It seems to be a fairly common assumption by members here that AI (both that depicted in the Matrix and that we imagine will be created in years to come) does/will not have "free will" or "choice."
Why? There is every reason to believe that AI will have choice. In fact, emulating the human brain's decision making tree will likely be a necessary step in creating true AI (whether that step is taken through direct programming, or evolved programmin, doesn't matter), and that decision making tree is highly dependant on random choices being made without our concious awareness.
I don't understand why so many think there is a physical limitation that precludes silicon based life from having this ability. Could someone please explain where this myth comes from? With my complete honesty, I do not see how you came to that conclusion that the bunch, as in the board(s), came to the decision that there is no choice or free will. What it means to be AI or intelligent, if it matters, is to have choice, and upon those choices, to make a decision. There have already been true AIs that have been made, but the programmers have simply limited them on purpose to analyze how they work, why, and even when. The limit, though, is of a 3 year old child. Already at that point, much has become prevelant to both the evironment around the AI and the AI's awareness of the surroundings. The english language has become its biggest goal for if it does not have a basis to process and understand the syntax of which the world gives it, then it cannot do anything whatso ever. And still, simply making a machine to learn on its own isn't a matter of choice at all. It's simply programming it to take in a method of solution and adapting with it, and continuing this process infinitely.
You can not assume that an AI isn't limited by its physical form though. It would take a great amount of silicon and processing power to get any results that would compare with a human's natural ability to calculate. The human mind naturally takes out certain processes inorder for us to live longer, be more efficient in what needs actual energy/thought, avoid danger, and act quickly. With a computer, it does not take out any processes, and for it to, it would certainly make "screw ups" any human would laugh at, or even feel pity for. Once machines take on a physical form that is mobile and precise enough for further upgrades on its own, then it can be called a true AI. Sadly, that contradicts myself in my first part. Sure, the child-like machine AI is an AI... but immobile, sad to say. In any case, the human brain has become the basis of computers, and computer processors have become to basis to understanding the human brain and the mind itself.
I'm glad I had something to speak of, even if this is still a tad bit... off subject from the question.
Good day. Well, I came to that conclusion based on the numerous posts I've read in the "There Is No Spoon" forum. It seems a prevalent belief that the machines in the Matrix cannot make a choice. Perhaps that's what the Wachowski brothers intended (indeed, Morpheus repeatedly tells Neo that the Machines are restricted by a world "based on rules", which insinuates that somehow we are not...), but the forum members seem to make the leap that the Machines cannot make free choices.
I came to this forum to post the thread, but admittedly I didn't spend a lot of time reading other threads... I just did a quick search for similar topics before I decided there were none and posted this thread.
Perhaps this forum is more "enlightened?" :) I'm sorry, but I cannot say much for the rest of this forum or the others, though I fear everyone posts in virtually all of the forums as a whole. I may be one of the few that don't assume, but only one. AI is something that has been created in mans image. It has idependent thought and can make analytical decisions for itself.
It also has empathy, compassion, abilty to dislike and to like.
After that it evolves,and so does its' emotions thought processes etc.
(MV)UT I think that AI cannot exist.
Intelligence is something that even sicologist cannot really explain. If we think that Intelligence is only a matter of picking up a choice to solve a problem, then animals are intelligent, and I don't have a problem whith that. But, if we think that Intelligence can make a machine a person, or a different race, we are talking mayor bussiness here.
We humans are social constructs. We are producing, and we are, at the same time, being produced, by our social environment. Society is whats makes us persons, and culture is the base of it.
Dont worrie! Machines will never have a society as complex as ours. They are smarter, jajajajaja.
When a machine decide about what is a problem for it, and when it decides how to solve it, in its own advantage, not on ours, that will may give raise to another person. Choice is a necessary illusion
The most interesting part about an argument for or against free will in AI is that, no matter which side one is arguing, one often assumes that humans have free will. Machines will (definitely/never) be able to choose as humans do is often the argument.
Humans do not, in fact, have 'free will'.
It is merely our subjective experience of existing, and the attribution of others, that convinces us that we have some form of agency. The results of our 'choices' are predetermined, although we cannot possibly know all them before they are made, as we are largely insensitive to all the causes that shape our behaviour.
If we want to believe (as we must) that we have 'free will', then it is likely that we will come to a state where we can attribute agency to machines as well as us, for no other reason than they seem to act like us. I'm curious...
Do you attribute our lack of free will to religious beliefs, or to one or another cosmology? There are several scientific worldviews that allow (in fact, mandate) free will, and there are several that tell us they are illusions.
Just wondering if this view of yours is a result of any one of these scientific theories, or religous in nature, or otherwise. My belief that we do not have 'choice' flows from many sources - most of them academic - both philosophy and science (not that they are terribly different) have led me to this conlusion. Interestingly, it seems to me that many religions do not leave room for free will either, but I don't know it I want to open that can of squidies.
I don't know if I can attribute my position to any one source (although Daniel Dennett probably has a lot to do with it) - moreso a synthesis of things I've learned and experienced. I s'pose my reasons are scientific and mystic - mebbe it's all the same?
Does that clarify anything at all?
What do YOU think about free will? what do I think?! :)
I've read most of Dennett's works as well, and find them very compelling. David Deutsche presents a view of reality (in the aptly named book) that hints at free will being an illusion as well.
But I do have to question their fundamental assumption that it isn't truly "free" if the future(s) are fixed. For example, in Deutsche's description of a static time multiverse, conciousness is an artifact of many time-slices being very closely related. Free will is an artifact of there being many possible slices that would logically fit in the "next slice" position if one were to try to order the slices sequentially. All future realities already exist, and this "version" of ourselves will only remember one of them. I wonder... is the true choice, is the true "free will" having the ability to decide which future I will remember, and which another "me" will remember?
It's easy to get bogged down in the semantics. I think the scientific and philosophical descriptions of a universe in which quantum uncertainty and free will are illusions, since time is fundamentally an illusion, are the most logical and self-consistent descriptions of reality that I have encountered. They are, sadly, the least satisfying.
I suppose I'm witholding judgement on the issue of the nature of time until the "time" when we can weed out some alternatives through experimentation. It's not impossible, and suggestions have already been made of how to go about doing this.
I find it very interesting though, which was why I was curious how you developed this particular view. I haven't read many of Denet's complete works - I became familiar with him through a philosophy course in University, as well as a number of other 'mind' philosophers. I studied biopsychology (don't get too impressed... it's just a fancy name!), and was seduced by behaviourism.
I'm not as familiar with Deutshce, so I may have misunderstood what you wrote, but I don't buy into 'multiple futures'. Multiple futures suggests that the previous causes could have had multiple effects, which disqualifies the need for multiple futures as choice now becomes a possibility. However, if we posit that every cause has only one possible pattern of effect (when considering all other co-occuring causes), then the future is predetermined. Of course, it is impossible for us to perceive all possible causes, ergo (hee hee) our percption of the future is that of many potential futures. The subjective experience would be 'choosing' one of those potential futures, whereas in reality the other potential futures only seemed possible due to our insensitivity causes that effect us.
"I think the scientific and philosophical descriptions of a universe in which quantum uncertainty and free will are illusions... are the most logical and self-consistent descriptions of reality... they are, sadly, the least satisfying."
I agree with everything save the last. It's amazing to consider the extremely unlikely set of circumstances that would have enabled life to evolve as it has - life is most definitley a thing of delicate beauty. I'm still wrestling with the concept of freedom. It may be possible that, upon accepting that we do not possess agency at this moment, we can reflect on the causes of our behaviour, and that may allow us some small degree of freedom. Maybe. Or perhaps all we can do is try to understand ourselves. The concept of AI is very simple. Turning it into to reality is nearly impossible.
Several things have brought me to that statement.
Human, do not understand intelligence. Intelligence for the most part is not defined in such a way that it can be expressed in any language or combination of languages. To me intelligence is the ability to create information. Software and programming languages can only re-organize information that has been plugged in. For instance if you can a simple calculator program, it would seem that the program came up with the numer. But the numbering system had to be manually scripted, and then there usually is a type of error checking to make sure it doesn't go running off at the output.
Humans are the culmination of thousands and thousands of years of interactions both verbal and non verbal. Just the number of facial expressions would boggle most programmers. Humans can barely read a good poker face...so then how does one express the poker face in a programming language? It's not about choice as it is to create a new choice that doesn't exist. I think the best we will ever achieve would be simulated intelligence, but we humans have a desire to do things other animals don't. Curiosity is not a tangible even within scientific theory. GI-GO still applies... ;)
Peace,
SoMm Wow, I 'm getting a head ache just trying to understand! Don't get me wrong, I find the subject of AI incredibly interesting but only from a novice undestanding of it so far.
One of the thoughts I had is why should we try to make AI in our (human) image? Is it so we can better understand our selves? or so we can comunicate intellgently with computers? Or is it because it's hasn't been done yet? A little tower of Babelish isn't it? Why can't we let computers be computers? Im not putting AI down, just trying to understand my own reasons for wantig it to exist. In most modern video games, primitive forms of "AI" are used to add spice to the video game. The old method was to preprogram every single move by the supporting cast inside the game. This made everything predictable to a certain extent. What happens in newer game is that the supporting cast is semi-interactive with the player. But its still preprogrammed to a certain extent. There are a certain number of potential outcomes programmed and the "IF" "THEN" then combined with randomization make it seem like the program is thinking, when its just reacting to several types of input. It can only select from existing data but cannot create new data to select from. Back in the 80's I did some LISP stuff for premitive aerospace design software, we chatted about the folks considering AI then... Our biggest restriction was not the software really, it was the sensors and the interfaces that created the most frustration. Were not exactly an easy thing to copy. Think about how long its taken artificial limbs and organs to even get to the primitive state they are in now. Now try to design an eye or an ear and hook it up to a PC?
The complexities of our design or the design of life is overwhelming at the microscopic level let alone at the universal level I find if unimaginable to think we could design a system to mimic human behavior. When you down to the nuts and bolts level of irreducibly complex sytems like the eye or immune system the problem of AI can be depressing, but we shouldn't let that stop us from pushing forward.
