|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 07. April 2007 17:13
Hi Mel,
quote:
We agree that fixed laws are at work and that the human MO is trial and error.
Let me clarify. I think:
1) As far as we know nothing besides fixed laws plus chance determines human behavior. If there is something else involved, we don't know what it could be. I don't claim we have any certainty about it either way.
2) There are plenty of ways to characterize human cognition that are not simply in terms of "trial and error"; for example, humans use modus ponens to make deductions. Some people (neural Darwinists) believe that underlying these cognitive abilities is a neural process that is analogous to Darwinistic generate-and-test (trial and error). I don't happen to agree; I think other types of fundamental processes are at work. Maybe these processes are algorithmic, and maybe they aren't - we don't know for sure.
quote:
You claim that chance is also at work as a cause of human behavior.
Yes. It isn't clear to what extent chance plays a role when we think, but some people believe that quantum effects are important at the level of neural processing, and our understanding of quantum events involves chance. Chance also plays a role in what people encounter in their lives (for example when one happens - by chance - to meet a woman on a bus who changes the way one thinks; or if one happens by chance to get hit in the head with a baseball and suffer a personality change).
quote:
But, that is non-sense.
What is nonsense?
quote:
Can we agree that since fixed law and trial and error can’t explain the whole of human behavior, then there must exist other causes, we have yet to demonstrate specifically, at work?
Let's unpack what you mean here. You could be saying:
1) We have evidence that fixed law plus chance cannot account for human behavior.
OR you could be saying
2) We currently have no model that explains all of human behavior.
If you mean (2), then I of course agree. If you mean (1), then I disagree, and must ask you what sort of evidence you might be referring to.
quote:
You seem to acknowledge that human behavior is goal driven and that these goals are not consistent, to which I agree.
We agree on this.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 07. April 2007 19:50
2ndclass,
You wrote:
quote:
The "route" I was referring to is acceptance of the idea that reality can be logically incoherent. I still can't figure out where you stand on this.
I believe that reality is logically coherent. However, two individual wills can be in opposition or contradict each other. Therefore, where two wills contradict, one or both are wrong. There must be then one standard of Truth. This standard is the will of the one who created reality.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 07. April 2007 20:07
aiguy,
“Theory of free-will” – example [by request]:
[Our entire judicial system is based on the theory of free-will. If humans don’t have free-will then they don’t have any control over their actions and should in no way be held accountable for any action taken.
We, as a society, accept that individuals have free-will and predict that the potential criminal will decide, on his own, not to commit a crime if he knows that he will be punished for it.]
I have taught some 2,000 students now and I am telling you that humans love “trial and error.” Now, the error correction can become most sophisticated but unless the person is the boy in the bubble another trial is right around the corner. In any case I think we agree there is a framework of logic so that it is not just trial after blind trial.
I was trying to avoid the “chance” derailment of our discussion but your flip-flop use of the term is too grievous for me to look the other way any longer. You agreed that the scientific definition of chance is to say that we do not know the cause of some event E. To turn around and say that not knowing the cause of E can in fact be the cause of E is illogical. It is non-sense. Chance CAN’T do anything!
I am familiar with the double slit experiment with electrons. I am equally aware that it appears that just the knowing of one quality is what obscures the knowing of the other. When I go to the amusement park and look in one mirror it appears as though I am a short fat man while in the very next mirror it appears that I am extreamly tall and thin. Were this the only information I had as to my appearance, what odd conclusions I might dream up.
You make mention of this quantum effect. There is not a person on the planet with a clue regarding the cause of the quantum effect. So, scientists do what they normally do when they can’t figure out a cause, they slap a probability distribution on it. This enables them to make reasonably accurate predictions without knowing the cause effect relationships. It works well, but the distribution of probabilities is no cause. Drunk drivers are not forced into accidents by the law of probabilities; rather, they smash into other objects because their ability to operate the car has been chemically impaired. What is more, not knowing what caused our encounter here at brainstorms had nothing to do with our meeting.
I will accept [2] - We currently have no model that explains all of human behavior, and move on to goal driven behavior, which is the major player for both humans and biological complexity. But, it will have to wait till the next post.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 07. April 2007 21:21
Hi Mel,
quote:
“Theory of free-will” – example [by request]:
Sorry, I should have made this clear: Since the context here is Intelligent Design Theory, I was actually referring to a scientific theory, rather than a moral theory. Obviously many philosophers have argued for libertarian free will (and many have argued against it).
quote:
Our entire judicial system is based on the theory of free-will. If humans don’t have free-will then they don’t have any control over their actions and should in no way be held accountable for any action taken.
I actually don't agree with this, but it is completely besides the issue here. One can't argue for the reality of libertarian free will because one doesn't happen to like the consequences if it doesn't exist.
quote:
We, as a society, accept that individuals have free-will and predict that the potential criminal will decide, on his own, not to commit a crime if he knows that he will be punished for it.
