|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why doesn't AI Falsify ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
The most charming definition of intelligence i have ever heard is:
"'Intelligence' is what you do next when you don't know what to do next." Using this definition, for a computer to show intelligence, it would have to confront a problem not covered by its programming and reprogram itself (re-invent its program) to solve that problem. Don't know if a computer able to do that has ever been built or even conceived. I think it would have to somehow include a random process generator, but that's just a guess. Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nerd Inactive Member |
Hi aiguy,
aiguy writes: ... all of (Bill Dembski's) arguments are intended to demonstrate that intelligent behavior can not arise from material mechanism. But computers are in fact devices that operate according to material mechanism - deterministic physical law, optionally combined with random input. So, if you think that computers are intelligent, then you believe intelligent behavior can arise from purely material means. If the chance and necessity operating inside a computer can generate complex designs, then why couldn't the chance and necessity of evolutionary mechanisms do the same thing? This concept that ID theorists believe intelligent behavior cannot arise from a material mechanism is new to me. I can see that perhaps Dembski believes this (although, I have to say it didn't just jump out of the text for me when I skimmed through the web page), but this certainly is not some tenet that all ID theorists hold to. Much of what Dembski is writing about centers on the philosophical topic of whether or not we have a soul that is distinct from the body, which I see as irrelevant to the fundamental question of intelligent design. I think it is incorrect to assert that if computers are intelligent, then that intelligent behavior "arises" from purely material means. Computers operate under the physical laws of the universe, just like everything else does, but that does not mean that those physical laws are the source of the computer's intelligence. Computers and their accompanying software do not spontaneously appear as an inevitable result of the laws of nature... people put large amounts of mental effort (i.e., intelligence) into designing and building those computer systems and software. When the computer product is finished, it functions (hopefully) exactly as the designer intended it to, and any intelligence that the computer then exhibits would not have been possible without that designer. AI programmers sometimes employ pseudo-random methods for addressing indeterminancy in search algorithms (for example), or for a variety of other reasons -- however, this randomness is completely useless unless it is used according to the parameters of the original design spec. To sum up, I'm just trying to point out that you can't simply disprove the possibility of intelligent design by demonstrating that intelligent designers (programmers) create material mechanisms (computers & software) that exhibit intelligent behaviors (e.g., bullet-dodging monsters or glorified thermostats).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aiguy Inactive Member |
Hi GDR,
GDR writes: Thank you, but it's just that I've been at for a long time. I've been doing commercial AI research since 1981, and I've been reading philosophy of mind since before then (gee I'm old).
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. GDR writes: Funny, but I almost mentioned the third way AI systems might give a different answer to the same question: If there is a bug in the program, or a hardware problem. That might equate to a computer's bad day...
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. GDR writes: The same argument could also be used to conclude that humans are manufactured on an assembly line out of silicon chips, so I don't think this sort of analogy does much for you. 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. Again, this all comes down to what you mean by "designed". If you mean a human-like intelligence thought about building humans, wanted to do it, consciously made plans to do it, pictured humans in His mind's eye, and so on... no, I don't think there is any reason at all to believe that. Intelligent behavior can emerge from pure chance and necessity. Genetic algorithms have been popular in AI for the last ten or fifteen years, and many cognitive scientists have been suggesting that random variation/selection mechanisms might underlie our own cognitive processes.
GDR writes: Of course a computer (a robot, really) could be made to sacrifice itself, without being explicitly pre-programmed to do so. AI systems can be given some general rules and knowledge, and enabled to learn on their own, and then they decide on their own what to do.
