|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 27. July 2007 05:54
Miosim,
Quote: It is interesting. What do you mean a gravity is a ‘logical abstractions created by human scientists’?
You are aware that no one has ever observed gravity? You are aware that while pretty much everyone agrees that gravity exists and is real, no one has ever been able actually observe or demonstrate the physical properties of gravity?
In real science, gravity is a concept or abstraction associated with certain testable predictive theories. These theories the values of certain variables are always associated with and can be calculated and predicted from the values of certain other values.
The fact is that the issue of whether gravity is or is not a real physical phenomenon has no bearing on the validity of the scientific theories dealing with gravity.
In the scientific analysis of intelligent causation, we can formulate testable predictive theories where the values of causal variables reliably predict (under appropriate or ideal conditions) the values of effect variables. Unlike the situation with gravity, we don’t believe that there is a single physical process or force responsible for the cause and effect relationship expressed by the theory. We don’t believe there is a single force because the same cause and effect relationships can be produced and simulated using very different combinations of physical systems.
My recollection is that this topic of ‘logical abstractions’ versus ‘real physical phenomenon’ was covered in basic philosophy of science courses.
Quote: miosim, your generalized force of intelligence model, while an interesting concept or model, is one that has been pretty thoroughly investigated and rejected.
Quote: I would greatly appreciate if you send me references to these investigations.
It should be apparent by this time that I don’t keep records of the sources of knowledge I acquire and in general I find that published references are more likely to confuse than inform.
The general issue of the transmission of scientific knowledge is, however a fascinating one. Anyone who has ever been actively involved in a dynamic and progressive field, like systems design, knows how quickly and efficiently new knowledge is distributed. If you are designing a system and run into a technical problem you can’t immediately solve, you generally had access to individuals who knew of possible approaches and solutions. Once one person can up with an effective solution to a problem, other systems designers across the country and around the world quickly accepted and started using (copying) the solution. If someone came up with a flawed potential solution, others would quickly identify the flaws.
Almost all of the ‘scientific knowledge’ involved passed from person to person in verbal form. Very few people ever wrote or read articles. Published materials were more often inaccurate and misleading than helpful.
It is not easy to explain why under some conditions, scientific knowledge is communicated with incredible speed and accuracy and in other instances it appears difficult or impossible to get relevant information communicated to concerned parties.
With respect to the simple particular or simple force of intelligence concept, part of the problems is context or framing. People with the appropriate background and training recognize that there are well established methods and approaches for identifying and isolating simple particles and simple forces. If intelligence involved a simple particle or force, these methods would be used to isolate the particle or force. But these same people, when they read how intelligent causation actually works, when they read about the functioning of neurons and nervous systems, quickly realize that the ‘isolate particle analysis’ will fail because of what is known about intelligent causation.
What I am trying to say or suggest is that if you understood the methodologies used to test and support the intelligence as a simple particle or simple force, then you would also recognize that the evidence presented leads to rejecting the simple particle approach. If you don’t have the appropriate background, you may read the evidence and analysis relating to simple forces of intelligence and not recognize the conclusion implied by the evidence.
Communications and documentation is often more a function of the reader than of materials distributed.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. July 2007 13:43
LE,
quote:
Communications and documentation is often more a function of the reader than of materials distributed.
'Often' = what percentage?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 27. July 2007 15:26
I am sure it would not be terribly difficult to develop some type of formal reading comprehension tests, but my quess is that if you get into a semi-technical area like systems design, probably only one programmer in a hundred would have a useful working understanding of leading edge information. Get into materials that are unconventional and abstract and I would quess the percentages are much lower.
Again, this can be tested. Evaluating the 'select the best available theory' decision making would go a long way to showing how low the comprehension rates are in general for technical material.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. July 2007 15:38
LE,
quote:
I am sure it would not be terribly difficult to develop some type of formal reading comprehension tests, but my quess is that if you get into a semi-technical area like systems design, probably only one programmer in a hundred would have a useful working understanding of leading edge information. Get into materials that are unconventional and abstract and I would quess the percentages are much lower.