I believe that the potential criminal obviously decides whether or not to commit a crime (as opposed, say, to some demon or evil spirit directing his/her actions). This view does not entail contra-causal free will, however.
quote:
I was trying to avoid the “chance” derailment of our discussion but your flip-flop use of the term is too grievous for me to look the other way any longer. You agreed that the scientific definition of chance is to say that we do not know the cause of some event E. To turn around and say that not knowing the cause of E can in fact be the cause of E is illogical. It is non-sense. Chance CAN’T do anything!
I agree that attempting to explain something by "chance" alone is unhelpful, since it is saying nothing but "we don't know why". However, I have not explained anything by "chance" alone. I have simply pointed out that fixed law may not be the only thing involved, since we have no fixed laws that can explain, say, why a penny lands heads up, or why somebody happened to meet an interesting woman on a bus.
quote:
I am familiar with the double slit experiment with electrons. I am equally aware that it appears that just the knowing of one quality is what obscures the knowing of the other.
No, I think you misunderstand quantum uncertainty. It is not simply that there is some definite location of the electron that might be known, but we are unable to measure it. Rather, the location of the electron is inherently undetermined.
quote:
You make mention of this quantum effect. There is not a person on the planet with a clue regarding the cause of the quantum effect. So, scientists do what they normally do when they can’t figure out a cause, they slap a probability distribution on it. This enables them to make reasonably accurate predictions without knowing the cause effect relationships.
This is a very funny characterization of quantum physics, Mel. First, the "reasonably accurate" predictions of quantum theory are the most accurate and well-tested predictions that human beings have ever devised: They are unerringly accurate, with a precision of up to thirteen significant digits! Second, quantum theory is not something where scientists "slapped a probability distribution" on something they don't understand. The mathematics that describe and predict quantum phenomena are inherently probabilistic. The electron is defined as a waveform, where the amplitude of the wave gives the probability of its location. So it's not that electrons are little balls and we can only guess where they are statistically. Rather, in QM, they are probability waves (although they can also act like particles sometimes).
quote:
It works well, but the distribution of probabilities is no cause. Drunk drivers are not forced into accidents by the law of probabilities; rather, they smash into other objects because their ability to operate the car has been chemically impaired. What is more, not knowing what caused our encounter here at brainstorms had nothing to do with our meeting.
What I pointed out was that there were two ways that chance might have some effect on human behavior. The first was that some people speculate quantum uncertainty might affect cognitive processes. But nobody tries to explain human cognition by quantum uncertainty! The second was to point out that contingent events - like a chance meeting, or walking under a window when a flower pot falls - are typically described as random, because the causes of the event are unrelated: The flower pot just happened to fall when I walked under the window; there was no special reason why it fell just at that moment.
quote:
I will accept [2] - We currently have no model that explains all of human behavior, and move on to goal driven behavior, which is the major player for both humans and biological complexity. But, it will have to wait till the next post.
OK then - we agree that there is no evidence that anything besides fixed law and chance determines human behavior, even though we cannot explain human behavior. Good.
Vis-a-vis goals, let's see if we can pin down what we mean there. Goal-directed or purposeful behavior is a well-defined concept in cybernetics - it refers to any system that uses negative feedback to modulate its behavior in seeking a target. Using this definition, we can observe any system and decide if it is acting with purpose or not. A thermostat, for example, has goal-directed behavior, using information about temperature to decide whether to turn on or off, in a negative feedback loop. Also, Darwinian evolutionary processes are purposeful by this definition, since the process uses information about the fitness of phenotypes to decide whether or not to continue those traits within a population, again in a negative feedback loop.
[ 08. April 2007, 04:50: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. April 2007 01:07
aiguy, an alias I assume.
We don't need to know WHAT programmed evolution. All that we need is the proof that it WAS programmed. I regard that proof as well in hand just as Schindewolf, Grasse and Berg had claimed long ago. There has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. This means that we may never understand either sequence. I see no point in wasting ones time discussing issues far beyond our present comprehension. What does it accomplish?
Others may not agree. That is fine too. But please do not indicate that the material I have presented is not significant to the topic being discussed because it most certainly is!
"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
That is the entire thrust of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and the antithesis of the Darwinian fairy tale!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 08. April 2007 02:26
nosivad,
quote:
We don't need to know WHAT programmed evolution. All that we need is the proof that it WAS programmed.
My point is that we do need to say something about what it means to be "programmed", or else we can hardly look for proof that this is the case. What does it mean for something to be "programmed"? Does it mean something different from "caused", or "determined"? If so, what is the difference? If not, why use this particular word?
quote:
I regard that proof as well in hand just as Schindewolf, Grasse and Berg had claimed long ago. There has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. This means that we may never understand either sequence. I see no point in wasting ones time discussing issues far beyond our present comprehension. What does it accomplish?