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: Good point. 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? Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aiguy Inactive Member |
Hi Answers,
Genitals writes: Sure, computer systems confront problems not covered by their programming all the time. Think about the diagnostics programs that run on deep space probes. Nobody can anticipate everything that can go wrong with such complicated machines and extreme environments, so those programs are given a deep understanding of how everything works and general reasoning mechanisms to try and figure out what's wrong when something stops working. Random input is not required. The most charming definition of intelligence i have ever heard is: "'Intelligence' is what you do next when you don't know what to do next." Using this definition, for a computer to show intelligence, it would have to confront a problem not covered by its programming and reprogram itself (re-invent its program) to solve that problem. Don't know if a computer able to do that has ever been built or even conceived. I think it would have to somehow include a random process generator, but that's just a guess. I know it's difficult for people to see how deterministic computers could do anything they are not programmed to do, but they do. I can't possibly predict what my programs will do - I'm constantly surprised (and usually disappointed) by how my programs react in novel situations. Remember, in a sense, we humans are "programmed" too - we are born with some built-in mental abilities and basic knowledge, and then we are programmed by parents and teachers, and we learn by experience. Just like computers. Don't get me wrong - the very smartest computer systems are still complete idiots in many ways, and there is of course nothing that even begins to approach the science-fiction AI we see in movies and TV. But the basic elements of reasoning, learning, and flexible responses to novel environments are all there. Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aiguy Inactive Member |
Hi Nerd,
Nerd writes: The point is absolutely central to all of Dembski's arguments, and he states it all the time. The entire paper of his that I cited above aims to discredit the idea that intelligent behavior can arise from material cause. His "explanatory filter" explicitly distinguishes "intelligent causation" from physical causation and chance. He argues for an "expanded ontology", which is another name for metaphysical dualism, because he believes mental causation is ontologically distinct from physical causality.
This concept that ID theorists believe intelligent behavior cannot arise from a material mechanism is new to me. I can see that perhaps Dembski believes this (although, I have to say it didn't just jump out of the text for me when I skimmed through the web page), but this certainly is not some tenet that all ID theorists hold to. Nerd writes: What would you say the source of the intelligence is? The programmer? And what is the source of the programmer's intelligence? (And, again, Dembski disagrees with you, since he denies that everything in the universe operates under physical laws).
I think it is incorrect to assert that if computers are intelligent, then that intelligent behavior "arises" from purely material means. Computers operate under the physical laws of the universe, just like everything else does, but that does not mean that those physical laws are the source of the computer's intelligence. Nerd writes: If you believe that humans are natural, and that we operate under the laws of nature, then why do you think computers do not appear as the result of the laws of nature?
Computers and their accompanying software do not spontaneously appear as an inevitable result of the laws of nature... Nerd writes: Again: If you believe that you too have been designed, do you then believe that you function exactly as your Designer intended you to, and any intelligence that you exhibit is not possible without Him? Are you simply executing the program that the Designer loaded you with?
people put large amounts of mental effort (i.e., intelligence) into designing and building those computer systems and software. When the computer product is finished, it functions (hopefully) exactly as the designer intended it to, and any intelligence that the computer then exhibits would not have been possible without that designer. Nerd writes: Well, no. Genetic algorithms, for example, use random input, but there is no "design spec" for what they come up with. Nobody can predict what GAs will do, we just have to run them and find out.
AI programmers sometimes employ pseudo-random methods for addressing indeterminancy in search algorithms (for example), or for a variety of other reasons -- however, this randomness is completely useless unless it is used according to the parameters of the original design spec. Nerd writes: I don't think I've disproved the possibility of intelligent design. I think I've shown that ID's arguments against chance and necessity coming up with complex designs fail, and so we cannot possibly "detect intelligence" that could not be due to purely natural non-mental processes. To sum up, I'm just trying to point out that you can't simply disprove the possibility of intelligent design by demonstrating that intelligent designers (programmers) create material mechanisms (computers & software) that exhibit intelligent behaviors (e.g., bullet-dodging monsters or glorified thermostats). Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The issue is this: It's clear that appropriately constructed computer systems can exhibit behaviors that qualify as "intelligent" Actually, they don't. It would have to be cognizant of itself and others in relation to itself. Computers in no way indicate intelligence. Computers are only as "intelligent" as its designers design them to be. And even this fails because they are only capable of performing the functions assigned to them.
I've generally heard two responses to this. The first is that computers don't actually exhibit intelligent behavior at all. I won't reply to this argument in anticipation here, except to say that finding a criterion for detecting intelligent agents that serves the needs of ID theory while excluding computers seems to be quite impossible. Why is the exclusion of computers "impossible?"