Again, this can be tested. Evaluating the 'select the best available theory' decision making would go a long way to showing how low the comprehension rates are in general for technical material.
Then it's your strong feeling that reading is wasted time?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 27. July 2007 18:19
Quote: Then it's your strong feeling that reading is wasted time?
That is not what I said. What I said is that a large portion of people are not going to understand or are going to misinterpret technical scientific information presented in any format. Put another way, just because a reference or explanation is presented, does not mean it will be understood.
It takes a lot of time, effort, skill and training to understand any type of technical materials. Most people, including most professionals, reading technical materials are not going to have the skills and experience to determine if the information presented is valuable or rubbish.
To repeat again and probably again, levels of reading comprehension are measurable and testable.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 27. July 2007 22:05
IF:
quote:
Is what you are calling a programming language the same thing as what science would call very complex chemical reactions in combination with their concomittant natural processes?
No, it's what science would call a programming language. We have actually decoded it. Calling it simply "chemical reactions" is an understatement of immense proportions. If that's all it is, then all we need to do to create DNA is combine the chemicals in their correct proportions. quote:
I'll bet primitive peoples felt the exact same way about many such processes for example the rain cycle.
Are you equating today's scientists with primitive peoples?
We're not talking about a bunch of cavemen staring up at the sky marveling at rain clouds here. We're talking about decades of research by some of mankinds brightest minds with the most sophisticated instruments available. To somehow equate the two is to sidestep the issue.
quote:
The effort to investigate nature and its processes from a natural point of view has been worthwhile don't you think?
Sure it has. It has shown us that "nature" is finite in it's creative capacity and that there has to be something else involved that is not bound by nature's limitations.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 28. July 2007 07:10
Daniel, quote:
No, it's what science would call a programming language.
I would guess they (the majority) would say it is 'like' a programming language. Similarly, a computer is 'like' a human brain.
quote:
We have actually decoded it.
Only very recently and the work that it inspires is just barely taking off. Buckle up!
quote:
Calling it simply "chemical reactions" is an understatement of immense proportions.
Why do you say that?
quote:
If that's all it is, then all we need to do to create DNA is combine the chemicals in their correct proportions.
Like I alluded to above, that kind of work is just starting.
quote:
Are you equating today's scientists with primitive peoples? We're not talking about a bunch of cavemen staring up at the sky marveling at rain clouds here. We're talking about decades of research by some of mankinds brightest minds with the most sophisticated instruments available. To somehow equate the two is to sidestep the issue.
That's exactly what I feel thoughl! I wish that I could quantify what we know divided by what we know we still need to learn! I admit that I 'feel' like the ratios would be close enough (between modern man and caveman) to answer yes. I may work on that after I retire.
quote:
We're not talking about a bunch of cavemen staring up at the sky marveling at rain clouds here. We're talking about decades of research by some of mankinds brightest minds with the most sophisticated instruments available. To somehow equate the two is to sidestep the issue. Sure it {the effort to study nature from a natural point of view} has. It has shown us that "nature" is finite in it's creative capacity and that there has to be something else involved that is not bound by nature's limitations.
When did that happen? Do you think that we are at the end-of-the-line in our learning about nature?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 28. July 2007 08:14
USING HUMAN DECISION MAKING TO DETERMINE HOW INTELLIGENCE ACTUALLY WORKS
The successful analysis of intelligent causation involves finding answers to two questions- 1) how does intelligent causation work? And 2) Do we have sufficient knowledge of intelligent causation (or specific instances of intelligent causation) to formulate hard science testable predictive theories?
The second of these two questions turns out to be the more difficult to answer (and far and away the most difficult for academic scientists to understand). It is, however, important to answer the ‘how does it work’ question before addressing the more difficult adequacy of information question.
We know that computers can under certain limited situations find goal directed solutions to problems. If order for a computer to find a goal directed solution (generate the goal directed solution as output), it needs two types of input. One type of input is called stimulus or environmental input. The second type of input is called a processing algorithm or computer program. Given that all the other requirements are satisfied, a computer can find a goal directed solution is it has inputted into it an appropriate program and appropriate environmental input.