If AI is to happen even remotely close to what we would like it will have to come from some kind of revolution in how "computer processors" are made.
I think the original people who thouth of AI wanted to have a better way of controlling machines that were more reliable. Having the ability to do statistical analysis of life cycles, determine when things need to be fixed...like having a slave to do everything without the typical human quirks. I think that if you can give software a sense of self determination that the likelyhood of something like the Matrix could happen.
I think its humorous to think that we can't control the stock market how can we expect to control AI?
Thoughts to ponder, Paths to wander.
Peace,
SoMm AI has no mind, hence no free will; only options that get calculated.
I'm revising that what I just said. Methinks AI 'has' free will. They took over the planet didn't they? And no bad guy was behind it.-->They decided it themselves.-->Free will. Well! I think that machines, or computers will never develope, by our hand or by their own, free will or intelligence.
1. Machines and computers are our creation to enhance our skills
When you go on a car you are already using cibernetic power for your legs. Now you can travel at a real amazing speed. When you use the computer for work, you are enhancing your brain power for calculations. When you use the phone you enhance your communications powers or skills.
2. Machines are tools, just like a hammer, or a wheel.
3. Computer programs use mathematical language, we don't.
Language, as proposed by Lacan and by the sicoanalitical theory, is the very basis of our siquis. Computers use the binarial code based on mathematical calculation. Even if the code is changed, it will still be base on mathematics.
The mathematical logic of our decision making process is only part of it. The social world cannot be completly measure by mathematical standars. To create a new siquis which language is only base on mathematics, you need to calculate or measure, and give a numerical quantum, to everything. And I mean everything, and, thats impossible!
How can you measure dialectics? Are feelings measurable?
Our language, as a social construct, stablish our siquis and organized it. When a human start to make abstractions and think, he or she will be doing it using language as a base.
Is the sense of freedom a mathematical surplus? Is love a calculation?
We only know that we don't know, as Socrates would say, but, at least, we know that. Machines will never know. Originally posted by Legend's Heir
Multiple futures suggests that the previous causes could have had multiple effects, which disqualifies the need for multiple futures as choice now becomes a possibility. I think if I could understand better what you were trying to say in that statement, the rest of your post would probably fall in line. I just can't quite sort out what you meant there. Originally posted by Son of Mixerman
To me intelligence is the ability to create information. Software and programming languages can only re-organize information that has been plugged in.
That's not true, even in today's technological world. Software has already sucessfully created novel solutions for circuit designs, mathematical proofs, etc., based only on the axioms and/or principles needed to "understand" the system.
It's a crude example, but it does prove that computers/software can come up with "new" information.
The more interesting discussion is what defines "new" information to begin with. Technically, everything "new" we create is just a rearrangement of information as well. :)
IMO, the biggest proof that AI can truly be intelligent and sentient is the fact that we are. Our intellict and conciousness is based on a physical computer - our brains - so it is possible, at least in theory, for one based on a different computer structure to be created. Originally posted by Xirtameht
That's not true, even in today's technological world. Software has already sucessfully created novel solutions for circuit designs, mathematical proofs, etc., based only on the axioms and/or principles needed to "understand" the system.
Not true?... Have you ever seen a blank disc write code without a human?
Thats creating new information. Selecting from pre written code is new, but new information and creating information is different..to me at least.
The solutions to design you speak of are based upon parameters defined by a program. Parametric software is fairly new and you find it solving simple problems. Its a false intelligence or simulated intelligence. Ive read a few articles on how programs invented a new idea, usually the idea was inserted and they run the program until an accptable solution is found.
If you look at the hexidecimal system used for machine language you see a series of numbers, XYZ and IJK are variables that define position and orientation to a root axis.
All the required data has to be fed via ddp or magnetic tape for the machine to move. Software is by nature reactive so it can only do what its told to do. Self determination is very difficult to model mathmatically, self motivation or even somthing like choice is a huge barrier. AI requires a processor with curiosity to why. It must understand purpose, destiny, who am i.
It is true that people build upon other peoples knowledge and experiences but people do invent things that have never previously been thought of. IF we were to say current knowledge of the universe already existed it just need to be reorganized then we can assume the knowledge has always existed. So what is intelligence? What is knowldge and what is wisdom?
A quick study of the human brain and our true understanding of how it works shows the daunting task of mechanical replicas. Just one "simple" brain cell is an entire city or factory of complex chemical reactions...
But......
One of the things about the Matrix that Im aware of is that the machines need the people. Not only for the energy, but also for the collective intellect. With all these human brains tapped into the matrix, how many have been hacked for inventiveness. Right now as you read this a machine is recording your alpha patterns to determine if the data on your softdrive is worth copying and using for later use? If you think of something new...and you express that in the matrix its as good as the machines inventing it? So AI in the matrix isn't really AI, but its a parasite of the human brain. So to me AI as originally thought of by scientists before I was born is extremey difficult. But having a network of human brains is extremely powerful.
MIT has an AI lab with many aspects to AI and Integration. You will see lots of cool things, but computers need input as you will notice. AI systems are still programmed by humans and humans turn on the power.. When we see robotics fixing other robotic systems then I think we will be closer.
Freewill....you can either accept or reject your programing.
Computers will have freewill when my CD tray spits the disc out because it sees the Microsoft logo. :)
Cool discussion...
Peace,
SoMm So, are you arguing that AI can't be sophisticated enough to create new information modify itself, evolve, ponder its existance; or are you arguing that we just haven't developed AI at that level of sophistication yet?
I think the latter argument is a given, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. But your comments about software not being able to create new information without the assistance of a human sounds like you are suggesting the former.
I'm unclear on that... exactly what is your position? Are you tempting me to predict the future?
As far as machines using typical IC electronics and silicon based memory and developing real emotions.... I will say NO, it can't be done.
Im not arguing.
This an open discussion postulating the possibilites based upon current knowledge. I will not say something can't be done, but I do recognize the boundaries that exists. I think that AI in the end will be dependant upon its ability to tap into the human mind. The interdependancy of the two are what the Matrix is all about. The Architect even expounded upon that very idea. Ive seen enough computer simulations in my life to know that waht comes out is highly dependent on what goes in. To ponder your own existence at the human level is as old as humanity. Have you seen any real examples of IC's showing signs of having emotions?
What is AI...its artificial intelligence, meaning its not capable of real intelligence. If it thinks on its own without human assistance is it truely AI? It becomes a game of defintions and a dance of semantics. If we lump AI by some reductionistic view of electromechanical systems it seems AI is capable of emotions. But the spirit of the human race is unique and not easily explainable by using hte scientific method. For that matter, knowing that someone had a dream is completely different than knowing what the dream was.
Love, where do you find a bottle of it?
SoMm Originally posted by Son of Mixerman
Are you tempting me to predict the future?Yes. :)
As far as machines using typical IC electronics and silicon based memory and developing real emotions.... I will say NO, it can't be done.I agree... it will take much development in the complexity of computer hardware to allow enough processing power to be confined in a reasonable area and communicate quickly enough to truly become sentient (programming issues aside). Three dimensional silicon-carbide, perhaps... or maybe even optical, though it seems unlikely the circuit density of optical switches will surpass that of electrical switches anytime in the near future (next 10 to 15 years, at least). Perhaps a breakthrough in quantum computing will make that processing power a reality, though I don't think that's necessary. It could be a paradigm shift from electrical to biochemical processing. I guess that I think technology will eventually reach that level of sophistication... if not tomorrow, or 20 years from now, then 50 or 100, or whatever. It will happen.
I think that AI in the end will be dependant upon its ability to tap into the human mind.Why? Is the intelligence of humans dependant on the ability to tap into the semian brain? I don't understand why an artifact of evolution should be necessarily tied to the intelligence of its progenitor.
Have you seen any real examples of IC's showing signs of having emotions?Of course not (well, there were those rumors about the Honda robot, but I don't believe them...). Does that offer any proof that it is impossible?
What is AI...its artificial intelligence, meaning its not capable of real intelligence.I don't think that's correct at all. "Artificial" is simply a label we've chosen to apply to any intelligence created by humans (and, possibly, by an alien race). Intelligence is intelligence. True AI will be a legitamate life form, just as we are, complete with "real intelligence."
If it thinks on its own without human assistance is it truely AI?If it truly thinks, then it is AI. Are humans on their own without the assistance of other plants and animals? Nope. AI will rely on certain aspects of the ecology just as we do.
But the spirit of the human race is unique and not easily explainable by using hte scientific method.It sure is. It's a ***** to define and explain, and that represents the tremendous software problem. I, however, don't think that is insurmountable. We have begun to see the earliest signs of progress in the form of creative software, and evolutionary programming. Human brains are just extremely complex physical computers in both hardware and software. They are highly flexible, and can change their configuration rapidly. Duplicating anything near that will not be easy... but it will happen. Holy hell. I just wrote a monster reply and hit 'back' by mistake. Curses. Well, here's the upshot...
[In reference to my convoluted comment]
The possibility of multiple futures presupposes the existence of agency. Choice is necessary, so it's not an argument for free will. Our inability to perceive all causes allows us the (comforting) illusion of multiple potential futures, and thus free will.
Point one - Our brains evolved, and are thus a jury-rigged-good-enough-to-get-by job. We've evolved soft hardware - hardware that adapts to it's environment, within certain limits. Machines require precision in design and construction, and function differently than our distributed-network, parallel-processing thinking machine. To mimic our brain, machines would have to leave out many details... and I don't know if one can do that and still have it function. Hell, there are so many things that happen in our brains (and bodies) that occur without our awareness that we haven't begun to understand ourselves.
Point two - As our brain is the only experience we've had with thinking machines, it's our best model. Unfortunately, our brains neither allow us to understand how they work (yet?) nor conceive of any other kind of thinking machine.
However, AI is possible in [I] principle [I/]. We attribute thinking/feeling to other animals due to their behavior, therefore it's reasonable to assume that , were a machine made that mimicked us closely, we'd have to confer upon it emotion and agency. If a machine acted and looked enough like a dog, then we'd call it a dog. Likewise with humans. This is only possible in principle, I believe, and not in reality...
