sciences are the intelligence based teleological theories. You reasons that are probably not obvious, human beings recognizing teleological causal relationships. With the appropriate technical knowledge these ‘intuitively’ recognized teleological theories can be transformed into formal teleological theories. In fact, if you understand mathematical modeling, you should be able recognize that intuitively recognized teleological theories can be readily translated into sets or families of teleological theories and formal hypothesis testing can be used to limit the size of the set and thus refine teleological theories and make them more useful in problem solving.
[The question of whether intelligence based theories actually satisfy the requirements of the scientific paradigm is a rather complex technical issue. While I am more than willing to discuss the issues involved, past experience suggests that very few people have the technical skills and knowledge to carryon a productive discussion of the subject.]
There is probably no clearer difference between ‘academic theory decision making’ and ‘hard science theory decision making’ than the exclusion/inclusion of intelligence based teleological theories. Academic life science, in rejecting teleological theories, ends up with no valid hard science theories and ends up selecting ‘theories’ that don’t meet scientific standards. Real life science, in accepting families of intelligence based teleological theories, makes it possible to use falsify and replace testing to refine predictive theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 24. July 2007 10:22
LE,
quote:
[The question of whether intelligence based theories actually satisfy the requirements of the scientific paradigm is a rather complex technical issue. While I am more than willing to discuss the issues involved, past experience suggests that very few people have the technical skills and knowledge to carryon a productive discussion of the subject.]
How many do you think have the skills/knowledge and do you have some of their names or anything that they have published?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. July 2007 06:34
IF,
Quote: How many do you think have the skills/knowledge and do you have some of their names or anything that they have published?
Anytime you are dealing with a complex technical issue, you will have only a tiny percentage of the population with the actual knowledge, skills and training to address the issue. In order to get the complex technical issue addressed, some of the people with the appropriate skills and knowledge must find the problem interesting enough to be willing to devote the time and effort required to understand the problem and evaluate the proposed solutions.
I am sure that if there was enough money in it, you would have little trouble finding people willing to attempt the analysis. In the mean time, I will rely on the argument that “Intelligence based teleological theories are assumed to satisfy the formal requirements of the hard science paradigm until and unless someone can present valid arguments or evidence showing that such theories do not satisfy some specific requirement”.
Note that the generally accepted philosophy of science view of teleological theories has always been that “teleological theories not involving supernatural causation are legitimate scientific theories”. To my knowledge, no one has ever seriously (or successfully) questioned the technical validity of such theories. A lot of people have ignored or rejected such theories as not really interesting. In other words, a lot of scientists who have looked at the life science theory construction problem have looked at teleological theories and failed to recognize that they represent a solution to the problem.
It might be useful at this time to note that the standard for validity in hard science is ‘open and independent testing’, not ‘convince the authorities’. The rule in hard science is that any scientist can propose a testable theory or logically consistent set of theories, and any other scientist can propose a test that falsifies the proposed theory and offers an alternative. In hard science, the ‘I don’t understand it’ or ‘I don’t like it’ or ‘I am not satisfied’ arguments are not valid bases for rejecting theories. In hard science, to reject a theory you either need to demonstrate the theory does not satisfy scientific requirements and/or you need to be able to offer an alternative theory that passes a test failed by the theory being replaced. Formal analysis of human scientific theory decision making simply illustrates the impact of using real science methodologies and standards.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 25. July 2007 06:39
quote:
LE:
Your comments provide an interesting illustration of the differences between 1) actual scientific observations of human decision making behavior and 2) armchair theorizing.
I have tried to make clear that a goal of my hypothesis is explaining not a specific human intelligence and a specific human decision making, but explaining intelligence of all material systems from elementary particle to human society. According to my views, this intelligence governs all dynamics in our universe - from stone failed on the ground to accepting a new scientific paradigm.
It is why, explaining an actual observations of human decision making behavior using proposed approach is require some work - reducing a complexity of this behavior to the basic decision making mechanism. The same inconvenience we may experience explaining human locomotion using equations of the classical mechanics. Regardless our ability to perform this analysis, we know (or belief) that all human locomotions are indeed reducible to basics laws of the classical mechanics.
If you have a specific example that in your opinion contradicts to proposed decision making mechanism, I will try to analyze it.
quote:
LE:
If you test actual groups of people of realistic complex problems, you will not find random solutions but rather clusters of solutions with large numbers of people agreeing on the same solution or solutions.
As I mentioned in my posting from 18 May 2007 the proposed decision making mechanism yields a higher Problem Solving Ability (PSA) of a group (compare to PSA individual member) if an essential conditions are met: an independence of individual members is preserved and a power to influence a decision is distributed evenly among its members. In more general terms “Truth” is determined by POWER to influence a decision. In the extreme case of dictatorship, it is determined by a single member. “Truth” and “Power” are inseparable and God, allegedly possessing an absolute “truth” and absolute power is the best example.
In realistic situation an independence of individual members is often compromised, a therefore a PSA of this group will not reach its maximum level. There are many scenarios in which group’s PSA is weaken, and each case is required an individual analysis.
quote:
LE:
In some, possibly many instances, the solution supported by a large number of people will be the valid solution, but the majority view can also be wrong. The number of people advocating a particular solution has little or nothing to do with the correctness of the solution.
This is not contradict, but rather supports proposed decision making mechanism, because it emphasizes that there is not an absolute “TRUTH” but relative “TRUTH” only that is relative to specific initial conditions. These conditions (in form of acquired knowledge) are changing over time reveling a new “TRUTH” and proving this way that in a past, a majority (or whoever represented a power at that time) was wrong.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. July 2007 07:12
LE,
quote:
It might be useful at this time to note that the standard for validity in hard science is ‘open and independent testing’, not ‘convince the authorities’.
As you noted in this post, you need to 'convince the authorities', to get the funding which, hopefully, will entice that small percentage to get on board and help, don't you think?
quote:
In hard science, the ‘I don’t understand it’ or ‘I don’t like it’ or ‘I am not satisfied’ arguments are not valid bases for rejecting theories.
But in the 'real world', i.e. political world, that is how you get sanction and funding! If they are not convinced but you have sufficient support then pooling resources in order to pursue the 'cause' and prove to the 'world' that your position is correct breaking away from the conventional methods and starting a new/'better' alternative 'authority' is what usually happens in these kinds of cases, don't you think? If none of that happens, then, hopefully, with passing time and increased knowledge self correction occurs.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