We could get into all sorts of technical issues regarding levels of intelligence that depend on issues such as the size of the search area and the efficiency processing algorithm. For now we are simply concerned with the general issue of computerized problem solving arising from or requiring external input and external environmental input.
When we formally analyze human decision make some interesting discoveries. As we would intuitively expect, human decision making is like a computer in that it depends on external input or stimuli. Manipulate or distort environmental stimuli or input and you can manipulate and distort the decisions made. In other words, the ability of humans to select the best or most goal compatible option is dependent on the quality or accuracy of input.
Far more surprising is the discovery that the programs or processing algorithms used by humans in decision making also depend on external input. Just as the ability of a person to ‘intelligently select the best available option’ is dependent on the reliability and accuracy of environmental input, the ability of a person to ‘intelligently select the best available option’ also depends on the accuracy and reliability of the inputted or externally generated programs or program variables. We can experimentally influence or control the ability of a human to make an intelligent decision by manipulating and controlling the input that controls processing or decision making algorithms.
This analysis suggests that intelligent human decision making is entirely dependent on and controlled by external input, external causation or external intelligent agency. Put another way, the ability of a human to make intelligent decisions is scientifically dependent on or scientifically explainable in terms of external causation or external agency. In order to explain intelligent human decision making, there is no scientific need to rely upon or imply that human intelligence depends upon some internal force or intelligence. There is no need to suggest that human intelligence depends upon any complex form of intelligent processing. Human intelligence, as exhibited in human decision making, is entirely explainable from a scientific perspective in terms of external environmental causation or agency.
Again, this is the conclusion or discovery about how intelligent causation works resulting from a formal hard science analysis of human decision making. It appears that this conclusion can be extended or expanded to cover all forms of intelligent causation.
For anyone interested, we can move backwards to analysis the evidence supporting this discovery, or we can move forward and look at the implications of the discovery for the formulation and testing of scientific theories. Or the reader can pursue one of the typical academic science responses of 1) ignoring anything that disagrees with your beliefs or 2)expressing an unsupported subjective opinion that you don’t agree with the conclusion.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 28. July 2007 09:28
In order to make a highly intelligent or efficient decision on a complex topic, a human needs to use a reliable and highly validated decision making algorithm and they need to be sure that the input data used in the decision process is accurate and reliable. If we look at a relatively complex decision process like ‘select the best scientific theory’ we have highly validated hard science decision making methodologies available. We also have established methodologies for validating the input data used in such decision making.
Unfortunately, very few people, even among those with formal scientific training, have the knowledge or training or skills to perform actual hard science analysis. These people end up using inefficient and unreliable decision making algorithms and distorted and unreliable input data. The result for the vast majority of academic scientists is the inability to make ‘intelligent scientific theory’ decisions.
“Select the best available scientific theory’ decision processes provide unambiguous evidence concerning the actual workings of human intelligence. They also provide even clearer evidence of both the resistance to real scientific analysis and the specialize and relatively rare skills involved in performing hard science analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. July 2007 15:35
LifeEngineer:
quote:
Such a position does not conflict with science, but it does conflict with basic concepts of theology. One of the older arguments against the existence of a God, is that ‘If God really exists she would show herself and convince me of her existence’. The theological answer to this is that God must be accepted as a mystery that can only be accepted on faith. If she so wishes, God can reveal herself, but if she doesn’t so wish, God is so much more powerful and knowledgeable than man that she can easily hide hard evidence of her existence from us.
Your statement that a scientific search for the existence of God conflicts with the basic concepts of theology, does not apply to Christian theology -- as evidenced by this quote from Romans 1:18-20:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
To believe that a study of nature and the universe is a study of the mind and qualities of God is in perfect harmony with Christian theology.
quote:
The argument about scientific demonstrations of a universal intelligence, is essentially an argument that man is clever enough to prove the existence of God even if God does not wish to have her existence proved. You are essentially arguing that man might be smarter than God. This is essentially the same logic involved in building the Tower of Babel.
