Why doesn't AI Falsify ID?

Hi aiguy,That's a neat argument you've proposed. As stated, it certainly would prove the point you're trying to prove.However, you are making an assumption in your 3rd point that I don't agree with. Specifically, your argument is only valid as long as we take the position that computers cannot be intelligent because they are designed -- ID proponents do not necessarily believe this. Thus, neither of your conclusions 3a or 3b need follow.I don't see anything about the fact that computers are designed that means they can't be intelligent. We have certainly observed limited "intelligence" in designed computer systems of the forms you already mentioned earlier.Designed computer systems are by definition products of intelligent design. If we see that our designed systems are intelligent, then that's great! What's the problem? I don't see how the presence of (or lack of) intelligence in computers has any bearing on the ID argument except as evidence that intelligent behavior arises from intelligent design.

Hi aiguy, 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).

Hi aiguy,let's just forget about Dembski for a while... 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. 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. 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.

Hi aiguy, 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".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. 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. 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.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.

Hi aiguy,I'm getting tired of this thread, but one last comment. 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.

OK, can't help another comment: Of course, I agree. This does not mean, however, that AI results from chance and necessity alone. That is a huge leap which you have not shown any reason to make, and which I assert is completely false.It appears you are making a mistake that is quite easy to make. You assume that if a system has a random input, then any output from that system is a result of only "chance and necessity".Please consider this simple thought experiment that proves the above is a false assumption.Suppose you have a die (as in dice) which when rolled generates completely random numbers from 1 through 6. You have also created a "game" system that has as an input 6 buttons numbered 1 through 6, and a single output, a visual display. The system outputs a different pre-defined picture on the display for each button pressed. The way the game works is you roll the die, push the button corresponding to the number you rolled, and examine the resulting output.In the above system, the output cannot be predicted because you don't know which picture is going to come up next, depending on the die roll.Does this mean the output is only a result of chance and necessity? Of course not. The output is a result of chance and physics and design. The game system was designed. The pictures were pre-defined (drawn by some artist).This system could not exist apart from the design that went into it. To prove that it operates only on chance and necessity, you would also need to prove that the design process itself was only a result of chance & necessity, and that the artist produced the pictures only through chance & necessity.This same argument goes for any kind of function or algorithm -- just because they have a random input does not change the fact that the input is manipulated through a process that was designed. Thus, the output does not exist apart from that design process.As an aside: Truth does not care about the personal beliefs of the scientist or philosophist attempting to determine that truth. No single origins theory of any kind has a monopoly on science -- they all leave as many questions unanswered as they answer. Science is a process, not a theory.