|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 08. April 2007 18:28
Quote: 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."
This may sound good but it is in fact total nonsense. First, the operation of RM&NS on a population does not make evolution a massively parallel process but rather a highly inefficient selection process. Second, stepwise selection where one beneficial variation means that future variations have a higher likelihood of being beneficial is a non-random process and would only make evolution more efficient for certain specialized types of evolutionary problems.
You are trying to place both sides of the fence suggesting both 1)evolution involves random variation and 2) evolution involves efficient changes. Mathematical analysis clearly shows that random variation processes can not be highly efficient. Furthermore, evidence of observed micro-evolutionary processes shows that observed changes do not fit random change models.
Analysis with genetic algorithms shows that there are lots of rather subtle mechanisms by which knowledge of a goal can be used to modify search processes and make them more efficient. The study of known changes shows that even simple micro-evolutionary processes are highly efficient suggesting that ‘goal knowledge’ is in some way materially influencing the efficiency of evolutionary change.
The challenge in evolutionary biology, in addition to putting a stop to the unsupportable claims about random search, is to come up with a predictive theory that is consistent with the observed data on highly efficient evolutionary change processes.
If I am not fairly representing you position, it is because your positions are ambiguous and not logically inconsistent. You still are trying to claim that Darwinian theory is both random and non-random. You have not proposed any process or mechanism or theory which would make Darwin searches non-random and efficient. The process you describe clearly does not produce the effect or result you contribute to it.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 08. April 2007 20:18
quote:
This may sound good but it is in fact total nonsense. First, the operation of RM&NS on a population does not make evolution a massively parallel process but rather a highly inefficient selection process.
I have no idea what you are talking about. For processes that can be efficiently parallelized (such as genetic algorithms), the search becomes more efficient linearly with the number of processes. So, if one process would take time T, a parallel search on one million nodes would only take T/10^6.
But efficiency was not the point that I made to you (repeatedly). The point was that nobody believes Darwinian processes are random searches - they are not.
quote:
Second, stepwise selection where one beneficial variation means that future variations have a higher likelihood of being beneficial is a non-random process and would only make evolution more efficient for certain specialized types of evolutionary problems.
I don't know what you mean here.
quote:
You are trying to place both sides of the fence suggesting both 1)evolution involves random variation and 2) evolution involves efficient changes.
Evolution involves random variation, yes, but it is not a random search. Morever, I never said evolution involves efficient changes, so you have mischaracterized me once again. It would help if you actually quoted what I write here, rather than making up things that I never said and pretending that I said them. Everyone can see that you are doing this, since both of our posts remain on the board for all to see.
quote:
Mathematical analysis clearly shows that random variation processes can not be highly efficient.
The fact that genetic variation is random does not mean that we can characterize evolution as a random search. Since I have now made this point four times, I must conclude that you simply cannot understand it; I will not repeat it again.
quote:
If I am not fairly representing you position, it is because your positions are ambiguous and not logically inconsistent.
(I think you mean "not logically consistent"). The problem is that you do not attempt to respond to what I actually write, but rather what you make up in your own head. If you'd like to continue the discussion, simply quote what I actually write, and respond to it.
[ 08. April 2007, 20:18: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. April 2007 21:46
Natural selection never had anything to do with progressive evolution and can only create intraspecific varieties none of which are incipient species anyway. The whole Darwinian paradigm is a hoax.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 08. April 2007 22:53
quote:
Natural selection never had anything to do with progressive evolution and can only create intraspecific varieties none of which are incipient species anyway.
Whether or not natural selection can create intraspecific varieties has no bearing on the topic whatsoever. If this is what you wish to discuss, you need to find a thread where it is relevant and discuss it there. If you would like to know what this thread is about, you need to read the original post.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. April 2007 05:50
aiguy
Sorry but I do not agree. A prescribed evolution has EVERYTHING to do with every subject addressed on this forum. If there is no role for chance as I and others have claimed, if we live in a determined universe, all the speculation in the world becomes meaningless unless it recognizes that reality. We are all pawns as far as I can determine, each a victim of his individually determined fate. Some of us have been luckier than others. With the invaluable aid of my seven sources, I have presented a new hypothesis of evolution which has no place for either chance or religious fundamentalism which are the two major ideologies with which the present argument is obsessed. Both are faith based which is to say that both are religions. Neither has contributed anything of substance to our understanding of the living world. Quite the contrary, they continue to impede that understanding.