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. Indeed.
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. That's right, which is what theologians have been saying all along-- that it isn't about anything that we can do, but rather what has being done through us by the Designer/Creator/God or any derivative that fancies you. If you keep reducing life's components, eventually you are going to come to the paradox-- which is that nothing creates life or something creates life.
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. It would be a mistake to conclude that a calculator or an abacus is more mathematically inclined than human because it can calculate much faster than we can, when it was humans that created the calculator. By what definition of intelligence are you operating under? Perhaps we should come to a general consensus first and clear guidelines on what intelligence constitutes. Intelligent beings are capable of will, emotion, or a learning capacity. In theory, computers could be designed to exhibit this. And indeed, this thought has stirred in the hearts of many AI proponents. And one could make the argument that we are only in the beginning stages of artificial intelligent design. But by what mechanism could a non-living entity understand emotion when we don't really understand our own emotions? If you programmed a computer to mimic phrases that sound like adulation and adoration, could at some point the computer begin to "feel" these emotions? Can it feel empathy or sympathy? Even if it is in theory, how would this begin to happen? "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
aiguy writes:
I don't think this is a fair assessment of ID, even if I don't agree with it. Take the following, for example. Q: What explains the specified complexity of biological systems?A: Intelligence. Q: What is intelligence?A: The ability to create specified complexity. Q: Which species survives?A: The fittest. Q: Which is the fittest species?A: The species that survives. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nerd Inactive Member |
Hi aiguy,
let's just forget about Dembski for a while...
aiguy writes: And what is the source of the programmer's intelligence? We were talking about how the existence of artificial intelligence might have some bearing on the intelligent design argument. We are not talking about the source of human intelligence... a completely separate topic. Do you believe we (humans) are intelligent? If so, then there's no need to consider the source of human intelligence, we'll just take it for granted.
aiguy writes: If you believe that humans are natural, and that we operate under the laws of nature, then why do you think computers do not appear as the result of the laws of nature? Again, it appears you're asking about the origin of humans, which is not relevant here... we'll just take it for granted that we exist, however we got here. As for why I think computers don't result from the laws of nature, please show me where we observe this happening today (not where you think it may have happened thousands or millions of years ago). Let's just assume that we know that humans exist, they are intelligent, and that they are capable of designing (somewhat less) intelligent machines. Now let's address the question of whether "chance and necessity" can come up with complex designs all on their own, as you appear to postulate. Where do we observe "chance and necessity" coming up with complex designs? I don't know of any place this occurs in nature. So how about within our contrived AI? Genetic algorithms give us some nifty AI solutions. Does this show that "chance and necessity" is coming up with complex designs? Firstly, I don't know of anybody that has left the role of "design" to AI, except in the domain of the arts, where the randomness can be appealing to some people. Of course AI can be a useful design tool, but is there really a system where somebody can push a button and out pops a unique, never-before-thought-of-yet-totally-useful design? Secondly, genetic algorithms in computer software are not devoid of a design spec, as you stated. The genetic algorithms rely on some method of determining whether a particular result is "good" or "bad" in each iteration. This selection criteria has to be defined ahead of time. And of course the genetic algorithm itself has to be designed... you don't get it for free when you buy a PC. Genetic algorithms are an invention (intelligence again) based on the evolution that we observe in nature. That a process occurs in nature does not automatically mean that it was not designed -- that is the whole question we are trying to answer. Were the genetic processes (that we observe in nature) designed by somebody? Since this is the question we're trying to answer, logic does not allow us to fall back on the idea that any material thing or process is by definition not designed.
aiguy writes: I think I've shown that ID's arguments against chance and necessity coming up with complex designs fail You have not shown this at all. We simply don't have any evidence of "chance and necessity" being the sole catalysts in producing designs. In the case of nature, we just don't know either way. In the case of AI, we absolutely know that "chance and necessity" do not by themselves produce designs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aiguy Inactive Member |
Hi nemesis,
aiguy writes: The issue is this: It's clear that appropriately constructed computer systems can exhibit behaviors that qualify as "intelligent" nemesis writes:
This, then, would be your own particular definition for "intelligence". I haven't seen anything in ID literature that lists this quality as a required component for something that is "intelligent". Can you provide a reference? Actually, they don't. It would have to be cognizant of itself and others in relation to itself. Also, can you say how we can scientifically ascertain that the Intelligent Designer is cognizant of itself and others?
nemesis writes:
This is an assertion, rather than an argument.