Interesting thought - if our agency/identity comes mainly from others attributing us with these qualities, could we, in theory, attribute these to a 'smart' machine to make it self-aware? Could we 'trick' it into consciousness? We seem to do so with ourselves...
How's about a brain hooked up to a computer? Could a computer then be taught?
Or special programming that used programs within programs, and only sent 'relevant' information to the 'artificial brain'? Again, possible in principle, but not likely in reality...
I better stop there. Thanks for making my head hurt, you lot...
: ) Originally posted by Xirtameht
Why? Is the intelligence of humans dependant on the ability to tap into the semian brain? I don't understand why an artifact of evolution should be necessarily tied to the intelligence of its progenitor.
Im not a believer in Evolution, but you answered your basic question with the first reply. As a matter of expediency using the human brain not only as a design model but also as providing material for integration. The human brain as its hooked up to our sensory organs are significantly more advanced than anything man had even thought of. Whether you believe in evolution or not doesn't change anything because the problem before you is as equally steep. A complex biological systems designed and built by a supreme central intelligence... or several million years of trial and errors in a biological system that has no real direction. Just think about debugging it all. First degug the brain, then have software mimic it?
If we expound on Legend's Heir idea of the imperfectons of the brain, the problem only gets worse. One of our biggest problems is thinking we are smarter and know better... What about the anomalies that cause mental diseases, how do you prevent those kind of things in AI integration.
All these evolutionary programs are still programmed by people..degugged by people and if the standard of AI is defined by people, then we can look at some serious mistakes and a whole lot of growing pains.
The human DNA strand it approximately 3.2 Billion Base pairs, just a 1% error rate during copying is a huge problem if you expect to debug and not increase the error rate. The problem with True AI is ...people. People kill, people hate and people descriminate, do we want sofware repeating those horrors of Adolph Hitler? How do you prevent that?
Anyhow...
What is your definition of Intelligence?
My core belief on why Im skeptical about AI is because the target is moving. Just looking at how morals fluctuate based upon social pressures makes me laugh. What do you do if Corky Romano ends up being the only model that doesn't freeze up after reboot.
The reason for AI being impossible is because humans are a bad model?
How do you define personality?
How do you define morals?
How do you define desire?
Here is a link that sort of echos somethin that sits in the back of my mind.
http://www.ai.mit.edu/research/abstracts/abstracts2002/artificial-life/03banks.pdf
Back to fun stuff ;)
Peace,
SoMm Did you know that scientist, in the near past, said that black peple's brain lack of certain parts? Now we know thats bulls#$%!, but that makes me think about prejudice about how to look at the human brain.
Psiquiatrics, as knowlege, try to develope some answers about human behavior and illnes. But they only see the human brain, and its resulting behavior, as a phisical and anatomical matter. They think that human feelings and decision making process have a certain spot in the human brain and it only correspond to certain chemical reactions. Thats why they only medicate the persons, or give them ECT (electro combulsive therapy), or make those brain quirulgical operations. Thats why the psichiatric patience tends to go back to the mental institution. They will never get cured.
My point is that we don't really know what the brain is. How can we produce another?
We can produce what we think the brain is...and that is very, very, dangerous.
With all our prejudice, all our racism, all our political struggles to dominate THE OTHER...don't you think that the "brain" that we contruct with AI is going to be the product of all that ****?
The one who construct that "brain" capable of Artificial inteligence, will try to make it correct, but correctness will be define only by the creators parameters.
As AI will have to think in mathematical parameters, the creator will give mathemathical equivalents to feelings, to policitcs, to love, to hate, to culture.
If the first programer thinks that puertorrican culture is a lower one? If the programer thinks that goverment is good and freedom only exist if there is goverment? Is the programer is atheist, or if he or she believe in God?
Think! How many points in the mathematical scale will have the choice between the policeman and a group of manifestants in the "Artificial Intelligent Mind of an Artificial Brain" constructed by humans?
Machines will never pick up a choice that is not pre-programed, we, humans, as difficult as it may seem, can.
The huge difference is that we are not programed, and that we can interpretate any data in many ways. Logic is not always our tool to make a decision. For a machine, logic will always be.
And, friends, there are many logics. What about the logic of dialectics? What about the logic of love? (no logic in love, hahaha)
If a programer tells the machine that love have a, for example, 10 points, and that hate have 0, or -10, to put it as an exact opposite, don't you think that machine will react in accordance to those numbers? You think hate is the opposite of love?
What do you think about it? Originally posted by Son of Mixerman
Im not a believer in Evolution...
Ah, that explains a lot. You're compelled to believe that there is something inherent in humans that goes beyond our physical brains, so it is quite natural for you to question whether that same "something" can be recreated by humans using bits of sand and metal.
I, on the other hand, view the human intellect as nothing but a complicated program running on a complicated computer. Thus, logically, it is possible to one day emulate that software and hardware. It may take a while, but it will happen.
And, to be sure, the first true AI will probably be plagued by all manner of mental disorders. We are, and our brains have been refined over millions of years... so why should we expect our early attempts to be any better? And more importantly, what does AI having a mental disorder (or, the possibility of contracting one anyway) have to do with it being truly intelligent? Originally posted by Xirtameht
And more importantly, what does AI having a mental disorder (or, the possibility of contracting one anyway) have to do with it being truly intelligent?
Mental Disorders can be counterintuitive. Self destructive etc.
Even if I did believe in evolution the problems are still valid.
But you still need to address the questions of personality, morals, emotions with in the tenets of science. Life is more than just the sum of its parts.
Again I ask whats your definition of intelligence?
SoMm Define intelligence? Intelligence is an arbitrary word to describe a collection of concepts and attributes - it doesn't exist beyond our definition of it, in the sense that apples exist no matter how we define them. What constitutes as intelligence shifts - originally, it was largely biased towards American culture, which resulted in the IQ's of immigrants being substantially lower than Americans. Now it generally encompasses pattern recognition and logic, but even this is too narrow, as there different 'types' of intelligence. Emotional, musical, artistic, mathematical, practical - the list could go on. Intelligence seems to suggest an aptitude for something... but what then is general intelligence? I think that it's a misused word that was used to decribe a host of traits - but now it limits our way of conceptualizing those traits.
Our morals often have biological predecessors that predispose us to act in certain ways (e.g. altruism, kin selection, etc), and do not reflect the morals that should be in place in a society. We still act like purely biological organisms, although we should be playing by a different set of rules. Personality is almost as nebulous as intelligence - it often refers to a pattern of stereotypical behaviours that an individual performs. It's a useful way of categorizing people, but is little more than that. Emotions are a funny thing - they most definitely have a biological basis, but require good ol' left brain to rationalize and create a story that's appropriate to the situation.
Yes, in a sense, machines could 'feel'. But only, I think, in principle.
Life is more than the sum of it's parts... energy, when interacting with other energies, creates physical matter with unique properties... and physical matter can lead to chemical, and then biological... now where? Culture. Our culture/society can cause changes quicker than biological evolution, but we haven't yet been able to shake off the fetters of our biological legacy. Perhaps we never will. intelligence can be defined by simply being able to learn from experiment.
it was really interesting reading that thread, btw. Originally posted by Son of Mixerman
Life is more than just the sum of its parts.Technically, life is just the sum of its parts. You can certainly argue, however, that the value the the whole is greater than the value of the sum of the parts, but functionally... we're just a collection of hardware and software.
Again I ask whats your definition of intelligence? I avoided answering that one because I had addressed it at length in another thread in this forum (here in the AI section) and didn't feel like repeating it. I was also too lazy to look up the thread and post a link (and still am).
The gist of it is that, IMO, intelligence can most easily be defined based on the relative information storage capacity in our genes, our brains, and our libraries. But, in the end, it is a rather arbitrary definition. Originally posted by Xirtameht
Technically, life is just the sum of its parts
I disagree.
To you life is nothing but random interaction of organic compounds. Dog, cat human...all the same. So whats th point of trying to convince me that your chemical reactions are somehow better than anyone elses. Why disagree, if the disagreement is purely random chemicals? Take a trip to a hospital and put one live human specimen on a table and a recently deceased one on the table? whats the differnce? All both contain the right chemical compounds for functionality... You think those are thoughts you are thinking?
See ya Monday
SoMm;) Lol, Xirtameht's definition of intelligence is here (http://www.matrixreloaded.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83&perpage=25&pagenumber=4)
I don't know how palatable I find that defining intelligence and building one is interdependent. And I still don't understand why we would want to build a "true AI". Evolution is economical, no? Hawking thinks that we will evolve into "cyberhumans", but I think he supposes the "cyber" part would be more mechanical in nature (limbs etc.).
But if are/will attempt a "true" AI, then why would we have to ensure that it is not subject to mental disorders (which seems to be the consensus here)? Because psychoses are destructive? How about CONstructive?
What would Kafka write if he wasn't "crazy"? Both Tchaikovsky and Schubert were diagnosed with mental disorders. Van Gough killed himself. Admittedly, the above were "artists" rather than "scientists", but I think among scientists the distribution of "craziness" is nearly the same. The question is of "cause and effect" nature: do people (especially those we call 'genius') drive themselves "crazy" or is their mental state the cause (or at least an attribute) of their particular "intelligence"/genius? I am not a fan of Kandinsky, but it seems that he must have been at least a little crazy to paint what he did. Well, I think that the definition of intelligence is a functional one. We define things if they work toward our benefit.
The world to an Artificial Intelligent Mind will be define by the parameters of its creator. But the creator don't have the theorical, nor mathematical tools to define nothing!
Then, the result of it will be a machine who think that can think, but not knowing that everything that it think have already been put in his artificial mind by humans.
And, to be worst, when the programmer sits and say: "well, lets tell this program that love is 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1" (for example, I don't know about programs, but I know about humans, haha), well, that machine, whenever in front of a 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 situation...do it will think it is love in front of it?
Well, love, and hate, freedom, and slavery, cannot be measured.
If we make Artificial Intelligence, it will only be artificial.
Haha! and as AI will not be "real" it won't have any mental desease, hahaha. It don't have a siquis!
We have mental illness because we have a sicological structure. Humans will never mimic that structure in a machine.
What do you think? I have a question (it somewhat presupposes a "belief" in evolution, though).