If God did not want to reveal anything about himself to man, then yes, your argument would be true. But Christian theology makes it plain that God not only has revealed his qualities to everyone, ("what may be known about God... is plain to them...God has made it plain to them... God's invisible qualities... have been clearly seen"), he is also said to reveal himself to all who earnestly seek him (many scriptures echo this point). So your argument does not apply to Christianity - it may well apply to a host of other religions however.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. July 2007 15:56
miosim,
Let me summarize for you what I think is the main flaw of your argument - The bottom-up approach to intelligent causation:
A simple assessment of human endeavors will confirm that a top-down approach to intelligent causation is much more efficient than a bottom-up approach.
Take for instance, the art of war. An army that utilizes a bottom-up approach to warfare may well win some battles, but without an overall strategy - someone looking top-down at the big picture - it will never win a war. You just can't have Privates and Sergeants running a war. You need Generals.
Any kind of complex social network (a large company for instance) is the same - without someone at the helm, every department will only do what is best for itself - without any concern for the overall success of the company. A company run from the bottom up will fail - always. What's more, the larger the company, the more likely it will fail using that approach. Large companies require coordination among departments. The bottom-up approach will result in chaos.
Life requires so many complex interactions among competing systems, that it essentially cannot be the result of bottom-up intelligent causation. Such a mechanism simply cannot account for the tremendous coordination among all of life's (and the earth's) competing systems. What is necessary (I believe) is an overall coordinating plan. Such a plan requires an intelligence capable of implementing such a plan - which I'd argue has to be an infinite (all knowing) intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 29. July 2007 05:02
quote:
Daniel:
Take for instance, the art of war. An army that utilizes a bottom-up approach to warfare may well win some battles, but without an overall strategy - someone looking top-down at the big picture - it will never win a war…
... Life requires so many complex interactions among competing systems, that it essentially cannot be the result of bottom-up intelligent causation. Such a mechanism simply cannot account for the tremendous coordination among all of life's (and the earth's) competing systems… What is necessary (I believe) is an overall coordinating plan. Such a plan requires intelligence capable of implementing such a plan - which I'd argue has to be an infinite (all knowing) intelligence.
It is true, that to function human societies are requiring leaders (top-down mechanism) to coordinate interactions within systems. However where are those leaders came from? They are not imposed by external ID, but were chosen (in democratic systems) or accepted (in autocratic systems) by members of these societies. In any case, a human society is emerging and developing as a result of self organization (down-top mechanism) and all “tremendous coordination among its systems doesn’t need “an infinite (all knowing) intelligence”.
We cannot ignore a fact that a group able to solve a more complex problem that an individual human and this is a down-top mechanism. I just proposed one of the possible explanation of this mechanism that could be applied not only to human systems only, but also to any system, living or non-living. Actually, for my main hypothesis about intelligence that is distributed among smallest material particles, it doesn’t matter which particular down-top intelligence increase mechanism will be chosen for an explanation.
[ 29. July 2007, 05:12: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. July 2007 08:17
Daniel,
Quote: To believe that a study of nature and the universe is a study of the mind and qualities of God is in perfect harmony with Christian theology.
I happen to agree with this, but I suspect that my interpretations may be slightly different than yours. Morality, religious beliefs, religious dogma, in my view, are all subject to formal scientific analysis.
However, if rigorous hard science analysis produces a conclusion that conflicts with a particular religious belief or interpretation supported by a particular group of religious authorities, then, at least temporarily the hard science position takes precedence over the authoritarian religious belief.
I suspect (or hypothesize) that the human behaviors of religion and science had a common origin. Originally, as humans developed behaviors for testing reality they based their beliefs or conclusions on observations and testing, and when something could not be explained by observations and testing they attributed it to a God or god-like unknown. Originally, there would have been no conflict between ‘what is known observed and tested’ and ‘what is unknown and attributed to some form of god’.