I think you're saying that the answer to the question "What caused biological complexity", is "We have no idea". I'm perfectly happy with that answer, but I'd still like to know what this has to do with "intelligence" and ID Theory.
quote:
Others may not agree. That is fine too. But please do not indicate that the material I have presented is not significant to the topic being discussed because it most certainly is!
I'm not trying to be simply contrary here. On one hand you might be arguing that an intelligence programmed evolution, but you haven't actually said anything like this; you've only said evolution was "programmed". If by "programmed" you mean something like "directed by an intelligent entity", then I do see the relevance to this thread. And in that case, per the OP, I would ask how you are characterizing "intelligence" in such a way that we could establish that whatever enabled this entity to program evolution was the same thing that enables human beings to do things like design watches.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. April 2007 11:08
aiguy
Quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with the macromolecular elements involved with organic chemistry and evolution, absolutely nothing. To apply quantum mechanics to biological phenomena is without foundation. Trust me, but of course you won't. I will stick with Einstein, thank you very much.
"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 08. April 2007 11:30
Quote: In Darwinian evolution, the tester is the interaction of phenotype with the environment. In one sense, the generator is incapable of incorporating any information from the tester at all: No matter what happens, this information does not affect what genotype will be generated next.
As I said, it is interesting to see how people misinterpret and/or misunderstand the relationship between Darwinian theories and search algorithms. If a search is random, then the average or expected speed of the search will be that of a true random search (a function of the relative sizes of the search area and the solution space.). If the average or measured speed of finding a solution is faster than the expected speed calculated for a true random search, then the search process is non-random or intelligent.
There are lots of known tricks for making a search process intelligent. People that use genetic algorithms to find solutions to problems are very good at incorporating tricks into their genetic algorithms to make the searches intelligent or efficient or fast.
There is also abundant evidence that evolutionary changes involve highly efficient, fast, or intelligent searches.
What do Darwinian theories say about the level of intelligence or efficiency involved in evolutionary searches? The rigid old neo-Darwinist dogma insisted that variations or mutations must be ‘truly random’. But the modern Darwinists seem to prefer to pretend that it is acceptable or legitimate to mislabel highly efficient search processes as random or non-intelligent.
The reality is that some types of search algorithms are very efficient for solving some types of search problems, but no type of algorithm is efficient for all types of search problems. Biological systems appear to have highly efficient search processes for solving all sorts of search problems. While modern descriptive theories recognize the efficiency or intelligence of evolutionary search processes, they have no explanation for the observed efficiency and the descriptive theories refuse to accept that such efficiency involves goal directed intelligence.
Aiguy, your comment quoted above appear consistent with the old dogmatic view of evolution as a true random search. You must be aware that the evidence from selective breeding experiments clearly contradicts the old neo-Darwinian theories. The available evidence clearly shows that knowledge of goals or goal directed intelligence strongly influences variations.
You must also be aware that mathematical searches can not be materially more efficient that chance unless goal directed intelligence is involved in matching an appropriate search process to the problem being addressed. Or are you are not aware of the mathematics involved?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 08. April 2007 11:38
Quote: No, not relevant to the thread, but no, this is not what Turing was talking about. Turing machines compute continuous functions to any arbitrary degree of precision, and this issue is not relevant to the Church-Turing thesis.
What is relevant to the discussion here is the deterministic relationship between F, S, and R. If there is a dynamic change from RA NCG to RB GC then the change must be the result of 1) a change in F, a change in S, or a change in the solution space.
If the dynamic change that produces a solution is efficient or intelligent, then using Turing type machines, that change must be due to one of a defined set of factors, not to some phenomenon that can not be modeled.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 08. April 2007 13:41
aiguy:
quote:
In that case, we might as well say that we know what causes biological complexity. Nature was programmed to create it. And how was Nature programmed to create it? By another program. And how about that program? Well, if you'd like to speculate about ultimate causes, we've left the realm of science of course. But it's simpler to posit that the first program simply popped into existence all by itself than it is to posit that some other thing, about which we know nothing at all, popped into existence all by itself, and then this thing in turn created the first program.
First off, a program requires a programmer.
Secondly, any discussion of first causes ultimately requires an uncaused first cause. For this, there are only two options: Either it is "nothing" or it is "something eternal".
Since "something from nothing" violates every known physical law, the only viable option is something eternal.
So the physical laws of the universe, and the programs of nature, point to an eternal programmer.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 08. April 2007 13:58
The issue or question of intelligent causation involves an apparent contradiction or paradox or dilemma between what is known about computer or logic machine processing of information and what is known about intelligent processing.