We evolved into homo sapiens because - apparently - "sapiens" was suitable (necessary) for the species' survival. Somehow we took what Dennett calls "avoidance" to another level (this is where the line dividing "life" and "intelligent life" gets fuzzy for me). But basically we are genetically equipped to not only see a distant problem, but predict it as well - and, subsequently, avoid it.
Why did our intelligence evolve THIS far? I am not just talking about evolving beyond Neanderthals - I mean why were we, as a species, capable of producing Newton and Einstein? How is finding TOE necessary for our survival? Did we "know" - on some biological level - that we must develop an ability to understand "things" outside/beyond our planet? Because - if evolution is economical - we wouldn't need to, unless THAT ABILITY is crucial to our survival as a species.
So, a few million years after we "diverged" we have this ability, AND we see that it might be useful. Overpopulation, weapons of mass destruction, depletion of resources, global warming, etc.; and ultimately the death of the Sun are the problems that we had to evolve into being able to avoid.
If the Sun begins to die (presuming that we will survive this long AND won't blow ourselves up), we would have to find ourselves a new place to live. To the skeptics: this is no more "crazy" than us having to have learned how to use tools, or to make fire, or to move to new lands by boats. If we were "genetically programmed" to learn how do those things, we might be "genetically programmed" to learn how to travel faster than rockets allow us.
So, the question is this:
Will intRA-galactic travel necessarily become possible? If not to say - inter-galactic? I think the nearest planetary system is suspected to be 10 ly away or something, and it might just have a gas giant anyway. So maybe we would have to go farther. Or build our own "planet". Do you guys think that would be just a logical evolutionary step?
Btw, does anybody know where I can find text versions of intelligence levels' descriptions? The ones where the first level is "before own planet's control", and then it's "solar system control" etc.? I did a search on Google, but it's not coming up with it. Originally posted by Son of Mixerman
To you life is nothing but random interaction of organic compounds. Wow, hold on a minute there. Randomness plays a role in how our brains function, however "nothing but..." is taking it way too far. There are uncountable organized chemical and electrochemical reactions going on throughout our body. Our DNA, proteins, cells, organs... all have order indicative of design.
The reason dogs and humans are fundamentally different is due to the measure of order inherent to each. We possess more of it.
And dead people might still have the same raw chemicals (well, even that changes a bit when you die), but certainly don't have the same chemical reactions, much less electrochemical ones.
When I say that humans are nothing but machines with computers in our heads, I sincerely mean that, but I'm not suggesting that a lot of design work wasn't required, or that we aren't amazingly complex and ordered organisms. Originally posted by texabara
What do you think?
Mmm... I think I disagree, at least on a high level. :)
But I like how you have attacked a specific problem... how do we tell a computer what a certain emotion feels like? I'm not sure that can be described by us in a programming language. Now, that isn't saying that I think a programming language isn't capable of specifying emotions, just that we aren't smart enough to do it.
So... in a round about way, I'm stating that I don't think emotions are absolutely required for a computer to be considered truly intelligent and sentient. Take Data from Star Trek for an example... sentient, but with no emotions. I also believe that, since emotion can be represented by a suitable programming language on a suitable hardware platform (since we are proof of that), that machines will probably figure out how to create that programming long before we do. After all, evolution is a fairly efficient process when the span of a generation is reduced to days or hours. Originally posted by yanka
I have a question (it somewhat presupposes a "belief" in evolution, though).
We evolved into homo sapiens because - apparently - "sapiens" was suitable (necessary) for the species' survival
I think addressing that premise will answer your quesiton. If you read Dennett carefully, you'll find that a step up the evolutionary ladder doesn't always happen because that step was "necessary," but simply because it was "better."
How can I easily explain this without writing a book? Ok... It is commonly believed that the evolutionary process kicks it into high gear when there are severe selection pressures. When a species is doing just fine, there is no need to adapt to much of anything. Otherwise "good" mutations don't really offer much of an advantage, because the rest of the species is not having any problems at the moment getting food, or whatever. Thus, while the "good" mutation will certainly survive, it will only do so in a small proprotion of the population, because it won't have any significant reproductive advantage over the rest of it.
During "hard" times, a similar mutation may simply allow the individuals of the species with the mutation to exist, while those without it can't cope and die. Thus, selective pressure increases the rate at which mutations spread througout a population.
Now imagine a twist on the above scenario. Imagine that the selection pressure isn't the environment, but a competitor of the same species with a mutation. Imagine that a mutation for "a bit smarter" severly shifts the balance of reproductive success, not because the others are having a hard time coping with a new environment (as in the above case), but because the "smarter" individuals can more easily catch food, better protect themselves, and enhance the likelihood of their children surviving.
It is my belief that it takes a certain amount of intelligence in a species from the selective pressure to make that rather radical shift in focus from the first scenario to the second. But, once it happens, amazing things happen. Now, becoming smarter isn't a "necessary" for survival, but rather it allows you to replicate at such a pace as to completely overwhelm the rest of the population (and, likely, breeding that mutation into the population instead of them all "dying out"). Witness the existance of Neanderthals alongside other human progenitors. I think that has probably happened many times througout our development.
What stopped the intellectual arms race? I'm not sure. Perhaps at some point we became smart enough to have all the children we wanted, and becoming smarter didn't "buy" us any more (or, perhaps we didn't "want" any more, in evolutionary success terms that is). That point was probably reached thousands of years ago. It has taken us quite a while to reach the potential our genes has endowed us with, but much as the intellectual arms race in genetics, once we reached a certain level in group intelligence it took off exponentially. I know gross generalizations are a cold slap in the face. Sorry but my post are intended to provoke people of entertaining ideas outside of the black box.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
Wow, hold on a minute there. Randomness plays a role in how our brains function, however "nothing but..." is taking it way too far. There are uncountable organized chemical and electrochemical reactions going on throughout our body. Our DNA, proteins, cells, organs... all have order indicative of design.
Some believe it is completely random, because if its not the answer leads them to a place they do not want to go.
Have you studied Irreducibly complex systems and the implications of the studies surrounding the idea?
The types of systems and subsystems within the human body is obviously driven by something far more complex than unintelligent luck or random chance.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
The reason dogs and humans are fundamentally different is due to the measure of order inherent to each. We possess more of it. More order?
Originally posted by Xirtameht
And dead people might still have the same raw chemicals (well, even that changes a bit when you die), but certainly don't have the same chemical reactions, much less electrochemical ones.
“Our science still cannot account for what makes something alive”
Jessica Banks
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
MIT
Jessica obviously as a scientist can see the inherent problem. On one hand, we predict the future of AI and admit we do not have the scientific tools at hand to do it this point and say yes it is possible and on the other hand we are not allowed to say “God” exists because we lack the scientific tools to describe “God” in scientific terms of today. The electrochemical processes within a recently deceased person still operate for a period of time even though the person is legally dead. For decades doctors have known that there is window of opportunity to revive a person. Once the window closes revival is futile. Why? How? The mystery of the essence of life defies science. Many biologist for many years have tried to create life by trying to assemble it from the parts required, molecular assembly. We can make molecular machines to do simple tasks, but to give life to the un-living is still an open experiment. I used to have an acquaintance that worked at the University of Washington’s Genetic Engineering Lab that studied cancer cells and did comparisons to normal cells. The biggest question was always why? Science cannot answer that, science can only ponder the many possible reasons.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
When I say that humans are nothing but machines with computers in our heads, I sincerely mean that, but I'm not suggesting that a lot of design work wasn't required, or that we aren't amazingly complex and ordered organisms.
Designed by who?
Originally posted by Xirtameht
I think addressing that premise will answer your question. If you read Dennett carefully, you'll find that a step up the evolutionary ladder doesn't always happen because that step was "necessary," but simply because it was "better."
The ladder is a myth. Just like the sporkJ I’ve yet to see the ladder myself.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
How can I easily explain this without writing a book? Ok... It is commonly believed that the evolutionary process kicks it into high gear when there are severe selection pressures. When a species is doing just fine, there is no need to adapt too much of anything. Otherwise "good" mutations don't really offer much of an advantage, because the rest of the species is not having any problems at the moment getting food, or whatever. Thus, while the "good" mutation will certainly survive, it will only do so in a small proportion of the population, because it won't have any significant reproductive advantage over the rest of it.
During "hard" times, a similar mutation may simply allow the individuals of the species with the mutation to exist, while those without it can't cope and die. Thus, selective pressure increases the rate at which mutations spread throughout a population.
Now imagine a twist on the above scenario. Imagine that the selection pressure isn't the environment, but a competitor of the same species with a mutation. Imagine that a mutation for "a bit smarter" severely shifts the balance of reproductive success, not because the others are having a hard time coping with a new environment (as in the above case), but because the "smarter" individuals can more easily catch food, better protect them, and enhance the likelihood of their children surviving.
Its called luck, chance and other clever names. Mutation rates are to small to provide the raw materials for significant change. So then we introduce Natural selection/Survival of the fittest to explain. I have to ask the question, if the mutation rates are too small to promote evolution, where does evolution get the raw materials to select from? Simply put, if you need to have 100 legos to build a house in a week, but you can only acquire 1 lego per month, where do the other 99 legos come from? Survival of the fittest is more of a tautology.
Who survives? The fittest. Who is the fittest? The survivor. We have been led astray to believe that probability is equal with reality and that theory is truth. Its very much like the premise of the Matrix.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
It is my belief that it takes a certain amount of intelligence in a species from the selective pressure to make that rather radical shift in focus from the first scenario to the second. But, once it happens, amazing things happen. Now, becoming smarter isn't a "necessary" for survival, but rather it allows you to replicate at such a pace as to completely overwhelm the rest of the population (and, likely, breeding that mutation into the population instead of them all "dying out"). Witness the existence of Neanderthals alongside other human progenitors. I think that has probably happened many times throughout our development.
Its arguable that Neaderthals are human, A few years ago they took some maternal DNA from Neandethal artifacts and said the disparity was too large to continue to have Neanderthal in the same branch as humans.