All the speculation in the world means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is a monumental waste of time.
Enjoy!
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
[ 09. April 2007, 15:11: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 09. April 2007 05:51
aiguy:
quote:
This seems tautological. But programmers are human beings - is that what you mean?
You tell me. Are human beings capable of programming the kinds of biological complexity we're talking about?
quote:
Or perhaps you mean something else - what would that be, something that can cause a program? Hmm, seems all we have are vacuous tautologies.
What else can "cause" a program?
quote:
Sure, eternal - as long as we're speculating about metaphysics, why not?
You have no choice. Unless you are prepared to argue that "Nothing" is a cause, there can be no other uncaused first cause - can there?
quote:
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?
The AI programs that write other programs are not "uncaused" - they are written by people. If you want to discuss first causes, you must come up with something that fits the description.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 09. April 2007 06:09
Dr. Davison,
quote:
There is no evidence for an eternal programmer. All that is required is that one or more such programmers once existed.
You know, and have stated that a programmer is required - we're in agreement there.
My use of the word "eternal" was in reference to "First Causes". Any regression of causes must eventually lead to something uncaused.
My point is that, at that point, there are only two options - only two types of causes that are uncaused - "Nothing" or "Something Eternal".
That's it.
I was merely pointing out that in order for "Nothing" to be the first cause, it must be possible to get something from nothing - which violates pretty much every law of physics.
The only other option is that the first cause was something eternal. "Something eternal", as a first cause, violates no physical laws.
I'm just trying to be logical. (I'm sorry, I know how you hate appeals to logic!)
I probably (on hindsight) should not have combined the two terms 'eternal' and 'programmer' - since it does not necessarily follow that the programmer of life on earth was eternal. That was a philosophical leap on my part.
Ultimately though, the thing that began it all - must be eternal.
[ 09. April 2007, 06:55: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. April 2007 07:52
Daniel Smith
I know what you mean. It is all a giant mystery isn't it? Except of course to a Darwinian!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. April 2007 09:57
There appears to be confusion and/or intentional misrepresentation of the relationship between computerized (Turing type) search algorithms and the modeling of both human problem solving and the problem solving associated with biological evolution.
By standard conventions, your basic search algorithm involves a search area or set of possible solutions, a solution space or set of solutions, and an iterative process involving a variation generating process that selects an element from the search area and a selection process that evaluates the selected variation to determine if it is a solution and then repeat the variation/selection process. There are in practice an essentially unlimited number of variations on the search process.
Also by reasonably standard convention is the random or true random search process characterized by a variation generating process that gives every element in the search space an equal opportunity of being selected or alternatively the likelihood of selecting a member of the solution space is proportional to the area of the solution space relative to the size of the search area.
Random or true random searches have an expected probability of finding a solution per trial or cycle and an expected speed of finding a solution that can be calculated from the size of the solution space and the size of the search area. This is all standard cookbook mathematics.
Search engines can be faster (more efficient or more intelligent) than random search processes or they can be slower (less efficient, less intelligent or more stupid) than random search engine. The speed, efficiency or intelligence of a search process depends NOT on the properties of the search engine, but on the specific pairings of search engine and problem.
Speeds, efficiencies, or levels of intelligence can vary from ‘almost always finds the solution on the first trial’ to ‘speed of a random search’ to ‘never finds a solution’. For many different types of search algorithms, it will be possible to find problems that can be solved very efficiently and problems that are essentially insolvable. Similarly, for lots of different types of problems, we can find search engines that will find a solution on the first trial and we can find search engines that will never find a solution. Again, this is all standard cookbook mathematics.
