Why doesn't AI Falsify ID?

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. Why is the exclusion of computers "impossible?" Indeed. 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. 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

quote:

---

Actually, they don't. It would have to be cognizant of itself and others in relation to itself.

---

There is no reference needed, nor do proponents of ID get to monopolize on what constitutes intelligence. Perhaps we, the participants on this thread, should come to some agreement on what intelligence encapsulates. I offer that an intelligence is:

• self-aware
• capable of promoting its will
• capable of emotive responses
• is able to perform menial to difficult functions
• is capable of learning beyond its original capacity.

Of course not. If anyone could do that all controversy would end.

quote:

---

Computers in no way indicate intelligence.

---

To reiterate, we'd have to come to some sort of consensus on what intelligence actually is. We can go from there. I think I have offered a classical approach as to what intelligence means. Let me know if you have any objections or if you would like to extend that list to possible variables that I have not yet considered. In a sense. I believe, based on the limited knowledge that I've been bestowed, that the Designer allows for a capacity to learn beyond its original means and to inculcate new ideas and emotions. Philosophically, I say that there is definitely a limit. As to the exact line of demarcation, I am incapable of knowing. What things do they do beyond what they were programmed to do? How far are you going to extend that they can? Are we talking like Sci-Fi, Terminator II, Matrix beliefs where computers will one day out compete us?I don't see why you are trying to use AI in order to refute ID, when your only source of contention was obviously designed. Its not as if computers have evolved. They required designers to make them come to fruition. Everything else is thus far sophistry. I'm still waiting for the punchline. I'm unclear on what it is you are trying to assert. I'm saying that humans are intelligent, but only as much as the Designer wishes. I'm saying that computers mete out mindless functions. It seems that you equate intelligence with, say, the ability to calculate. I think you would agree that a computers calculations are stored in an internal bank. It isn't actually solving anything. It isn't really thinking. It isn't capable of enacting a will or emotion. Think of it this way. When you play against a computer game, it appears that the game is devising a strategy, when in reality, all its doing is calculating your move with a countermove. The developers made it that way to give the appearance that you are playing an intelligent being. But you're obviously not.Its the same with Deep Blue which is inarguably an impressive machine, but it is not capable of thinking. If you disagree, explain why that is. I think in all fairness that you should. If you are a proponent of Artificial Intelligence, its critical for you to define what intelligence is in order for us to understand what you are talking about. Intelligence can't be used to explain anything? It explains the difference between intent and capriciousness. In one word, Teleology. How can you honestly asset that they haven't made propositions as to what intelligence is? You can say that you disagree with the premise, but I don't think you can say that nothing has been proposed. We make up definitions all the time AIguy. Its called, "language." Every one of those words were assigned meaning. You can't remain ambiguous like this indefinitely and expect for anyone to extrapolate some profound meaning. Maybe that's your problem. Maybe you see everything in a stale, mechanistic manner when you might find more benefit by looking beyond it. I'm not advocating that you jettison science and take up some wholly metaphysical stance on everything. What I am saying is that because you can't quantify will and emotion, doesn't mean they don't exist, or if they do, somehow they are inconsequential. You haven't supported that it does not. Let me ask you something. Do we not categorize creatures, as far as it relates to intelligence, by their cognitive abilities? What is the similarity between them all? Answering honestly will invariably lead you to answer your own question. You, perhaps, confuse knowledge with wisdom. And you keep asking everyone else to answer what intelligence means. You obviously have some incredulity that intelligence incorporates will and emotion, or vice versa, but refuse to answer it yourself. That may be a safe haven for you, but its a slippery slope argument. What does interaction have to do with anything if will and emotion are meaningless terms? You can't have one without the other and still possess anything meaningful.