Understanding genetic load and issues like “Haldanes Dilemma” make it difficult to fully comprehend how breeding scenarios work into the big picture.. The cost of substitution for higher mammals with long regeneration times still need to be looked at with real data. Intelligence could improve a species reproductive success, if intelligence could predict and counter natural disasters, genetic deaths or other unknown variables.
Kimura tried to use substitutional load to help The Neutral Theory of Evolution but found the load was more than any mammalian special could tolerate.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
What stopped the intellectual arms race? I'm not sure. Perhaps at some point we became smart enough to have all the children we wanted, and becoming smarter didn't "buy" us any more (or, perhaps we didn't "want" any more, in evolutionary success terms that is). That point was probably reached thousands of years ago. It has taken us quite a while to reach the potential our genes has endowed us with, but much as the intellectual arms race in genetics, once we reached certain level in-group intelligence it took off exponentially.
Intelligence could be counterproductive to evolution for several reasons. One reason is that we can chose not to reproduce. Second, we take risks that are not worth any positive outcome. I think being smarter(In our terms) has been as the Machines say, a plague on this planet.
I think we lost the intellectual arms race the second we thought there was a race to begin with. Once you pre-form an idea with boundaries or constraints such as evolution or creation theory you’ve lost your ability to look for unusual answers and questions. If you believe there is no soul to humans, how would you go about looking for something you don’t believe in. This idea permeates modern science. Innovation has always come from people who looked beyond simple scientific observation.
I will say that if you can get a computer to answer “maybe” when the word doesn’t exist in its database then we will have our foot in the door.
Your one statement about machines creating AI is certainly closer to reality than any fuzzy logic we have tried to apply. I learned along time ago that as soon as I thought I knew something, the possibility of learning something new got smaller. I believe evolution is a poor model for us to pursue if we take AI seriously. Ever heard of Message Theory?
Im starting to lean towards having the definitions and goals of AI redefined to something less human. I got some more thinking to do.
Happy Monday ;)
Peace,
SoMm Mondays prior to a US holiday are really...boring..
Hurry up Xirtameht;) save me from this...zoo, this prison..this reality or whatever you call it!
:D SoMm:D Well, I suppose every good thread follows a couple of tangents, so we'll explore this evolutionary one for a while...
Originally posted by Son of Mixerman
Some believe it is completely random, because if its not the answer leads them to a place they do not want to go.I'm not sure if I understand the way you are using the term "random." What makes us alive is not a random interaction of chemicals, molecules, etc. It is highly organized. Further, evolution isn't random either. So, perhaps you should clarify just what "random" is referring to, and what "place" the "answer" would otherwise lead us to.
Have you studied Irreducibly complex systems and the implications of the studies surrounding the idea?Yes, I read Michael Behe's book and various shorter editorials and dissertations scattered around the web. I found some of Behe's ideas intriguing and enticing, and many of them lacking and shortsighted.
The types of systems and subsystems within the human body is obviously driven by something far more complex than unintelligent luck or random chance.First, we have to address that "random chance" thing again. Evolution is anything but a "random chance" or "unintelligent luck" process. I think that's a common misconception. While random chance certainly provides the raw material of mutation, that is only half of the equation. Natural selection is not random, and is capable of a tremendous amount of design work.
More order?Yes. While our genetic sequences might be roughly comparable in terms of ordered information storage capacity, the system encoded by those sequences (humans and dogs) are not. Humans have a significantly larger storage capacity in our brains than do dogs, which is a measure of order (or vice versa). That order is expressed as intelligence.
...on the other hand we are not allowed to say “God” exists because we lack the scientific tools to describe “God” in scientific terms of today."God" is, by definition, anti-scientific. Science doesn't lack the tools necessary to describe "God," but rather has no compelling reason to try.
For decades doctors have known that there is window of opportunity to revive a person. Once the window closes revival is futile. Why? How?Tissue damage on a cellular level too extensive to repair or reverse with today's technology and techniques. Is it really that complex?
Many biologist for many years have tried to create life by trying to assemble it from the parts required, molecular assembly. We can make molecular machines to do simple tasks, but to give life to the un-living is still an open experiment.If you're looking for confirmation that life is purely mechanistic, I'm afraid you won't find any evidence here. The simplest organic life-forms are orders of magnitude more complex than the most intricate machines created by humans to date. Is it any surprise that our muckings around in labs haven't produced a new organic life-form from scratch? Further, is the fact that we haven't really proof that it can't be done (which is what you are suggesting)? Was the inability of humans to fly for thousands of years proof that it couldn't be done? Hardly.
The biggest question was always why? Science cannot answer that, science can only ponder the many possible reasons.Science answers the question of "how." "Why" is something that has to be decided by an individual on a personal level. It's something for philosophers to debate, not for scientists to chase. Some people confuse these two questions.
Designed by who?Designed by what. Though, if you insist on personifying a mechanistic process, I suppose "Mother Nature" is as good a name as any. Evolution is capable of design. Once you accept that, the argument for an "intelligent designer" crumbles.
The ladder is a myth. Just like the sporkJ I’ve yet to see the ladder myself.That a process of evolution created all life on this planet from a branching tree of descent from simpler organisms is as factually supported as the "round Earth" theory, or the "heliocentric" theory. Historical evolution is a fact. The precise mechanisms of just how that evolution occured are still under study. Evolution is not supported by one great link of evidence that, hope against hope, might someday be broken by its opponents, but rather by literally millions of lesser threads of evidence that are being added to and reconfirmed on a daily basis.
Its called luck, chance and other clever names.Again, evolution isn't purely a "random" or "lucky" process.
Mutation rates are to small to provide the raw materials for significant change.In fact, there are plenty of examples of mutation rates well above what would be needed to produce the rate of change we see from fossil evidence. That argument sounds like it was taken directly from a creation website... I've seen it repeated countless times, and it is always just as incorrect.
Survival of the fittest is more of a tautology. Who survives? The fittest. Who is the fittest? The survivor.Who wins a race? The fastest runner. Who is the fastest runner? The one who wins the race. That doesn't negate the reality that both races and runners exist. It's simply being simplistic and leaving out the important details.
Its arguable that Neaderthals are human, A few years ago they took some maternal DNA from Neandethal artifacts and said the disparity was too large to continue to have Neanderthal in the same branch as humans.It doesn't matter if they were technically humans or not. I used the word "progenitor," and to be honest, it doesn't matter if they were actually our progenitors or not.
Intelligence could be counterproductive to evolution for several reasons.Obviously, since there has apparently been only one species with anything approaching our level of intelligence on this planet - us. It stands to reason that high intelligence is very rarely needed, or at least very rarely more desireable.
If you believe there is no soul to humans, how would you go about looking for something you don’t believe in.I wouldn't go looking for something I didn't believe in. I would, however, go looking for something I wasn't sure about, as would any scientist.
This idea permeates modern science. Innovation has always come from people who looked beyond simple scientific observation.Wow, talk about gross generalizations... and way off the mark to boot. The term "observation" is a red herring here... it's the scientific method you should address, as that encompasses much more than just observation.
I will say that if you can get a computer to answer “maybe” when the word doesn’t exist in its database then we will have our foot in the door.What if it responded with a statement of equivalent meaning, such as "neither 'yes' nor 'no' is adequate"?
I learned along time ago that as soon as I thought I knew something, the possibility of learning something new got smaller.It's all about keeping an open mind. With each new thing I learn, there are more doors opened for further learning. However, the possibility always remains that an earlier piece of "knowledge" could be proved to be incorrect, in which case I would likely have the opportunity for much more "new" learning. Originally posted by Xirtameht
I think addressing that premise will answer your quesiton.
Not that I don't appreciate your trying to clarify for me, but I don't think that it answers my question. Maybe it convinces me that I misuse the word "evolution" (or misunderstand it?). Maybe it renders the question... well... inappropriate to ask?
That our collective knowledge - not "evolved" intelligence - enables us to develop more knowledge, which eventually enables us to fly to the moon etc. does not answer this: how/why is it that we have the ability (well, and the desire) to acquire this knowledge?
Certainly none of the other species have this ability.
Nor is this ability unlimited. For example, none of us know what it's like to be dead. I am not talking about biochemistry; I mean - can anybody "know" what is it like to not have any thoughts? Why is that one of the things we cannot "know"?
I hesitate about using this as another example, but... why are black holes "protected" by event horizon?
Sooo... why are we capable of both 'wanting' and 'acquiring' this knowledge AND to which extent can it be acquired? I suppose the latter is less possible to answer because - how do you know that you don't know something? But then, again, there are some things that we know we don't know.
Both of you are talking about the lack of need for intelligence to evolve. I suppose I am very far off topic. I ask this: obviously we are "intelligent" (or Xirtameht can put another label on this concept), but why are we as "intelligent" as we are? lol, that's getting pretty deep. "How do we know what we know, how are there things we cannot know, why are there things we know and cannot know..." :)
I was afraid my explanation would be unsatisfactory. It really would take a book to fully address the question, and even then it would be anything but a complete answer.
I think part of it lies in what SoMm and I touched on earlier... due to us being apparently the only intelligent species to have evolved on this planet, we can conclude that, unlike a great many other things, high intelligence is not a route commonly taken in the exploration of evolutionary design space. They eye seems to have evolved independantly several times. Wings - dozens. High intelligence... once.
That seems fairly insightful to me. And it at least begins to address your questions. "Why was advanced intelligence an advantage?" Well, apparently, it usually isn't, which at least confirms that you are in the right ballpark when pondering how it could have been. There are other semians, and species such as dolphins as well, that have enough intelligence to be social creatures and fairly adept at basic problem solving. It would seem that such a level is sufficient in most all cases.
So what happened to us? I think it's probably one of those "cresting the hill" situations... just a little more intelligence creates a cascade or snowball effect until we reach the point where we are today. What was the push that nudged us over the crest? Natural selection, no doubt, though I don't think I can offer a much better explanation of just how that nudge occured than I did previously.
Concerning not being able to know certain things... well, to me that seems natural. The human mind is limited. There are certain things we will likely never truly know. Some are forbidden by logic (for example, it is counter to logic to be able to "remember" what it is like to not have any thoughts, since having thoughts is a prerequisite for remembering them), and others are simply beyond what we are currently programmed for (such as truly envisioning a four-dimensional space). I don't have a problem with this. Though our minds are limited, we can supplement them externally to practically no end. Therefore, humans as a species are not really limited. Originally posted by Xirtameht
I was afraid my explanation would be unsatisfactory. It really would take a book to fully address the question, and even then it would be anything but a complete answer.