Given reasonably competent and reasonably honest scientists, it is usually possible to analyze both evolutionary change processes and intelligent behaviors in terms of search process mathematics and concepts. For lots of instances of both human problem solving and biological evolution, it is possible and practical to develop reasonable estimates of the size of the search area, the size of the solution space, and the actual speed or efficiency or intelligence of the problem solving or change. Again, this is standard cookbook scientific analysis for competent honest scientists.
If, as will commonly be found for many types of human behavior and many type of observed evolutionary change, the speed or efficiency or intelligence of a change process is significantly or materially faster than the speed expected from a random search, then we can conclude, assume, hypothesize, or assert that the pairing of search process and search problem are not due to chance and we can assert or hypothesize that the pairing reflects the actions of intelligent agency. In other words, the measured or observed fact that a change process or a example of problem solving is significantly efficient or significantly intelligent, we are justified in assuming or hypothesizing that the efficient change reflects a non-random pairing search problem and search process and we are justified in assuming or hypothesizing that the efficient pairing is due to some type of goal directed knowledge or intelligent agency.
There might be other types of assertions or hypothesis that can explain observed behaviors modeled by efficient searches, but random search or chance are not legitimate explanations. More specifically, there is no search process compatible with any Darwinian theory that can explain efficient evolutionary change processes.
It is important to note that as far as is currently known, efficient searches or efficient (intelligent) problem solving or efficient (intelligent) evolutionary change is ‘problem specific’ not ‘general’. A method or type of search process that produces efficient problem solving for one problem will often and maybe even most of the time generalize to similar problems, but no method or type of search process will produce efficient or intelligent solutions for all types of problems. As far as is known, intelligence and problem solving efficiency are ‘problem specific’ not general.
Again, the claim or suggestion by some Darwinists that somehow or the other random Darwinian searches can be compatible with rapid or efficient evolutionary change is simply wrong. Much or most evolutionary change can be shown to involve efficient or intelligent searches. That measured or observed change speed or efficiency is not explainable in terms of any chance or random change process.
Note also that attributing efficient (intelligent) search or efficient (intelligent) problem solving to externally inputted knowledge or external intelligent agency is not in itself a solution to the scientific problem of defining intelligence, It is still necessary to show that this assertion or hypothesis or approach leads to the formulation of testable, predictive theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. April 2007 10:18
Quote: Evolution involves random variation, yes, but it is not a random search.
Typically, a search process is described as involving 1) a solution space, 2) a search area, 3) a method of generating variations, and 4) a method of performing selection. Also typically, when we talk about the efficiency or speed of a search process we assume that the selection process is 100% efficient. The speed or efficiency of a search process then depends entirely on the 'efficiency' or non-randomness of the variation generating process.
Natural selection is at best a very inefficient selection process. Natural selection can thus only reduce, never increase, the efficiency of evolutionary processes. The suggestion that you can have an efficient search process using a random variation process is illogical and nonsensical.
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 09. April 2007 11:56
Daniel,
quote:
You tell me. Are human beings capable of programming the kinds of biological complexity we're talking about?
I'm not sure what type of biological complexity we're talking about, but I'd say no, since no human has managed to create a living thing. I'd say that is all the more reason to reject ID's claim that the same thing that humans use to think is what created life.
quote:
AIGUY: Or perhaps you mean something else - what would that be, something that can cause a program? Hmm, seems all we have are vacuous tautologies.
DANIEL: What else can "cause" a program?
You tell me - I'm not the one offering a "programmer" as a purportedly scientific explanation for the creation of life. In my view, nobody has the faintest idea why the laws of the universe are what they are. But offering "that which can create life" (which is what ID's explanation boils down to) really doesn't help.
quote:
You have no choice. Unless you are prepared to argue that "Nothing" is a cause, there can be no other uncaused first cause - can there?
Like many philosophers, I believe that both of the options are beyond our comprehension.
quote:
AIGUY: 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?
DANIEL: The AI programs that write other programs are not "uncaused" - they are written by people. If you want to discuss first causes, you must come up with something that fits the description.
Uh, fits what description??? That is the whole point of this thread! What description are you talking about?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 09. April 2007 12:05
Melvin: quote:
I believe that reality is logically coherent.
