|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
In my opinion, evolution is an intelligent designer.
There is some disagreement with the meaning of "intelligent", and often people associate intelligence with the use of logic. In my opinion, we should be associating intelligence with pragmatic judgement. Evolution is a system based on pragmatic judgement. It uses trial and error (random mutation) to generate variants of successful organisms. And then it evaluates the results of that trial and error on their success, using natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But there's nothing judging, thus there's no judgment.
Well, fair enough. We are looking at this from different perspectives. You apparently want there to be a conscious agent before you will say that judgement is being exercised. I see that as somewhat problematic. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
It seems you are starting at the ending point, and then working backwards.
I'm not sure what problem you are seeing. It seems to me that Darwin started with the ending point (a diversity of species), and worked backwards to come up with his theory of Evolution.
Since evolution is 'non-directed' except for the filter of natural selection, that is giving you invalid conclusions.
Do explain which invalid conclusions you are referring to. Apparently we both agree that evolution is directed. You admit that reluctantly with "except for the filter of natural selection," while I embrace that directedness in natural selection as a simple example of natural intelligence.
since you are assumping that conciousness is the goal of evolution, rather than just one of potentially paths that evolution could take.
No, I am not assuming that. I wonder what gave you that idea. If your idea of intelligence is based on the planning and such like, coming from conscious agents, then intelligence and consciousness becomes difficult to explain. In my opinion, it's that way of looking at intelligence that gives rise to creationism, ID and similar theories. I'm trying to avoid that. I want to judge intelligence purely by the behavior, without any assumption of a conscious agent and without any requirement of specific planning for the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Since you are replying to me, I guess I should comment
this thread seems to be headed in the direction already taken by
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.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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
It's what the output signifies; not a reference to the output's level.
I'm perhaps not seeing your point there. Formal logic deals with form, not with what is signified. If there is a way to harness logic chips to deal with what is signified, rather than with the form (the output level), then how to do this has not yet been discovered. I'll skip a couple of your other comments, and get to this:
Incoming sensory data is simply flagged as true, so that doesn't have to be an output of the circuit.
I think you are saying that, for a trial and error experiment, the sensor would report whether success or error, and the logic circuit would only have to deal with the signal from the sensor. That's fine. But I would say that the sensor is exercising judgement in that case, while the logic circuit is still just doing a deterministic mechanical operation on its input. The sensor is what interacts with the world, and the sensor is in some sense tuned to what its output signifies. The logic circuit is just acting on form (output level). A book report was just posted as Message 1. In that book, Andy Clark is arguing for the role of interactions, and that just logic isn't enough. What I have been saying is along the same lines. I think we are drifting a little too far from the thread topic. We should be discussing whether natural selection can produce something like human intelligence. Let's not get too involved in speculation about what could work to achieve AI.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The you are talking about trial and error testing circuits, where I was talking about trial and error testing behavior (interactions with the world). I think we might be talking past one another.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024