Could it be that that's one of those answers that are not available?
And it at least begins to address your questions. "Why was advanced intelligence an advantage?" Well, apparently, it usually isn't
Your post a half a page ago convinced me that that (or something like that) was an inappropriate question to ask. So I revised it to "Why are we as 'intelligent' as we are?"
just a little more intelligence creates a cascade or snowball effect until we reach the point where we are today. What was the push that nudged us over the crest? Natural selection, no doubt
That point was reached thousands of years ago, right? At that time humans already had the capability (intelligence?) to wonder if spacetime is 4 (or more)-dimensional, just not enough "knowledge" to arrive at the question. I suppose that isn’t necessarily something to find... hmmm... wondrous?.. but I still do.
Concerning not being able to know certain things... well, to me that seems natural.
Lucky you! I have a problem with not being able to comprehend infinity. Which makes me wonder - are there other beings (or states of being) that (in which we) can?
lol, that's getting pretty deep
How deep do you NOT want to get?
Moreover, how can you really not expect to get "deep" if you are talking about intelligence, life, and free will? Legend's Heir said something to the effect that intelligence is just a compilation of concepts. Well, when I start breaking it apart, I arrive at the conclusion that brain capacity, knowledge, and the ability to apply the knowledge just don't quite wrap it up. There is still something left about "morality" - whatever that may be, and something that we label as "spirit", and something about the ability to question self-existence, and the choice dilemma, etc. I don't see any compelling reason not to throw the "why are we as intelligent as we are?" into the pile as well. Yes, genetically humans reached our current intellectual capacity thousands upon thousands of years ago. Collectively, our intelligence grows day by day.
Some things are unknowable due to logical constraints. I don't think there are any beings that could truly remember what it was like to be dead. So long as they have the capacity to remember, I wouldn't classify them as dead. If you believe in an afterlife, then perhaps you could argue that someone could "come back" with memories of that afterlife, but then I again wouldn't classify them as dead, but simply transformed into a different form. When you are dead, you are dead. Any mechanisms that allow you to form memories are, by definition, broken.
There are other examples as well. Try to imagine what a circle would look like that had a ratio of C/D of something other than 3.1415... Go ahead - picture it in your mind.
And then there are countless examples of things we don't know because we have no reference. For example, visualizing a four dimensional world. There is no hard proof that our brains lack the flexibility to do this... but we simply have no reference from which to form that visualization. It's very similar to trying to explain to someone blind by birth what the color red looks like. Their brains certainly have the flexibility to comprehend what red looks like, but there is reference from which you can begin explaining it to them.
Infinity... ah, there's an interesting one. Is that just a mathematical concept, or is it a physical reality? There is no proof that anything in the universe will ever be infinite. It is possible that at some distant point in the universe, all of space-time will collapse, and time will cease to exist. The universe, and everything in it could have a finite age. Yanka,
It just struck me that the answer to your question is actually much simpler than I had first thought (certainly not requiring a book to address), and I am quite embarassed that it wasn't immediately obvious to me.
The answer comes from Darwin himself. In "The Descent of Man" he suggested that simply surviving is not the only form of selective pressure by which Natural selection operates. In fact, the complete name of that book gives away the answer - sexual selection.
Why are humans as smart as we are? Does it (or did it) help the species to survive... is it an adaptation to the environment in some form or another? Why didn't all species evolve more intelligence?
How about these parallel questions: Why do peacocks have such extravagant tail feathers? Do they (or did they) help the species to survive... are they an adaptation to the environment in some form or another? Why din't all species evolve such extraordinary displays of feathers?
:)
In fact, those huge tail feathers carry a significant penalty in evolutionary terms, as far as being "fit" for the environment (gathering food, avoiding prey, finding shelter, etc.). They apparently carry a large enough sexual advantage though to offset the excess baggage. It's related to that snowball effect I mentioned... once started down that path, the tail feathers became more and more extravagant. Not all species ever get started down that path. In fact, judging by the ratio of creatures that have some obvious form of sexual display, it isn't exactly a universal evolutionary path to take. And continuing that snowball, human intelligence just happened to not be so horrible of an adaptation after all (it certainly costs more, in terms of calorie intake required to power our brains, but also benefits us in the ability to gather that food and avoid being eaten ourselves). Sexual selection may have been the pressure that started us down the increasing intelligence path, but at some point I imagine the benefits of that intelligence asserted themselves directly in the process of natural selection.
In short... our ability to express ourselves through music, art, and poetry evolved to pick up chicks. Omg, this is so far off topic, it's ridiculous. Concerning infinity - there is an infinity of - for example - wavelengths/frequencies, no? As far as "There is no proof that anything in the universe will ever be infinite". First: if there will be a big crunch, then will it be followed by another bang? I "understand" that "time" will not really be "time", but still - if there are multiple bangs, then how multiple? Second (multiverse aside): If there will be no other "bangs", then what will be? "Nothingness" is as hard for me to comprehend as infinity. If spacetime is finite, then here is the ultimate child's question: what's outside of it?
The "no thoughts" thing. That is just my own twist on Descartes' line. Could it be that "i am" even though I "don't think"? Or - that "I think", but I "am not"? I probably agree with you: the problem is in definitions.
I think that I tick you off by saying that humans are limited. Think about this - we can't even agree on whether there is a spoon. What does "agreement" have to do with this? It's funny that it is those who say that there is no spoon are also the ones that say that the mind must be "expanded" (or whatever the hell it is they say - lol, those are just more concepts I can't comprehend). If you say that there is a spoon, than you are, again, limited (well, I am) because I can't comprehend "nothingness". You know what I mean, or is my logic flawed again? :confused:
EDIT: Oops, just saw your other reply. Must read that now :) Originally posted by yanka
Concerning infinity - there is an infinity of - for example - wavelengths/frequencies, no?Well, maybe... maybe not. If quantum mechanics is correct, as it appears to be (or, at least if something very much like it is correct), then frequencies of anything can only come at discrete intervals as dictated by the quanta of whatever transfers that energy. Light, for example, isn't quite infinitely variable... at a sufficiently small scale there are discrete jumps in frequency due to the limited values of photon energies allowed. So, frequencies come in discrete steps, and zero is a logical lower bound. There may well be a physical (or perhaps even logical) upper bound as well. Perhaps sufficiently high photon energies would rip apart space, making even higher frequencies physically impossible. Who knows? My point was that I couldn't think of a single example of "proof" of an infinity physically existing, as far as matter and energy and space and time are concerned (time is tricky, and depends on how you interpret relativity).
As far as "There is no proof that anything in the universe will ever be infinite". First: if there will be a big crunch, then will it be followed by another bang?Maybe. It is a theory, but there's nothing, so far as we know, that would require another big bang. A big crunch would be in some ways like a massive black hole, except that real black holes slowly radiate energy into the surrounding space; whereas a big crunch would gobble up space-time as well, leaving "nothing" to radiate "anything" into. Once space-time dissapears into a big crunch, there's nothing compelling it to reappear in a new big bang. We like to think that would happen though, as it has a nice ordered or symmetric aspect that is appealing to us.
I should point out though that our best current estimates indicate that space will not collapse into a big crunch, but will instead go on expanding forever. In fact, it looks like it will actually accelerate, though the evidence for that is still a bit tenuous. In that case, there would be a physical embodiment of infinity, in the form of both spatial volume and time. I was just making it clear that, to my knowledge at least, there isn't any proof of an infinity existing.
If spacetime is finite, then here is the ultimate child's question: what's outside of it?Nothing. :p
I think that I tick you off by saying that humans are limited.Oh, not at all. I think humans are limited as well... and have said as much in a thread or two somewhere around here... um, I have no idea where - could be in this thread, dunno. :D It just struck me that the answer to your question is actually much simpler than I had first thought
Lol, the answer is funny, despite seeming terribly chauvinistic. It is also not right, and here is why:
1. Back then, I should have been attracted to a guy who could figure out how to build me a shack or something. There was no reason for him to BE ABLE TO acquire anymore knowledge than this. There was no reason for his competitor to be CAPABLE of understanding quantum mechanics - only to be able to understand how to build a better shack. So, why COULD he? So that now he could patent a particle accelerator and build me a mention? DON'T go back to the "collective intelligence" - that "external" knowledge is collective does not explain why anyone of us has the ability to acquire that knowledge anyway.
2. I think I liked it better when you said that answering "Why are we as intelligent as we are?" is... what?.. hard? impossible? would take too long?
I think we need to stop beating around this bush. I don't even remember what the original point was; do you?
Lol, I did not need you to explain big crunch to me; if you're going to spend time explaining stuff, explain the multiverse! Don't worry, you won't have to write a book - I only have 2 questions (now, at least :D )
Did I say that bangs would have to be multiple, or that a crunch is necessary? I think I said that if there was this oscillation - then how multiple are the "bang-to-crunches"? And I think I grasp why it appears not to be the case - isn't it something about the fudge factor that popped back up because there appears to be a force that overwhelms gravity?
If post-crunch bangs are not multiple, then what? Nothingness. Infinite nothingness.
If there is no crunch, then spacetime is infinite.
No matter what happens, infinity is unavoidable.
I have to read more about frequencies; but that's very weird. If they are finite in number, then what happens to the uncertainty principle?
Oh, and I forgot to "thank" you for throwing that "pi thing" at me; now I won't be able to stop thinking about it! Originally posted by Xirtameht
Well, I suppose every good thread follows a couple of tangents, so we'll explore this evolutionary one for a while... Where would the fun be if you didn’t;) but This will be my last(on evolution) because it drags down the thread. Its also hard to convey more than 10 years of research into a message board.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
I'm not sure if I understand the way you are using the term "random." What makes us alive is not a random interaction of chemicals, molecules, etc. It is highly organized. Further, evolution isn't random either. So, perhaps you should clarify just what "random" is referring to, and what "place" the "answer" would otherwise lead us to.