---

"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

I started to respond to this post yesterday and was nearly finished. I got up to use the restroom and came back to a blank page. Apparently my daughter hit the back button. Yeah, that's frustrating.
Hopefully I can get through the whole post this time. Fair enough. I was unclear if your thread was meant to speak more about AI or more about ID. If there isn't a classical approach, then how is it that we humans generally agree on the same descriptions concerning intelligence? After more careful thought, I agree and retract my previous assertion about self-awareness because it does not necessarily mean intelligence. For instance, an infant may not be aware of the self, yet clearly they are capable of using cognitive reasoning-- something I would say is a clear marker for intelligence. Just because science cannot, as of yet, understand what the will is does not negate the existence or that it is somehow inconsequential to intelligence. Would you agree that only intelligent beings are capable of asserting their will? I only ask because it seems that computers perform the tasks assigned to them and only those tasks. They don't exhibit any kind of freewill, whereas, natural beings enact their will at their discretion. I suppose one could make the argument that they too could only be performing the functions assigned to them. For face value I could agree with that. But even if this is so, then natural beings are still far more complex than even supercomputers. But even more than that, it says that those creatures were indeed designed with specifications. But this is the very thing that presents a problem for the secularist argument. For a secularist, biology is the only acceptable answer to the question, which invariably means that it is the only thing that offer any answers. An evolutionist will note that a sense of morality or the arts must have derived through natural means. If emotion is separate from intellect, then what inexplicable reason made it so? Where does emotion come from, and is it truly exclusive from intelligence? Learning is inconsequential to intelligence? Surely this is incorrect. The greater the intelligence of a creature, the greater the capacity for learning becomes. Why would no correlation exist? If this is truly the case, I would certainly lend more credence to the supposition, however, I would need to see some specifics before I impute any value to it. Tell me more about this in more detail if you don't mind. "Common sense" seems to be a more ambiguous term than intelligence does. What constitutes common sense and how or why are modern supercomputers incapable of understanding it? I would say that common sense is least form of intelligence. Case in point, its common to all or most, whereas, great mathematicians or great musical composers are a diamond in the rough-- meaning, they are more highly intelligent than the average person. That lends more acceptance to the fact that the computer is designed, not that it learns as it goes along. Isn't that the way it is with everything? That's the law of non-contradiction which applies to virtually every facet of life. Either God exists or He doesn't. Either you are in Africa or South America. Either the answer to the formula is 5 or it isn't. ID may be a big waste of time just as anything else. But there is only one way to find out. Phrenology had to be tried to see if it indeed offered anything to science. Under scrutiny it didn't pan out, but only after some considerable testing. That's silly. The "how" and "why" answer questions. If X is a Tsunami, are you saying that how X became a Tsunami is unimportant? Understanding how and why are obviously important. Indeed, that's what the entire premise of science is based on. The theory of evolution, from start to finish, is based on the how and why, otherwise the theory wouldn't exist. Sure, you could make that argument. There could be a Designer for a Designer who designed the Designer's Designer. It could trek on for all eternity for all we know, but it doesn't speak anything to us. Sure, of course you can determine if something is intelligent without knowing the designer. Indeed, if I found a car in the middle of the ocean, I wouldn't need to know who the manufacturer is in order to deduce that it was intelligently designed. How can you establish if computers are bona-fide intelligent agents when you don't even have a working definition for what intelligence is? Irrelevant? Then let no company display