Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 75 (233184)
08-14-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by nwr
08-14-2005 4:07 PM


topic drift near other threads?
this thread seems to be headed in the direction already taken by
EvC Forum: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?
and before that by the subthread on "bones of contention"
http://EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions.
focusing on what intelligence is rather than focussing on ID.
can we assume intelligent design is involved because intelligence is evident in many species?
do we have to?
I would say people are free to make that assumption, but it is not necessary.
The next question is what that intelligent design process consists of, and whether anything beyond normal evolutionary mechanisms are required.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*14*2005 04:33 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 4:07 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 5:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 17 of 75 (233188)
08-14-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nwr
08-14-2005 12:19 PM


nwr writes:
For if you look at a single neuron, then on the same basis you would have to say that there is no judgement there either. And human decisions are merely the combined effect of all of those neurons. So the logical conclusion would seem to be that there is no judgement and no intelligence in people, either.
And a 2-input NAND gate must not be able to output a logic 0 iff both inputs are high, since the individual components can't perform that function.
http://www.opamp-electronics.com/...images/digital/04094.png
Oh wait, it does.
The circuit evaluates A+B. (1,1) has a value of 0. (1,0) has a value of 1. (0,1) has a value of 1. (0,0) has a value of 1.
I do a similar thing when I evaluate a logical argument, except I use a multiple-input gate, and stick an inverter on the output to make it an AND gate.
Iff the inference is valid, AND all the premises are true, the conclusion is true. If any other combination, the conclusion is at an indeterminate truth value.
The fact that an individual neuron can't perform this function doesn't mean that a group of them can't be hooked up to do it.
nwr writes:
I'm looking at judgement as the outcome of a process, rather than the decision of a conscious agent. I suppose this comes from my interest in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. I am wanting to be able to consider intelligence as arising from a community of simple judging processes.
Well yes, but the problem here is that you have no hardware. There's no judgment that one variant is a better fit to its environment than another; it simply is that one variant is better fit to its environment than another.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-14-2005 05:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 12:19 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 5:43 PM DominionSeraph has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 18 of 75 (233192)
08-14-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
08-14-2005 4:32 PM


Re: topic drift near other threads?
Since you are replying to me, I guess I should comment
this thread seems to be headed in the direction already taken by
EvC Forum: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?
and before that by the subthread on "bones of contention"
http://EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions. -->EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions.
focusing on what intelligence is rather than focussing on ID.
No, I don't see that at all. My posts have been related to the idea that intelligence can and does arise naturally. And if simple forms of intelligence can arise naturally, then it is surely possible that natural selection can produce more complex intelligence.
If the moderators think I am taking this in the wrong direction, then I guess I will have to stop posting and see in what direction others want to take it.
can we assume intelligent design is involved because intelligence is evident in many species?
My understanding of the OP is that humans are intelligent designers, and that if humans are the result of evolution, then intelligent design results from evolution. As I see it, the OP was wanting a discussion of whether that is possible.
It seems that you have a different understanding of what was being asked by the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 08-14-2005 4:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 08-14-2005 7:20 PM nwr has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 19 of 75 (233199)
08-14-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by DominionSeraph
08-14-2005 4:52 PM


And a 2-input NAND gate must not be able to output a logic 0 iff both inputs are high, since the individual components can't perform that function.
I don't agree with that. DominionSeraph was questioning me with respect to my use of "judgement". In the case of the NAND gate, I would not say that there is any judgement. A NAND gate is just a simple deterministic device.
I do a similar thing when I evaluate a logical argument, except I use a multiple-input gate, and stick an inverter on the output to make it an AND gate.
Likewise, I don't see any judgement in a multiple input gate, nor in the formal analysis of a logical argument. When we ordinarily use logic in our reasoning, we don't restrict ourselves to a formal analysis. We also evaluate the assumed premises, and that is where I see us using judgement.
Iff the inference is valid, AND all the premises are true, the conclusion is true. If any other combination, the conclusion is at an indeterminate truth value.
Sure. Except for "all the premises are true", this is completely mechanical and deterministic. No judgement is required, and no intelligence is required. The hard part is with "all the premises are true". When this has to do with real world matters, as distinct from formal logic propositions, the question of whether the premises are true can require considerable intelligence and judgement. But that judgement is outside what any NAND gate or other logic circuit can achieve.
The fact that an individual neuron can't perform this function doesn't mean that a group of them can't be hooked up to do it.
You seem to see intelligence in a NAND gate, and want to use that to prove that there can be intelligence in a neuron. By contrast, I see intelligence in a neuron such as we shall never be able to replicate with NAND gates alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 4:52 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 6:23 PM nwr has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 20 of 75 (233209)
08-14-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lmrenault
08-12-2005 10:51 AM