You seem to be going back and forth on this. On Apr. 2 you said that human behavior is logically incoherent. On Apr. 6 you said that the "authority of self" could overrule even logical coherence. I'm finding your position confusing.
quote:
However, two individual wills can be in opposition or contradict each other. Therefore, where two wills contradict, one or both are wrong.
Two wills may oppose each other, but I don't see how wills can be logically contradictory. But regardless, that's not the logical problem that I brought up with regards to free will. My question was how to define the term in a logically coherent way.
So, how do you define the term "free will"?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 09. April 2007 12:33
Just to reiterate the point of the thread, aiguy is pointing out a fundamental problem of the ID movement: They submit that "intelligence" is a cause of biological complexity, but they won't say what "intelligence" is.
Attempts to pin down a definition yield a mixture of several results:
- At one extreme we have definitions that apply only to humans. Obviously this is unsatisfactory for ID purposes.
- At the other extreme we have definitions that do not rule out natural processes, e.g. "programmer". Again, this undermines the intention of ID.
- We also get nebulous metaphysical terms, e.g. "free will". At best, this puts ID outside the realm of science. At worst, it puts it outside of rational discourse.
- And finally, we get tautologies, which are obviously useless.
Basing an ostensible hypothesis on an undefined term seems seriously problematic to me. Are ID proponents concerned about this?
IP: Logged
|
|
aiguy
Member
Member # 3736
|
posted 09. April 2007 13:11
Thank you for that succinct summary, 2ndclass. I think it's time to introduce what the Isaac Newton of information theory has to say about the subject:
quote:
At this point critics of intelligent design often protest that design theorists have yet to provide a careful definition of intelligence. While I agree that terms need to be defined as carefully as possible, the call for definition can itself become a subterfuge. Thus the call for definition can become a way of avoiding the challenge posed by an idea by endlessly requiring further clarification of key terms. The later Wittgenstein certainly thought the call for definition was overrated. Indeed, the finiteness of language itself implies that the call for definition must at some point either end or issue in circularity. Within intelligent design, intelligence is a primitive notion much as force or energy are primitive notions within physics. We can say intelligible things about these notions and show how they can be usefully employed in certain contexts. But in defining them, we gain no substantive insight.
--William Dembski http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm
Here, Dembski argues that intelligence ought to be treated as a primitive notion, like force or energy, and that further attempts to define it are unnecessary (and futile). What Dembski fails to notice is that the concepts of "force" and "energy" are useless in science until they are carefully characterized. Again, if the real Isaac Newton had described gravity as merely "a fundamental force which causes otherwise unexplained motion", this would have been useless: We would have learned nothing at all, and we could not have known that celestial and terrestrial motion were both caused by the same force (and Newton would not have been famous). Likewise, if we describe intelligence as merely "a fundamental force which causes otherwise unexplained complexity", we have said precisely nothing of scientific value.
[ 09. April 2007, 13:12: Message edited by: aiguy ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. April 2007 13:42
As demonstrated here, intelligent causation can be objectively defined and identified using the ‘highly efficient search’ standard or criteria. This same definition or criterion can be applied objectively to identify examples of intelligent causation in both human problem solving behavior and in evolutionary change processes.
It will be recalled that I defined intelligent causation as efficient or highly efficient changes from R is NCG to R is CG. As I also mentioned, if you do so called regression analysis or if you back track in the chain of causation, you will find that the ‘observed change involving intelligent causation’ was caused by 1) some new input S, 2) some change in the processing algorithm F, or 3) some environmental change that changed the goal compatibility of R. If we back track on the ‘preceding causes’ of intelligent causation, we will always find or expect to find physical or material causation. These material or physical causes constitute what is called intelligent agency.
If we tracked the physical or material causes of intelligent causation far enough back, we might or might not find an intelligent agent. The key point here is that the ultimate cause or the beginning of the chain of causation is not essential (nor even particularly relevant) to the scientific analysis of intelligent causation. All that is relevant to the scientific analysis of intelligent causation is the ability to formulate predictive testable non-trivial theories related to the identified intelligent causation.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