Computers in no way indicate intelligence. nemesis writes:
I've addressed both of these points. Your first argument fails because of the reductio argument introduced in the OP (would you say you are only as intelligent as your Designer designed you to be?). Your second argument fails because it is not true - computers do things that nobody "assigns" to them, just as people do things that they've never been "assigned" to do.
Computers are only as "intelligent" as its designers design them to be. And even this fails because they are only capable of performing the functions assigned to them. nemesis writes:
If you think you have a testable criterion for intelligence that includes people and the Designer of ID theory, but excludes computers, then tell us what it is.
Why is the exclusion of computers "impossible?" nemesis writes:
So you are saying that neither computers nor human beings are intelligent?
That's right, which is what theologians have been saying all along-- that it isn't about anything that we can do, but rather what has being done through us by the Designer/Creator/God or any derivative that fancies you. If you keep reducing life's components, eventually you are going to come to the paradox-- which is that nothing creates life or something creates life. nemesis writes:
I am offering no particular definition for "intelligence" at all. I believe the word is scientifically useless, in that while it can be used to loosely describe some sorts of behavior, it cannot be used to explain anything. I object to ID because it claims to be an explanatory theory that offers "intelligence" as its sole explanatory concept, but then fails to provide a standard technical definition for that term.
It would be a mistake to conclude that a calculator or an abacus is more mathematically inclined than human because it can calculate much faster than we can, when it was humans that created the calculator. By what definition of intelligence are you operating under? nemesis writes:
I think it's a bit odd for us here on this forum to begin making up our own definition for this word, given there is supposed to be a scientific theory that explains biological complexity by invoking "intelligence". Perhaps we should come to a general consensus first and clear guidelines on what intelligence constitutes. Intelligent beings are capable of will, emotion, or a learning capacity. Aside from that, your attempt at a definition is not too good: First, there is no scientific test for "will" (but you may be interested to learn about scientific investigations into free will - read this: http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm). Second, you haven't supported your assertion that intelligence requires emotion. Third, why do you think learning is essential for intelligence. Do you believe that the Designer learns - or doesn't He perhaps know everything already? So, as your attempt at a definition illustrates, either the definition is untestable, or it does not manage to include the Designer and humans while excluding computers.
nemesis writes:
Most AI researchers (including me) believe that human-like cognition requires much more complex physical interactions with the world that has been attempted to date. In other words, we won't really build a realistic aritificial mind until we also build a more realistic artificial body. But by what mechanism could a non-living entity understand emotion when we don't really understand our own emotions? If you programmed a computer to mimic phrases that sound like adulation and adoration, could at some point the computer begin to "feel" these emotions? Can it feel empathy or sympathy? Even if it is in theory, how would this begin to happen? Edited by aiguy, : typo Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aiguy Inactive Member |
Hi TD,
TD writes:
This old trick simply conflates "survival" of an individual, or set of individuals, with "survival" of a set of heritable traits. Evolutionary theory doesn't explain why any particular individual or species continues to reproduce or not - it explains how traits become fixed in a population. So it is really: I don't think this is a fair assessment of ID, even if I don't agree with it. Take the following, for example. Q: Which species survives?A: The fittest. Q: Which is the fittest species?A: The species that survives. Q: How does complex form and function appear in organisms?A: Because random, heritable variation confers reproductive advantage to subsets of populations, and so these changes accumulate over generations. However, ID's attempt to explain biological complexity by "intelligence" (without actually describing what "intelligence" is or how it works) is in fact a vacuous tautology: Q: What explains the specified complexity of biological systems?A: Intelligence. Q: What is intelligence?A: The ability to create specified complexity. Edited by aiguy, : No reason given. Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aiguy Inactive Member |
Hi Nerd,
Nerd writes: Funny, but I get this a lot. Dembski is the most visible and prolific "theorist" of "Intelligent Design Theory", but I have yet to meet somebody on any forum who is willing to defend his views. If you agree that Dembski's position is untenable, we can drop it... but then, can you refer me to some articulation of ID Theory that you do believe?