lmrenault writes:
But many of us would argue that this very sophisticated intelligent designer, unique on earth’s landscape, has been produced by the evolutionary process that Darwin describes. Can we make sense of this? Can such a super creation as Hs — an intelligent designer - be the product of mutation and natural selection where there is no intelligent design input?
I don't see why a trial-and-error process couldn't come up with a trial-and-error brain. Life, using a process that works really well at finding things that work really well, simply found its own process.
Seems to me that a configurable brain wouldn't be limited to literalty. An input could be segmented; the segments could then be shunted off along different paths, and then combined with other segments from other inputs to form concepts that aren't the result of a singular input. Thus, 'imagination'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lmrenault, posted 08-12-2005 10:51 AM lmrenault has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 21 of 75 (233212)
08-14-2005 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nwr
08-14-2005 5:43 PM


nwr writes:
Likewise, I don't see any judgement in a multiple input gate, nor in the formal analysis of a logical argument.
If I'm not judging the conclusion to be either true or at an indeterminate truth value; what am I doing?
nwr writes:
When we ordinarily use logic in our reasoning, we don't restrict ourselves to a formal analysis.
In daily life, we seem to use a subconscious process that has access to a shitload of data. It might just be a difference engine.
nwr writes:
We also evaluate the assumed premises, and that is where I see us using judgement.
The input of one gate can be the output of another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 5:43 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 8:16 PM DominionSeraph has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 75 (233215)
08-14-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
08-14-2005 5:04 PM


Re: topic drift near other threads?
nwr, msg 18 writes:
My understanding of the OP is that humans are intelligent designers, and that if humans are the result of evolution, then intelligent design results from evolution.
No, I hadn't seen it that way. The take I had was that evolution of "Hs" intelligence was of singular significance and not possible without ID help.
But I am happy to move to this interpretation.
I had just noticed that we seem to have three threads that are essentially discussing the same thing: the evolution of intelligence (and what we mean by intelligence), and that consolodation might make it more instructive.
{{fixed typo}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*14*2005 07:21 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 5:04 PM nwr has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 23 of 75 (233225)
08-14-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by DominionSeraph
08-14-2005 6:23 PM


If I'm not judging the conclusion to be either true or at an indeterminate truth value; what am I doing?
Neither a NAND gate nor a multiple input logic gate will come up with an indeterminate truth value.
If you are doing what a NAND gate could do, perhaps you are using some judgement. But the use of judgement is superfluous, for the decision can be reached mechanically, as by a NAND gate. The conclusion is completely determined by the input, and anybody else could, and normally would, reach the identical conclusion. Your judgement is not needed. If, however, you are doing something where there could be an indeterminate truth result, then you are doing something other than logic, and you are exercising judgement.
In daily life, we seem to use a subconscious process that has access to a shitload of data. It might just be a difference engine.
If the conclusion could be at an indeterminate truth value, then you are not doing what NAND gates can do, and you are not just applying simple logic.
In Message 20, DominionSeraph said "I don't see why a trial-and-error process couldn't come up with a trial-and-error brain." That's a good example of what I am suggesting. In many cases, a NAND gate cannot tell you whether the result of the trial was an error. Whether the result was an error is an empirical judgement, but logic is abstract, so does not make empirical judgements.
The input of one gate can be the output of another.
This doesn't alter the fact that the gate will produce a determinate truth value.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 6:23 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 10:16 PM nwr has replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 24 of 75 (233243)
08-14-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
08-13-2005 1:14 PM


Complexity
It kinda fits your response to me on this a few weeks back.
Because of the abundance of complexity, the evidence agaist ID is apparent. Intellegence cannot produce complexity. Intellegence is restrained within the world of complexity.
Complexity is a by-product of evolution which is a bi-product of space/time, and energy expenditure from the Big Bang.
Intellegence can produce design, and the design may resemble complexity on a very superficial level. A microprocessor attempts to resemble complexity but only to the degree that a cloud can momentarily resemble a car or a plane.
True complexity as in the human brain can only be achieved through mutation, chance and selection over the onward march of time. To suggest that the incredible complexity of our natural world could be the result of intellegence and design is like saying that you could carve Mt. Rushmore with a toy squirt gun, a gallon of water and a free afternoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2005 1:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2005 9:21 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 75 (233250)
08-14-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Lizard Breath
08-14-2005 8:49 PM


