|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Why doesn't AI Falsify ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
aiguy writes: The more common response is that while computers might appear to be intelligent, they are only reflecting the intelligence of the real intelligent agent - the human programmer. But a moment's reflection should reveal the flaw in this line of reasoning: If computers are not truly intelligent because they are the product of another intelligent agent's design, then human beings - also the product of intelligent design according to ID - must not be truly intelligent either. If the IDist chooses to rebut this reductio ad absurdum by granting that computers are in fact intelligent in their own right, we are left with the conclusion that material processes must be capable of intelligent behavior after all. When you can take super intelligent computers and have them express love, joy, guilt etc, then I'll concede that you have an argument. We are more than just the intelligence that can be programmed into a computer. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
aiguy writes: First, while there is apparently no canonical definition of the term "intelligence" used by Intelligent Design Theory (an odd state of affairs, to say the least), none of the ID proponents I've read have suggested that "love", "joy", or "guilt" are requisite components. According to Dembski, "intelligence" is defined as "the ability to generate complex specified information". Computers most certainly have the ability to generate all sorts of designs, including those for irreducibly complex machines. One can also imagine a person who lacks the emotional responses we might call "love", or "guilt" but is still clearly intelligent (for example, a psychopath who happens to be a nuclear physicist). My point was that until someone can design a computer to exhibit spontaneous emotion then I don't see that your argument against ID holds up. I agree that computers can be designed to design, but frankly if anything, that is an argument that supports the concept that we had to be designed in order for us to be able to design this computer. I do contend that the universe, the earth and life exhibit all the characteristics of design, but that is in no way scientific. It is just my opinion.
aiguy writes: You may not find this expression of love very convincing, but I'm not talking about subjective impressions here - I'm talking about science. Neither you nor anybody else has any scientific method to establish when something does or does not actually feel love, joy, or guilt. I agree. It is totally subjective which of course cuts both ways. What is objective is that today a computer can exhibit programmed intelligence but it cannot exhibit human emotion. My subjective notion is that they never will, which is again just my opinion.
aiguy writes: So, your complaint that computers don't currently seem to exhibit certain human emotions misses the mark. Computers require intelligence to be designed into them. Frankly I don't see any scientific connection between the fact that computers have a degree of programmed intelligence and ID. I went back to your original post and I'm adding the following edit.
aiguy writes: If computers are not truly intelligent because they are the product of another intelligent agent's design, then human beings - also the product of intelligent design according to ID - must not be truly intelligent either. The computers that we design exhibit a lower functioning intelligence than we possess. They might have greater memory and solve problems more quickly, but they still require some human to initiate the process, and as I said, they don't have subjective intelligence. Any proponent of theism would have to accept that a designer's intelligence would exceed ours in ways that we can't conceive. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
TD writes: While I agree that the human consciousness is made of more than just the intelligence, I don't agree that we can impose love, joy, guilt, etc., as the criteria for (what I am assuming you are talking) sentience. I would agree. I think our intelligence and the ability to use it subjectively gives us sentience. I tend to think that it's our emotions that give us our humanity.
TD writes: Perhaps it would be better if we wait to make contact with another sentient race before we can start coming up with the criteria? It might be a very long wait. I hope we don't sit on our hands in the mean time. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
One of our problems is that we have different ideas of what constitutes ID. I fully realize that there are those who try and support the claim that it is scientific. IMHO it isn't. (Maybe some day though I doubt it.) I am however convinced that we are intelligently designed but not for scientific reasons. I come to it through subjective reasoning.