their company logo if it is unimportant and remove your name from the peer reviewed dissertations. I've never made any such allusions. The fact that it was designed doesn't exclude it from intelligence. I'm simply questioning whether or not computers can be deemed as intelligent at all. What? But you created it! Chance? Deterministic law? You made it the way it is. Chance plays no part in it. The computer didn't create itself, nor does it plot out its own destiny. It was assigned to them by the programmer. If you didn't come along, it wouldn't be here right now. What "necessity" faces computers? What will happen to the computer if no one updates the information and never changes the design? What consequence exists for the computer itself? If no consequence exists, then there is no necessity for it either. The only one facing necessity is the programmer who has to keep up with technology, otherwise his model will become obsolete and its marketability will fade. The computer faces no such necessity which makes the biological analogy useless. If someone has only half of the components for a computer, the entire computer will lose all functionality because all the components must exist simultaneously and in operable form, otherwise the entire mechanism fails. Necessity and chance literally play no part in it. That's just a hopeful monster. That's part of the problem. You are being vague in one instance and then expect us to use common sense in another. You've yet to pin down what intelligence even constitutes, yet at the same time, want us to believe that computers are intelligent. That makes no sense. Then you can't scientifically explain that Artificial Intelligence is intelligent if the word "intelligence" is an ambiguous term. That's putting the cart before the horse. The logic doesn't follow. Its naivete to assume that computers have a CPU where it makes those calculations? Is a calculator intelligent? Right, "given" is the operative word. Chance plays no part in it. That is a clever quip. I like it a lot, however, this proverb ultimately fails when juxtaposed with a little reason. If we were to assign specific qualitative properties to what "flying" actually is, then we could know what it means to fly. If flapping wings was apart of the criteria for true flying, then airplanes never once flew and still don't fly. However, if the criteria for flying is anything that can battle gravity for periods of time, then the airplane certainly does fly. Therefore, the definition of flying becomes just as important than the action. For you, "thinking" is about as cryptic as it could get. And because of your refusal to define intelligence and thinking, you're leaving it open to anything being considered capable of "thinking." Without a criterion, its as ambiguous as saying that rocks think. Now you are flatly contradicting yourself. How can the definition be clear when you and I disagree on what intelligence is? How can we simply leave it to such relativity if you want your statement to have any meaning? If there is no scientific way to detect capriciousness, then there is no way to detect intelligence. If that's the case, then you can never make pronouncements on what is arbitrary and what is purposeful, either in nature or with software. You would render your own argument null and void. I object to Weiner's definition, though some definition is better than none. His definition is too broad. Duly noted, good sir. I'd be very interested in hearing more about this. I don't know if that would take us off-topic, but if it did, we could always open a new thread. I'm sure it would generate a lot of attention because it sounds unique to the forum. That's fine. I agree that if we leave it open to ambiguity, ambiguity so we shall receive. I'm objecting that in one instance you tell us to use common sense to see things that are obviously intelligent, but in the next, you remain vague on what intelligence actually is. Until a clear definition is given, I dare say that we're going to go around in circles until one or both of us loses interest. This is the most candid you have been, IMO. But science can and would give some kind of operational definition. The one thing you said that really caught my eye and that I believe will solidify your argument is whether or not the computer can learn and enact a will not programmed by the designer. That, to me, would be a clear case of legitimate cognizance.Looks like I made it all the way through without catastrophe.
I think my orignal was better though.