let's just forget about Dembski for a while... Nerd writes:
You had said that a computer's intelligence does not arise from its mechanism, so I asked you what you thought it did arise from. Then I pointed out that if you suggest a computer's intelligence arose from the programmer's intelligence, you have simply offset the question, and needed to answer what you thought the programmer's intelligence arose from.
We were talking about how the existence of artificial intelligence might have some bearing on the intelligent design argument. We are not talking about the source of human intelligence... a completely separate topic. Nerd writes:
I believe there is no scientific fact of the matter whether we say X is "intelligent" or not. Saying something is "intelligent" is just a loose way of speaking, conveying a general sense that something can reason in some way or other. It's like calling something "athletic" - it isn't an explanation of anything, nor is it a testable scientific category of things in the world. It's just a label that we use in informal conversation.
Do you believe we (humans) are intelligent? If so, then there's no need to consider the source of human intelligence, we'll just take it for granted. Nerd writes:
You had said everything operates according to natural law, but then you said that computers did not appear as the result of natural law. So I questioned how that could be: Do you think that the actions of human beings (as when they create computers) somehow violates natural law? If not (and you had said not) then you must concede that whatever we do (including create computers) is "natural", and so computers do appear as the result of natural law.
Again, it appears you're asking about the origin of humans, which is not relevant here... Nerd writes:
Of course people create computers, but as I explained again above, I think we've agreed that people are part of nature.
we'll just take it for granted that we exist, however we got here. As for why I think computers don't result from the laws of nature, please show me where we observe this happening today (not where you think it may have happened thousands or millions of years ago). Nerd writes:
I'm fine with that.
Let's just assume that we know that humans exist, they are intelligent, and that they are capable of designing (somewhat less) intelligent machines. Nerd writes:
(I assume we're leaving Darwinian evolution out of the discussion, which is ok with me). I meant that chance and necessity operating inside a computer comes up with complex designs.
Now let's address the question of whether "chance and necessity" can come up with complex designs all on their own, as you appear to postulate. Where do we observe "chance and necessity" coming up with complex designs? I don't know of any place this occurs in nature. Nerd writes:
Yes (but not all AI design programs are GAs).
So how about within our contrived AI? Genetic algorithms give us some nifty AI solutions. Does this show that "chance and necessity" is coming up with complex designs? Nerd writes:
Sure. Here's just one example I'm familiar with: http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~knoren/GAs/B-159_paper.PDF
Firstly, I don't know of anybody that has left the role of "design" to AI, except in the domain of the arts, where the randomness can be appealing to some people. Of course AI can be a useful design tool, but is there really a system where somebody can push a button and out pops a unique, never-before-thought-of-yet-totally-useful design? Nerd writes:
A selection criteria is not the same as a design spec. If I tell you to design an op amp, and tell you what it must do, and you go off and actually figure out how the amplifier should work, lay out the circuit, and build it, then which of us has actually designed the amp?
Secondly, genetic algorithms in computer software are not devoid of a design spec, as you stated. The genetic algorithms rely on some method of determining whether a particular result is "good" or "bad" in each iteration. Nerd writes:
I am not saying that any material thing is by definition not designed. I am saying that purely material cause - chance and necessity - has been demonstrated to be capable of designing.
This selection criteria has to be defined ahead of time. And of course the genetic algorithm itself has to be designed... you don't get it for free when you buy a PC. Genetic algorithms are an invention (intelligence again) based on the evolution that we observe in nature. That a process occurs in nature does not automatically mean that it was not designed -- that is the whole question we are trying to answer. Were the genetic processes (that we observe in nature) designed by somebody? Since this is the question we're trying to answer, logic does not allow us to fall back on the idea that any material thing or process is by definition not designed. Nerd writes: Again, if "sole catalysts" is your criterion, then human beings can't be shown to produce designs either. If you agree that humans can design things (even though they themselves were designed, and programmed by their parents and teachers), then you should agree that computers can design things (even though they themselves were designed, and programmed by their programmers).