aiguy writes: I understand that was your point. I made three arguments against that point, which I will summarize again:1) Emotion (spontaneous or otherwise) has not been established (by ID theory or any other theory) as a necessary component of intelligence. 2) No ID theorist has even attempted to attribute emotion to the Intelligent Designer, yet ID theory holds that the intelligence of the Designer is still scientifically warranted. 3) There is no scientific basis for assessing whether or not a computer, or the cause of life, has emotions or not. 1)I would agree that it isn't. However, a computer comes to its answers through its designed intelligence in such a way that it always comes up with the same answer. Humans, using subjective reasoning can easily come up with different answers on different days. So, though I would agree that emotion is not a necessary component of intelligence, I do believe that the intelligence designed into a computer is a different form of intelligence than what is designed into us. 2)ID is strictly Theism except that some are trying to make it scientific theism. ID only tells us that there is a creator but it doesn't tell us anything about that creator. Once again it isn't scientific but if a designer or designers exist then due to the nature of the creation we have to assume their intelligence. Once again nothing there is scientific. 3) I agree that there is no scientific basis for assuming that a creator possesses emotion, but I can't see why you would say that we can't tell whether computers have emotion or not.
aiguy writes: You have not addressed my reductio argument: If the fact that engineers design computers means that computers are not really intelligent, then by the same reasoning, the fact that the Intelligent Design designed humans beings means that humans are not intelligent either. That is absurd, so something must be wrong with your assumption of design, or your reasoning about computer intelligence. How do you resolve this dilemma? How would you define intelligence? I agree that computers have a type of intelligence, but as I pointed out, it is not the same type of intelligence as humans. On the assumption that there is a designer we are probably fairly safe in saying that the intelligence of the designer is not the same as the intelligence that we possess.
aiguy writes: In that case, we are in agreement. I'm new here, so let me lay my cards on the table: I happen to think there is probably something fundamental missing from our understanding of how life came to be, but I think "Intelligent Design Theory" is a vacuous semantic sleight-of-hand, utterly lacking in scientific merit. I like the phrase "intelligent design" as a synonym for theism but I see it as philosophical, not than scientific. Having said that, I do find that by studying scientific phenomena, and using non-scientific or subjective reasoning, the more obvious it becomes to me that we are designed. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
TD writes: I wasn't talking only about extraterrestrial intelligence. The prospect of a new race of artificial intelligent beings isn't that far off... perhaps a few decades? I doubt that we will develop AI that will love or have sense of humour. (I may be wrong) I would agree though that we would likely be astounded at what we would see if we could look even 50 years ahead. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi aiguy
First off, let me compliment you on such a quality reply in such a short span of time. I envy your intelligence whatever it means.
aiguy writes: No, you're mistaken about this. There are two ways computers might come up with different answers to the same question. First, computer systems (like people) are affected by their experiences and can learn. So the state of the computer the first time you ask the question may be different from the next time you ask, and you might get a different answer. The second way is that AI programs sometimes incorporate randomness. Simple little hacks like the "chatbots" on the net use random input to mix up the responses a bit, but sophisticated AI programs use it to explore different avenues for solving problems when the program is stumped. I'm obviously out of my depth in my technical knowledge of computers, but it still seems to me that even though a computer can be designed with built in randomness, it won't come to a different conclusion to something just because it's having a bad day and has gotten grumpy. I'd like to point out again however that computers, whether they incorporate AI or not, still have to be designed. By logical extension that suggests that as we have intelligence we must be designed.
aiguy writes: This is always the problem in AI. I made your computer tell you it loves you a few posts back, but you didn't really think your computer loved you. Why not? What precisely would actually convince you that a computer could love - or have any other emotion? What scientific test would you suggest? To be convinced I suppose that I'd have to see the computer sacrifice itself for my benefit without being pre-programmed to do so. I don't believe that it can be done scientifically.
aiguy writes: I don't know what you mean by "intelligence". I don't know what either of us mean by intelligence. I'd have to say it's subjective. You had interesting examples but I see all of them as just being one possible aspect of intelligence.
aiguy writes: All fine with me, but I'd encourage you to think about just how different this intelligence of the Designer might be. Think about how much science has learned about the connection between brains/bodies and our emotions for example. Do we have good reason, in light of cognitive science, to believe that something without a brain, without an enteric neural plexus, without an endocrine system, etc would have anything like the same sort of emotions that we have, given He presumably lacks these essential components? I have no problem with this at all. Would an intelligent computer be able to conceive of intelligence that didn't include a processor, or a hard drive? Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