But overtime as knowledge accumulated conflicts would arise between earlier phenomenon attributed to ‘what is unknown and attributed to God’ and current knowledge. Under ideal conditions, what is unknown would be modified to adjust for current observations and testable knowledge. But in the non-ideal real world, it often happened that individuals with authoritative political power would overrule the ‘observable scientific discoveries’ and insist that past beliefs take precedence over current observable knowledge.
We know that human social groups are susceptible to this authority overriding observable testable knowledge because we can document that the very phenomenon is occurring today in academic science.
But back to theology, there is, as you point out, no inherent conflict between scientific knowledge and religious belief and there is no reason to limit the subjects to which scientific methods can be applied. Problems or conflicts arise only when human political authorities (whether religious, academic or governmental) attempt to override the observable testable conclusions of hard science analysis.
Over the long run, no human religion (even if it calls itself academic science) will survive that asserts that subject beliefs of a group of human authority figures can override or take precedence over the observable testable conclusions of true hard science analysis. To humans, God represents at least in part what we don’t know and can’t understand. It is simply illogical and unacceptable to assert that what we don’t know is in direct conflict with what we can and do know, observe and test.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. July 2007 08:45
Miosim,
Quote: I just proposed one of the possible explanation of this mechanism that could be applied not only to human systems
But as was also discussed, your explanation does not actually fit the available data. Certainly human social groups can solve far more complex social problems than individuals. But the actual data is not compatible with your explanation.
The standard in real science or hard science is independent testing, not demonstrations under artificial and misleading conditions. Yes the evidence shows that human social intelligence is greater than individual human intelligence. But the evidence does not support the assertion that this aggregate result is simple general intelligence units.
The evidence from all sorts of sources shows that significant increases arise from groups only if the components each involve specialized (and generally different) forms of intelligence and if the interactions between the units are properly structured.
As somewhat of an aside, one of the interesting difference between more successful scientists and less successful scientists appears to be the ability to 'quickly test and reject' theories, concepts and models. Successful scientists generally test and reject 100's or 1000's of different theories in the time it takes the less successful scientist to test a single model or theory.
Successful scientists appear to be able to recognize that the analysis of complex processes require answers that simultaneously satisfy a large number of different requirements. They also recognize that there are a very large number of potential theories or solutions and that many of these solutions will satisfy a few but not all of the requirements. Successful scientists, when they test a possible solutions focus not on the criteria a potential solution will satisfy, but at the criteria the possible solution is likely not to satisfy.
If it is apparent that a potential solutioin will not satisfy a particualr requirement, the successful scientist quickly rejects the potential solution and moves on the evaluating he next option. The less successful scientists will waste large amounts analyzing the criteria that are satisfied by the potential solution and often attempts to ignore or cover up the part of the requirements that are not being satisfied.
The successful scientists seems to realize and appreciate that scientific analysis is primarily about looking at concepts and theories that don't work. The faster he can find out what is wrong with a potential solution, the faster he can move on to evaluating other options. The less successful scientist seems to have a lot of trouble accepting that a potential solution doesn't work and should be rejected.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. July 2007 13:12
WHY THE RESISTANCE?
It must be obvious even to the most foolish observer that human decision making is an almost classic example of intelligent causation. It must be obvious to even the most foolish of observers that we might be able to learn something about the workings of intelligent causation by scientifically observing and studying human decision making.
Why then is there such resistance to learning about intelligent causation from the formal study of human decision making? Why is there such resistance to formulating predictive theories that can not only predict human decision making ‘under ideal conditions’, but that can identify and correct the inefficiencies that often exist in real world human decision making? Why is there such resistance to the possibility that formal scientific analysis of human behavior might lead to the types of practical benefits generated by the scientific analysis of the physical world? Why is there so little real interest in solving human social problems?
A big part of the problem is relative rarity of the skills and knowledge and effort involved in this type of analysis. The evidence appears to suggest that only a tiny percentage of the population will ever have the ability to participate directly in the analysis (but the same tiny percentage limitation applies to successfully engineering analysis or successful systems design).
But there appear to be factors in addition to knowledge constraints that scare people away from real scientific analysis of intelligent causation.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