---

"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

You're probably right that we'd receive different answers, but at the same time, if we were given examples, I think we'd all generally agree. Meaning, suppose we saw the scores of a person after they've taken an IQ test. Because we know that the test was difficult coupled with the yielding of a high score, most people would generally come to the conclusion that he/she is highly intelligent.But understand what you are really getting at. You are essentially saying that we can't really quantify intelligence and define it in a meaningful way kind of like we couldn't describe love scientifically in a meaningful way. I think introducing this as a variable just adds a superfluous element because in either case, free will can be granted in some manner. I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please expound? Such as what? Is this all computers or supercomputers? I'm saying that perhaps it is possible that AI will be feasible in the future. I'm simply questioning its possibility now. As to why I used living beings as an example is because that's the only genuine measure of intelligence that we have to compare computers to. How can something synthetic go through any kind of natural process? Also, in order for necessity to exist, there first has to be potential consequences. What consequence exists for computers if they didn't evolve? I do believe that based on any number of things. Most notably is that its counter intuitive to suppose that anything can come into existence without causation. However, that's just my opinion on the theory. Its one of those paradoxes that neither stands strong or falls flat on its face. There will likely be a perpetual stalemate on the subject. Poor choice of words on my part. What I mean to say is, for strict naturalists, nature is the only place they can glean answers from. I don't think anything other humans possess human-like emotions. What I am saying is, the more intelligent an animal is, the greater capacity they have for emotion. Intellect is very far reaching. I doubt that it only incorporates book smarts or an ability to engineer. Case in point: Would most people be likely to esteem Beethoven as intelligent? They probably would, but why? Then we're left with only mechanical function to equate with intelligence, which makes calculators intelligent. This machine learning and self-programming, what does it entail? And what kind of software is needed for a computer to think for itself and not just choose the command it was given? Your link didn't direct me to anything specific. But as for computers and common sense, isn't the mere fact that they can only perform the functions assigned to them prove that they aren't actually intelligent? If you developed a thesis on it, yes, of course. But you obviously use jocularity to make up a word that has no definition. It would be extremely unfair to characterize ID with that of gunderplitzen. If ID had no backbone, we wouldn't see many people in abject terror of it. Afterall, people don't fear straw men. Then you essentially emasculate science. Everybody already knew that what goes up must come down. Explaining why is the answer that science has given. Everybody knew about heredity long before it was studied in detail. Explaining how it worked is the answer science gave. Likewise, we know that Tsunami's existed long before we understood why and how they form. Answering the how's and why's is what science is all about. The answer of why it is the way it is often the only important question in science. How it became intelligent is the only way to answer any questions. Again, science would die without those burning questions. Understanding the intelligence of the programmer is going to give you a greater understanding of the intelligence capacity of the computer program itself. One could apply that rationale to the Designer(s) of the universe/multiverse. Of course, answering that is exceedingly difficult-- granted. ID is an inference just like anything else. Looking at chance alone doesn't explain anything. Anything could hypothetically happen by chance. However, when you add patterns with chance, it becomes nearly impossible for lightening to strike twice, thrice, and so on and so forth through unguided principles. So many ideal situations make life possible that are specifically contingent upon the success of another system. I agree with that, but if we were to stop there you might as well kiss science goodbye. Nobody cares that something exists. That's the evident part. They want to know why, how, where, when, etc. Who says that it has to be meaningless, is my question? Is language meaningless? A game on my computer can have rules. Say the computer based on my movements deduces that I fall off of a cyber cliff if I stray to far from the edge. The programmers designed it the away though, not the computer. Based on the previous input supplied by doctors and programmers. Based on the parameters supplied by the programmers. Based on the designers specifications. Pong could beat the pants off of a player. Is an Atari intelligent?Could a computer be intelligent without any input or influence of an outside source? It would seem to appear to be the case because have a chicken and an egg problem without it. Necessity indicates intent. If you speak of nature in terms of itself gaining insight on self-preservation, then you are ultimately speaking about nature as if it is sentient. I don't understand this? The flux of electricity is completely intentional. Maybe I'm not understanding you though. Can you explain further to me? Isn't intelligence the explanation for why your computer is intelligent? Its so obvious that I can't see why you would use a biological analogy to support it. Its not that if a person did it, but that a person did do it. That's the whole point. That would render his quip void. He is appealing to some sort of absolute standard in order to supply any discernable meaning the quip in the first place. In the same way people can have a theory on chance as the explanation. Really what this is, is the typical mischaracterization of what ID is. For some bizarre reason, opponents of the theory think that if a Designer is invoked that somehow science will cease. What an absurd notion. Does it cease if we think that random chance is the answer? Obviously not. ID is nothing more than an inference that uses observation to corroborate the claim. I mean, really, what threat exists from it?

quote:

---

If there is no scientific way to detect capriciousness, then there is no way to detect intelligence.

---

You missed the rest of the post. If that truly is the case, then you would be incapable of discerning chance from design. That means you couldn't argue that design in nature is an absurd concept, because you would inevitably have to say that chance within nature is just as absurd. No argument there. That's like supplying the answer to this question:
Why are there complex organisms in existence. Answer 1. Goddidit! Answer 2. Evolution! Neither explain squat without describing the how's and why of it. An answer of such brevity is inept to answer anything. Yeah, I know what you mean. EvC takes a lot of time out of the day. As for the other proposed topic, I would love to read it when it is done.Its a pleasure having you here. I hope you find it intellectually stimulating and spiritually fulfilling here at EvC.

---

"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