Evolution Theory, for the most part has always relied upon something other than divine intervention for explaining life’s origin. Have you forgotten the great debates concerning probability? How many computer programs and tests have been performed to show that life came from nature? Random is pretty obvious; it’s either random or controlled. If we entertain the idea of Mother Nature, vital forces, pressures or any other metaphysical then there is no reason to leave out a supreme intelligence. Looking at a single organism which is highly complex and organized is a simple rebuttal to say evolution isn’t random. Looking at the steps required from non living organic compounds changing into single celled organism is a different kind of thing all together.
No person could be convinced that an airplane could be assembled if the parts were left to own on storage shelves. We define intelligence by the separation of organized and chaotic.
Random: 1) Having no specific pattern or purpose: Haphazard.
So what were the processes that led to Abiotic Synthesis? For an old example, what were the driving parameters of Stanley Millers experiment using an electrical charge? Was not the electrical charge…presumed, was not the choice of water, Amino acids and “other” organic compounds based upon a presumption since the real atmospheric conditions outside of the realm of science?
Originally posted by Xirtameht
Yes, I read Michael Behe's book and various shorter editorials and dissertations scattered around the web. I found some of Behe's ideas intriguing and enticing, and many of them lacking and shortsighted.
I saw some points he could have made better, but Behe isn’t a designer of complex systems. Id like to know where you thought he was shortsighted and lacking.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
First, we have to address that "random chance" thing again. Evolution is anything but a "random chance" or "unintelligent luck" process. I think that's a common misconception. While random chance certainly provides the raw material of mutation, that is only half of the equation. Natural selection is not random, and is capable of a tremendous amount of design work.
I glanced over this in the above section and I think the problem is inherent to abiotic synthesis. Its not a common misconception to people outside of Evolutionary Biology. You say that random chance plays a part in providing raw materials for mutation, but mutation is the only source of change. If there is no mutations, there is no source for selection and therefore no change. The sole reason evolutionists changed their stance to “populations evolve” instead of “individuals evolve” was the problem of mutation rates. If the rates have increased in an order of magnitude since the 70’s why were the rates not widely published?
Intelligence either existed before life existed, or intelligence was the result of life. But if life requires intelligence as a creative force then it had to exist before life?
Natural selection is a post process of elimination….the opposite of design.
END OF PART ONE Originally posted by Xirtameht
Yes. While our genetic sequences might be roughly comparable in terms of ordered information storage capacity, the system encoded by those sequences (humans and dogs) are not. Humans have a significantly larger storage capacity in our brains than do dogs, which is a measure of order (or vice versa). That order is expressed as intelligence. Oh…
So the intelligent inorganic compound that developed into the first living compound some how figured out something we haven’t, yet its storage capacity was nearly non existent?
Originally posted by Xirtameht
"God" is, by definition, anti-scientific. Science doesn't lack the tools necessary to describe "God," but rather has no compelling reason to try. SETI
Originally posted by Xirtameht
Tissue damage on a cellular level too extensive to repair or reverse with today's technology and techniques. Is it really that complex? Yeah, its really complex.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
If you're looking for confirmation that life is purely mechanistic, I'm afraid you won't find any evidence here. The simplest organic life-forms are orders of magnitude more complex than the most intricate machines created by humans to date. Is it any surprise that our muckings around in labs haven't produced a new organic life-form from scratch? Further, is the fact that we haven't really proof that it can't be done (which is what you are suggesting)? Was the inability of humans to fly for thousands of years proof that it couldn't be done? Hardly. I’m not suggesting it can’t be done, but I’m trying to inject the idea of increased complexity causes increased improbability. But the idea of mucking around is how you prove your work. If our mucking around has not provided indisputable proof of the exact process that made un-living to living how then can a person say the theory is a fact? Gravity perhaps.
Many of the evolutionists over the last 30 to 40 years in many texts, articles and interviews claimed evolution was purely mechanistic because the alternative was not acceptable.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
Science answers the question of "how." "Why" is something that has to be decided by an individual on a personal level. It's something for philosophers to debate, not for scientists to chase. Some people confuse these two questions. Those two answers are intertwined. But if science still has not figured out how why assert evolution as factual? Why... is often the path to how.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
Designed by what. Though, if you insist on personifying a mechanistic process, I suppose "Mother Nature" is as good a name as any. Evolution is capable of design. Once you accept that, the argument for an "intelligent designer" crumbles.
I asked what, not who…who would be personification.
What so different about mother nature and intelligent designer? I see it difficult to appeal to one metaphysical while excluding another. If evolution is capable of design, and evolution requires intelligence have you not bought into the idea but don’t like to say it? Interesting.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
That a process of evolution created all life on this planet from a branching tree of descent from simpler organisms is as factually supported as the "round Earth" theory, or the "heliocentric" theory. Historical evolution is a fact. The precise mechanisms of just how that evolution occured are still under study. Evolution is not supported by one great link of evidence that, hope against hope, might someday be broken by its opponents, but rather by literally millions of lesser threads of evidence that are being added to and reconfirmed on a daily basis. Evolution is a smorgasbord of loosely constructed theories that give the illusion of one coherent theory. Because of this vast smorgasbord of sub-theories many don’t see the contradictions because each one is viewed as being true based upon analogy rather than science. Yes, there are scientists who are studying and researching whole-heartedly and yet have only scratched the surface of the number of competing theories totally oblivious to it. If evolution were true, wouldn’t there be an obvious predictable outcome? Every year more theories are added to respond to new data, is the definition of what is science going to change again so that you can keep calling it science.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
Again, evolution isn't purely a "random" or "lucky" process.
I could have used this quote in the above sections of discussion, but it fits here too.
“Is life…a product of chance----some fundamentally ‘lucky’ event that happened only because so much time was available? (Given enough time, you will eventually flip 100 heads in a row, however improbable it might be in any one trial.)(Gould, Luria and Singer, 1981, p689, their parenthesis)
If I’m not mistaken, Gould was one of the premier evolutionists in the field of biology. And this thought was echoed by others. Gould also said that “A probability cannot even be calculated for a single occurrence known only after that fact (whereas probabilities could be attached to predictions made at the beginning of a sequence)(Gould, 1991c, p 319)
Originally posted by Xirtameht
[b]In fact, there are plenty of examples of mutation rates well above what would be needed to produce the rate of change we see from fossil evidence. That argument sounds like it was taken directly from a creation website... I've seen it repeated countless times, and it is always just as incorrect.
You mean the examples of the Cambrian Explosion where the fossils suddenly show up with jumps in complexity unparalleled in nature today or the fossils that show the jump from single cell to multi-cell? The reason Gould pushed Punk Eek was because of the fossil record showed big jumps in complexity that was not evident in current mutation rates.
Its not my argument, its from a Evolutionary Biology College text book called “Biology Today, Second Edition”
You see change in fossil evidence, but the rate is purely based upon circular reasoning. You know the one about dating a fossil by the position in the strata and strata dates by the type of fossil discovered in it circle. I feel lame about even typing that.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
Who wins a race? The fastest runner. Who is the fastest runner? The one who wins the race. That doesn't negate the reality that both races and runners exist. It's simply being simplistic and leaving out the important details. Its still a tautology. The tautological anthropic principal no less. Evolution exists because of change, change exists because of evolution, its not explanatory or testable. We have chickens because of eggs and we have eggs because of chickens.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
I wouldn't go looking for something I didn't believe in. I would, however, go looking for something I wasn't sure about, as would any scientist.
So you admit the belief come before…? But I again ask to why SETI was such a huge failure. And why would a scientist use belief as motivation?
Originally posted by Xirtameht
Wow, talk about gross generalizations... and way off the mark to boot. The term "observation" is a red herring here... it's the scientific method you should address, as that encompasses much more than just observation. You were warned about the usage of gross generalizations.
How is observation a herring? The scientific method is not always used and simple observation sometimes is passed as being scientific.
Originally posted by Xirtameht
What if it responded with a statement of equivalent meaning, such as "neither 'yes' nor 'no' is adequate"?I think maybe is more fitting
Originally posted by Xirtameht
It's all about keeping an open mind. With each new thing I learn, there are more doors opened for further learning. However, the possibility always remains that an earlier piece of "knowledge" could be proved to be incorrect, in which case I would likely have the opportunity for much more "new" learning.
Your not a knowledge junky are you?
Well, like I said up front of this post, I won’t drag the thread down with long posts and make it lose any entertainment value it might have had.
Peace,
SoMm Originally posted by yanka
Lol, the answer is funny, despite seeming terribly chauvinistic.Yeah, it does seem that way. Sexual selection is a powerful force though, chauvinistic or not - but I didn't intend it to be any moreso than it has to be. ;)
It is also not right, and here is why:Perhaps it isn't correct. There are certainly a lot of educated scientists and philosophers who would disagree, after all. But a quick search confirmed that my explanation is the mainstream one in the scientific community, and has been since Darwin. It might not be very elegant, or satisfying, but it seems to be the best explanation thus far. If you come up with a revelation here though, I would sure love to be in on it, as would a great many others. There is plenty of room left in the field for new ideas and discovery.
1. Back then, I should have been attracted to a guy who could figure out how to build me a shack or something. There was no reason for him to BE ABLE TO acquire anymore knowledge than this. There was no reason for his competitor to be CAPABLE of understanding quantum mechanics - only to be able to understand how to build a better shack. So, why COULD he? So that now he could patent a particle accelerator and build me a mention? DON'T go back to the "collective intelligence" - that "external" knowledge is collective does not explain why anyone of us has the ability to acquire that knowledge anyway.Hmm... well, you're not going to like this response. But going back to the peacock, there is no survival advantage as far as food, predation, or shelter for those haughty feathers. Why would the female not select a mate based on his egg tending abilities instead of his tail feathers? The conventional explanation is that, since such a display carries penalties to the male in terms of energy requirement, reduced ability to avoid prey, etc., then it is also a display of fitness. From the female's point of view, any male that can survive with such ridiculous feathers must be one tough dude (right or not).