You have not shown this at all. We simply don't have any evidence of "chance and necessity" being the sole catalysts in producing designs. Nerd writes: My point is that since we know that chance and necessity can produce designs, we cannot assume that chance and necessity did not produce biological designs - even if we do not understand everything about the material processes involved. ID theorists (like Dembski and Meyers and Johnson and Berlinski...) all attempt to show that chance and necessity cannot produce novel designs for just this reason. In the case of nature, we just don't know either way. In the case of AI, we absolutely know that "chance and necessity" do not by themselves produce designs. Edited by aiguy, : typo Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nerd Inactive Member |
Hi aiguy,
aiguy writes:
Sorry, no. I have not researched ID theory. I suspect there is no such thing. Since you asked, I think the ID argument is simply to point out that science is not really science if you intentionally exclude possible answers. I think ID proponents are simply saying "leave the God option on the table". can you refer me to some articulation of ID Theory that you do believe? I was originally trying to point out a flaw in your reasoning, but it appears that we're not making progress in this debate for several reasons: 1. We don't necessarily agree on the definition of intelligence.1a. This is admittedly a difficult issue to resolve. Anybody can intuitively recognize whether one individual is more intelligent than another, but it's difficult to put a finger on why or how we come to these conclusions. Unfortunately, defining intelligence is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one. 2. We don't necessarily agree on whether intelligence even exists.2a. This of course depends on the definition of intelligence. I personally believe you and I are intelligent, in the general sense of the term. 3. We don't agree on what "design" is.3a. I believe that design is involved in every aspect of product creation, from general concept to specification, and even manufacture. No part of product creation of any kind occurs without human interaction at some level. 4. You believe to have shown that "chance and necessity can produce designs", and I think you have done no such thing.
Nerd writes:
is there really a system where somebody can push a button and out pops a unique, never-before-thought-of-yet-totally-useful design?aiguy writes: Sure. Here's just one example I'm familiar with: http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~knoren/GAs/B-159_paper.PDF This is a neat example, thanks for the reference. However, I still think it's absurd to suggest that the genetic algorithm is fully responsible for the resulting design. Can that same genetic algorithm design a wheelbarrow? Of course not. And why not? Because the genetic algorithm is working under very specific constraints set by the programmer.
aiguy writes:
Not sure how you come to this conclusion. It seems rather evident to me that humans (and knowledge passed on from other humans) are the driving force behind all of our inventions/designs. Again, if "sole catalysts" is your criterion, then human beings can't be shown to produce designs either. The real point I'm trying (perhaps hopelessly) to make is that every AI algorithm/function/entity/whatever known to man exists because man created it. It's almost self evident in the name "artificial intelligence". It's artificial because we humans created it. It has absolutely nothing to do with "chance and necessity", unless you also believe that intelligence is nothing more than chance and necessity -- and that is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aiguy Inactive Member |
Hi Nerd,
Nerd writes:
The only answers I think science must leave out are the ones that independent researchers can't reliably test. I won't defend evolution theory as a being testable (I think parts of it are and parts are not), but I'm pretty sure that "the God option" is not something we can ground in empirical observation.
Sorry, no. I have not researched ID theory. I suspect there is no such thing. Since you asked, I think the ID argument is simply to point out that science is not really science if you intentionally exclude possible answers. I think ID proponents are simply saying "leave the God option on the table". Nerd writes:
I agree that there is no scientific definition of intelligence - but I don't think it's a philosophical problem either. I don't think there is a real referrent for the word at all. There is no unary property that some things have and some things don't have called "intelligence". It is very much like "life" in that regard. The vitalists believed that "life" was a property that some things had and some things didn't, and spent a long time trying to figure out what it was. In the end, they gave up - because there wasn't any.