On the one hand, we know or recognize that intelligent causation is associated with problem solving or in more abstract mathematical terms intelligent causation involves changes from R that is NGC to R that is GC.
However, from our knowledge of logic machines or computers or Turing machines we know that a change from R that is NGC or R that is GC can only be produced by rather unintelligent appearing changes in input or processing algorithm or environmental changes that change an existing R from NGC to an R that is GC. There are no other ways to change a Turing machine from producing R is NGC to producing R is GC.
In other words, mathematical modeling analysis and observation would appear to suggest that all observable ‘intelligent causation’ results are due to unintelligent material causes or agency. But, this paradox suggests, intelligent causation must involve something other than mundane non-intelligent causes.
I believe this apparent paradox is central theme of Aiguy’s ‘ID can’t define intelligence’ position.
There is, of course, one fairly obvious solution to this apparent paradox, and that is to assume or recognize that all intelligent causation involves the mundane ‘non-intelligent’ causal factors identified by computers or logic machines or Turing machines. This interpretation or solution leads logically to my proposed definition of intelligent causation as ‘any efficient change from R that is NGC to R that is GC’.
Given this proposed definition, the only criterion that remains to be satisfied is showing that the definition is useful in formulating testable predictive theories. That in turn comes down to demonstrating that intelligence based teleological theories or IDTs satisfy the requirements for testable, predictive, hard science theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. April 2007 15:37
Daniel Smith
There is no evidence for an eternal programmer. All that is required is that one or more such programmers once existed. That is what makes Nietzche's comment, "God is dead", so appropriate. It is completely consistent with what we really know about the living world. Accordingly it is as far as I need to go to deal with the available facts. Others may require more but I am content with the minimum requirement, especially since I am convinced that evolution is finished. I also do not believe in the power of prayer and neither did Einstein.
It all seems to be a cosmic joke if you ask me!
"La commedia e finita."
How is that for blasphemy?
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
I hope so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 08. April 2007 16:33
nosivad,
quote:
Quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with the macromolecular elements involved with organic chemistry and evolution, absolutely nothing. To apply quantum mechanics to biological phenomena is without foundation.
What a very odd thing to say! Can you show us where I have ever once implied that quantum mechanics has anything to do with macromolecular elements involved with organic chemistry and evolution? No, of course you can't. Perhaps you were thinking of someone else.
quote:
Trust me, but of course you won't. I will stick with Einstein, thank you very much.
This is an even odder thing to say.
Perhaps instead of these bizarre non-sequiturs, you might actually wish to respond to what I've said. Otherwise, perhaps you'd be interested in some other thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 08. April 2007 16:38
Daniel,
quote:
First off, a program requires a programmer.
This seems tautological. But programmers are human beings - is that what you mean? Or perhaps you mean something else - what would that be, something that can cause a program? Hmm, seems all we have are vacuous tautologies.
quote:
Secondly, any discussion of first causes ultimately requires an uncaused first cause. For this, there are only two options: Either it is "nothing" or it is "something eternal". Since "something from nothing" violates every known physical law, the only viable option is something eternal. So the physical laws of the universe, and the programs of nature, point to an eternal programmer.
Sure, eternal - as long as we're speculating about metaphysics, why not? As far as we know, then, the eternal programmer was a mindless, unconscious, deterministic, mechanical process, like the AI programs that write other programs. Is this what you mean?
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 08. April 2007 16:44
quote:
AIGUY: In Darwinian evolution, the tester is the interaction of phenotype with the environment. In one sense, the generator is incapable of incorporating any information from the tester at all: No matter what happens, this information does not affect what genotype will be generated next.
LE: Aiguy, your comment quoted above appear consistent with the old dogmatic view of evolution as a true random search.
LE, you left out the very next sentence of my quote, which was: "But the generator does incorporate information from the tester when the population is considered, since each incremental gain in reproductive advantage informs the generator to pick genotypes with the highest reproductive success as the next set of nodes in a massively parallel search."
I repeated this again to you, using bold to emphasize it, yet you still left it out and pretended I said something else. Now I have repeated this to you three times. I also said "Darwinian Evolution is not a random search. In a random search, each phenotype would be explored equally without regard to fitness. This is not what happens, obviously, since "fitness" means that more offspring survive to reproduce, so these phenotypes are searched preferrentially in the next generation." I don't think I could have been much more clear, yet you still choose to pretend I said the opposite of what I actually did say.
quote:
I believe this apparent paradox is central theme of Aiguy’s ‘ID can’t define intelligence’ position.
This also completely mischaracterizes my position, as can be seen from the OP, where I discuss various ways we do indeed define intelligence.
Until you represent my position fairly, we really won't be able to discuss anything.
[ 08. April 2007, 17:14: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