Re: Complexity
Yeah, pretty much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Lizard Breath, posted 08-14-2005 8:49 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
lmrenault
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 75 (233261)
08-14-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
08-14-2005 9:47 AM


quote:
It's your position which is faith-based, not ours. Furthermore you betray an ignorance of the creative process.
This is a very interesting statment. Who is "ours?" Does some group own this discussion forum, or does some set of ideas own this discussion board and questioning the ideas is not allowed?
Regarding faith, we all step out on faith daily. Faith is hope in an outcome based on incomplete evidence. I put faith in the man or woman I vote for, in the car I buy, and in my choice for a spouse. Sometimes were disappointed and sometimes we're not.
And ignorance? If you mean I don't have complete knowledge of the creative process I plead ignorance. But who does have all the knowledge? Who can say what's behind the Big Bang? Who has seen non-living matter give birth to a living organism that reproduces itself?
quote:
Nobody makes things out of nothing. Shakespeare wrote his sonnets, drawing on a hundred years of Italian sonnet poetry. He wrote his plays drawing on centuries of pre-existing drama. In some cases he outright plagarized popular comedies and gave them his own slight twist.
Regarding sonnets, somebody created that first 14 line verse in iambic pentameter for the first time and each one written is a new creation.
quote:
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Why do all products of natural selection and random mutation have to share every character of those two processes? Are you suggesting that your choices and ideas must have an origin seperate from your brain? That they come from outside you, somewhere?
What I'm saying here is that Homo sapien, as an intelligent designer, operates from free will. His choices are self-directed by whim or by reason, yet if he is he product of natural selection where there is no free will, he seems to have broken away from the process. This is what makes him an intelligent designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2005 9:47 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 08-14-2005 10:10 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 75 (233264)
08-14-2005 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by lmrenault
08-14-2005 10:00 PM


What I'm saying here is that Homo sapien, as an intelligent designer, operates from free will. His choices are self-directed by whim or by reason, yet if he is he product of natural selection where there is no free will, he seems to have broken away from the process. This is what makes him an intelligent designer.
So if he is designed he has free will to do whatever he wants but if he is not designed he doesn't?
How does his not being designed negate "His choices are self-directed by whim or by reason" in this case? What prevents it?
Seems to me you have it backwards. If he is designed he is {restrained\restricted\constrained} by the box (world) built around him and cannot escape it. He is a monkey in a guilded cage that just thinks he has free will.
Enjoy.
{{edited. hit submit not preview}}
ps -- ID contradicts christianity you know.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*14*2005 10:14 PM
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*14*2005 10:20 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 10:00 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 28 of 75 (233265)
08-14-2005 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nwr
08-14-2005 8:16 PM


nwr writes:
Neither a NAND gate nor a multiple input logic gate will come up with an indeterminate truth value.
0 = 'indeterminate'
It's what the output signifies; not a reference to the output's level. It's a determination of 'indeterminate'.
nwr writes:
But the use of judgement is superfluous, for the decision can be reached mechanically, as by a NAND gate.
No, it would be superfluous to use an external AND gate, as I have an internal one that works just fine.
nwr writes:
Your judgement is not needed.
It is if I want to do anything with the conclusion. If I don't have that output, I'm right where I started.
nwr writes:
Whether the result was an error is an empirical judgement, but logic is abstract, so does not make empirical judgements.
That's fine, though. Incoming sensory data is simply flagged as true, so that doesn't have to be an output of the circuit. So, now we have a known good to check the output of other circuits against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 08-14-2005 8:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 08-15-2005 12:01 AM DominionSeraph has replied

  
lmrenault
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 75 (233266)
08-14-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
08-14-2005 11:35 AM


Check out Bowerbird Nesting habits. They fit all of your criteria. They begin with an idea, the create something that exhibits a unique plan, they show selection in choosing the materials by shape or size of color.
Well I guess I'll have to put the Bowerbird along side Hs as an intelligent designer ;-) Obviously, we see elements of intelligence in many critters, but I have to maintain that man's demonstration of creative imagination, independent choice, will power, and artistic expression sets him uniquely apart. And it's interesting that these characteristics are not equally shared. Every Bowerbird makes a nest, but not every man has the ability or inclination (choice) to design and build a house. The expression of design is highly variable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 11:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 10:33 PM lmrenault has not replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 08-14-2005 10:34 PM lmrenault has not replied
 Message 32 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-14-2005 10:42 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 75 (233271)
08-14-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by lmrenault
08-14-2005 10:18 PM


But the Bowerbird does more than just build a nest. They build unique and individual nests.
Now let's consider our cousins the primates.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by lmrenault, posted 08-14-2005 10:18 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024