1. We don't necessarily agree on the definition of intelligence.1a. This is admittedly a difficult issue to resolve. Anybody can intuitively recognize whether one individual is more intelligent than another, but it's difficult to put a finger on why or how we come to these conclusions. Unfortunately, defining intelligence is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one. Nerd writes: Again, I would have to say there is simply no fact of the matter either way - it is a matter of definition and not discovery. Does "athleticism" exist? Sure, you can something athletic if you want, but we'll never really agree on whether Tiger Woods is an athlete, or if a cheetah is althletic, or an elephant. Both of these words are just informal descriptive terms that have no scientific utility. That is why it can't serve as an explantion for things. Observe: 2. We don't necessarily agree on whether intelligence even exists.2a. This of course depends on the definition of intelligence. I personally believe you and I are intelligent, in the general sense of the term. Q: Why does a cheetah run so fast? A: Because it is athletic.Q: How do you know it is athletic? A: Because that is what we tend to call things that run fast. In the same vacuous way: Q: Why do complex biological structures come to exist? A: Because of intelligence.Q: How do you know the cause is intelligent? A: Because that is what we tend to call things that make complicated structures. In contrast, real explanations add knowledge:Q: Why does the apple fall from the tree? A: Because of gravity. Q: How do you know the cause is gravity? A: Because gravity acts in a well-defined way on all objects with mass, and independent researchers can measure mass in multiple different ways... Nerd writes: I'm not sure if we agree on what "design" is or not. Can you provide an actual definition of the term that could be used in a scientific context?
3. We don't agree on what "design" is.3a. I believe that design is involved in every aspect of product creation, from general concept to specification, and even manufacture. No part of product creation of any kind occurs without human interaction at some level. Nerd writes: Hmm, I thought my case was pretty clear....
4. You believe to have shown that "chance and necessity can produce designs", and I think you have done no such thing. Nerd writes: Can the same human engineer who designs an electronic circuit also design a biochemical enzyme? I can do the former, but not the latter, and my biologist friends can do the latter, but not the former. I'd still say we can both design, though. If you took all of the various AI design programs and ran them on the same computer, you'd have a system that could design all sorts of things... just like a person. And of course AI is getting better all the time.
This is a neat example, thanks for the reference. However, I still think it's absurd to suggest that the genetic algorithm is fully responsible for the resulting design. Can that same genetic algorithm design a wheelbarrow? Of course not. And why not? Because the genetic algorithm is working under very specific constraints set by the programmer. Nerd writes: So what? You think because humans design computers, that means computers can't design things on their own? Do you think because an Intelligent Designer designed humans, then humans can't design things on their own?
Not sure how you come to this conclusion. It seems rather evident to me that humans (and knowledge passed on from other humans) are the driving force behind all of our inventions/designs. Nerd writes: AI is artificial, meaning human-made, yes.
The real point I'm trying (perhaps hopelessly) to make is that every AI algorithm/function/entity/whatever known to man exists because man created it. It's almost self evident in the name "artificial intelligence". It's artificial because we humans created it. Nerd writes: I disagree. Let's define "intelligence" as the ability to create irreducibly complex structures. We test humans - yup, they can design IC structures. Then we test computers - yup, they can too. Now, some people think that human minds do not operate according to chance and necessity, but everybody agrees that computers do. So we have just scientifically demonstrated that chance and necessity can indeed give rise to intelligent behavior, QED. It has absolutely nothing to do with "chance and necessity", unless you also believe that intelligence is nothing more than chance and necessity -- and that is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. And so, ID cannot claim that IC structures in biology are indications of anything but chance and necessity working in nature. Edited by aiguy, : No reason given. Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nerd Inactive Member |
Hi aiguy,
I'm getting tired of this thread, but one last comment.
aiguy writes: Now, some people think that human minds do not operate according to chance and necessity, but everybody agrees that computers do. Wrong. Not everybody agrees with this, I certainly don't. Computers operate under well known physical laws, and it has little to do with chance. Computers are designed to use specific physical laws & properties (e.g., electricity) in a very specific way -- nothing to do with chance or necessity. Most importantly, the fact that computers exist has not been shown to be a result of chance or necessity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024