Extending that idea, human intelligence could have began as a display of fitness instead of an actual adaptation to the environment (that is, if you exclude females as being part of the environment... I tend to think of it as one big process, but typically scientists differentiate selection pressures from the inanimate environment and selection pressure from peers). Human intelligence is perplexing, though, because it isn't just a display. There's nothing in the environment that demands us to be capable of art, poetry, etc., yet the very intelligence that gives us those abilities also allowed us to construct better tools, shelter, weapons, etc. And now it allows us to solidify our position of dominance on the planet.
Weird. I'll have to do some more thinking about this. Again though, my explanation four posts ago is the modern view... for better or worse.
I don't even remember what the original point was; do you?I don't have a clue, and I think that's great! :D
if you're going to spend time explaining stuff, explain the multiverse! Don't worry, you won't have to write a book - I only have 2 questions (now, at least :D )Sorry for overexplaining some things. I never know on what level to address people I don't know that well, so I tend to just type out everything I'm thinking, including some basic explanations. Ignore those parts and assume that someone, somewhere, benefitted from reading it. ;) I do intend to make a thread on the multiverse at some point, but I've been busy and I want to collect my thoughts on the subject first. It might be a bit disappointing though... I can explain the various ideas scientists currently have about the multiverse, but I have several questions of my own.
I think I said that if there was this oscillation - then how multiple are the "bang-to-crunches"?As counter to "elegance" as it might seem, there's no hard reason for the all the physical constants to be the same from one oscillation to the next. I.e., the universe could collapse and rebound this time, and the next, and the next, but that third time by chance (or otherwise?) the constants just happened to be such that it expanded forever, or that it stayed collapsed and didn't rebound. Cyclical seems more pleasing, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I think my point got lost somewhere in the shuffle. There may be (in the future) examples of physical infinities (you might be right... in one way or another, perhaps there has to be some embodiment of infinity), but to this point in time I don't think there are any. I find that very intriguing, that's all. And, I think it answers the question of why our brains can't really fathom infinity - it goes back to the reference problem: we've never experience it, so we have no reference for it. AFAICT, nothing has yet experienced it.
"Infinite nothingness" - I like that though. :)
I have to read more about frequencies; but that's very weird. If they are finite in number, then what happens to the uncertainty principle?The uncertainty principle is intricately related to the reason frequencies are (I think) finite. The relationship is by way of planck's constant, which is a physical result of uncertainty. The planck energy defines the smallest discrete jump a frequency can take (and I think you'd find that the planck distance would give the same result related to wavelength). Again, I think that there is probably an upper limit to EM energy, but I can't say that for certain, nor can I offer any proof of that at the moment.
Oh, and I forgot to "thank" you for throwing that "pi thing" at me; now I won't be able to stop thinking about it! lol, I spent half an hour at work today trying to visualize that myself after suggesting it. I didn't have too much luck. :D Originally posted by Son of Mixerman
Random is pretty obvious; it’s either random or controlled.Something tells me that we will never reconcile this point of contention. Evolution has two parts: random generation of mutations, and non-random selection of the resulting structures. That non-random part can be non-random without intelligent control. I don't think anything I or anyone else says will convince you of that though. So be it.
If we entertain the idea of Mother Nature, vital forces, pressures or any other metaphysical then there is no reason to leave out a supreme intelligence.Mother Nature isn't metaphysical, it's metaphorical. And there is a good reason to leave out a supreme intelligence... unlike natural selection, it doesn't explain anything.
No person could be convinced that an airplane could be assembled if the parts were left to own on storage shelves.And no person should ever suggest that evolution is anything remotely resembling that analogy.
For an old example, what were the driving parameters of Stanley Millers experiment using an electrical charge?Miller's experiement wasn't some "proof" like the critics imagine it was claimed to be. It was one simple experiement (well, a simple series at least) that offered evidence that one small piece of the puzzle could be explained in mechanistic terms. That organic molecules were created in a day simply says "it might could happen." Nothing more, nothing less. Some people read way too much into those experiments. Yes, there were assumptions made, but that doens't change anything. Stanley didn't claim that his jar contained exactly the same atmosphere as the early Earth did, but simply that if organic molecules could be created in his atmosphere, perhaps they could be created in others as well.
I saw some points he could have made better, but Behe isn’t a designer of complex systems. Id like to know where you thought he was shortsighted and lacking.Even without an extensive background in biochemistry and anatomy, I spotted more than one "irreducibly complex" system mentioned that could have been reduced further. Others more knowledgeable than myself have made much more in depth analyses of his examples than I could.
If there is no mutations, there is no source for selection and therefore no change. The sole reason evolutionists changed their stance to “populations evolve” instead of “individuals evolve” was the problem of mutation rates. If the rates have increased in an order of magnitude since the 70’s why were the rates not widely published?Look at bacterial and viral mutation rates, for one example. Staggering. Look at selective breeding of pigeons or dogs. In all the research I've done in the past several years, I've never seen any indication that mutation rates are a serious problem for evolution. On the contrary... I've seen referenced multiple times that it is a wonder how stagnant evolution can be. Unbridled, evolution can make the Cambrian explosion look like child's play. What most people seem to miss is that natural selection almost always plays the role of a brake in the process, slowing down the untamed mutation rate. The raw material is there, you can be sure of that.
Intelligence either existed before life existed, or intelligence was the result of life. But if life requires intelligence as a creative force then it had to exist before life?I like the second option. :) There is no intelligence required as a creative force.
Natural selection is a post process of elimination….the opposite of design.Design can be made unintelligently, but it is still design. We are talking about very small steps after all.
Oh… So the intelligent inorganic compound that developed into the first living compound some how figured out something we haven’t, yet its storage capacity was nearly non existent?Figured out? That implies that the organism actively directed its own evolution. It didn't.
SETII fail to see how the search for aliens is related to explanaing God. ??
Yeah, its really complex.In outline, such as I gave previously, it is fairly simple. Missing details don't invalidate the outline, and we actually know quite a lot of the details in this case.
I’m not suggesting it can’t be done, but I’m trying to inject the idea of increased complexity causes increased improbability.Don't get too carried away with the current complexity of some life forms. Evolution works one step at a time... very small amounts of complexity tackled in each step.
But the idea of mucking around is how you prove your work. If our mucking around has not provided indisputable proof of the exact process that made un-living to living how then can a person say the theory is a fact?There are two facets of evolution. (1) Historical evolution, as evidenced by the fossil record, indicates that some process of evolution created all life on this planet. Fact. (2) Biological evolution is the search for all the various mechanisms of how that process works. Multiple theories
Those two answers are intertwined. But if science still has not figured out how why assert evolution as factual? Why... is often the path to how.You watch Houdini escape from chains. You witness that it happened. It is a fact. How did he do it? Do you know? Does not knowing change the fact that he did? Are you required to figure out how a magician creates an illusion before you tell your friends that he in fact created an illusion?
Why did Houdini escape? Why did he chain himself in the first place? Those are entirely different questions than how, and are not the pursuit of science.
I asked what, not who…who would be personification.You asked, and I quote, "Designed by who?"
What so different about mother nature and intelligent designer?Everything.
I see it difficult to appeal to one metaphysical while excluding another. If evolution is capable of design, and evolution requires intelligence have you not bought into the idea but don’t like to say it? Interesting.Back to that first irreconcilable difference of opinion. Evolution is capable of design, but doesn't require intelligence to accomplish that design. I don't have a problem with that, you do. And the world grand? :D
If evolution were true, wouldn’t there be an obvious predictable outcome?If you mean an "obvious predictable outcome" as in humans or some other organism that is the "ultimate product" or the "end goal" of evolution, then the answer is obviously "no." We were by no means guaranteed by evolution. No species is. Chance does play a large role, remember. BTW, it is that role of chance that Gould was addressing.
You mean the examples of the Cambrian Explosion where the fossils suddenly show up with jumps in complexity unparalleled in nature today or the fossils that show the jump from single cell to multi-cell?Yes, Cambrian Explosion included. You have to remember that a "jump" is glacial in time on our scale, but yet a blink in the fossil record. Were mice to be bred for size, at a rate so small that scientists couldn't measure the average increase in size from one generation to the next with the best available equipment, you could still get an elephant sized mouse in such a short length of time that, in the fossil record, the small and elephant sized species would appear to have coexisted. The Cambrian Explosion is amazing, but it isn't a mystery.
You see change in fossil evidence, but the rate is purely based upon circular reasoning. You know the one about dating a fossil by the position in the strata and strata dates by the type of fossil discovered in it circle. I feel lame about even typing that.You should, since that isn't how dating works. There do exist methods of dating rock strata that don't rely on organic material. They rely on nothing other than the assumption that the laws of physics were the same millions/billions of years ago as they are today, which is supported by a wide variety of astronomical/cosmological observations.
Its still a tautology. The tautological anthropic principal no less. Evolution exists because of change, change exists because of evolution, its not explanatory or testable. We have chickens because of eggs and we have eggs because of chickens.You're mixing definitions to create the tautology. Evolution is both the result (change) and the process (change), since the word has multiple definitions. If you want real explanatory power, use the correct terms: change exists because of mutation, accumulation of change exists because of selection. Evolution is the combined process. No tautology.
Besides, and I can't resists... how does throwing an omnipotent being into the mix, which himself now requires some explanation of origin, explain anything?
I think maybe is more fitting.Ah! Almost back on topic. :) You explicitly definied "maybe" as not being a part of the machine's vocabulary. What an odd requirement to place on the machine as a demonstration of intelligence... using a term not in its vocabulary. It's like declaring that if you can't respond to this post in ancient Sumarian, then you're not intelligent, even if you could have responded with equivalent meaning using different terms. If the machine could experess the meaning of "maybe," then it doesn't matter what terms it uses. Originally posted by Xirtameht
If you come up with a revelation here though, I would sure love to be in on it, as would a great many others.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but still... are you kidding me? I don't think I have overstated my case in any way - that you would be able to explain to the catapult guy WHY his catapult works is a mystery - to me. Which question are you addressing - is it "was advanced intelligence an advantage"? If it's that... I have no room to speak. I am convinced that life developed according to Darwin, but, given my lack of knowledge on the subject, I would not dare make a fool of myself by arguing (nor do I have any reason to).
However, the "dominance" thing... Are we really dominant on this planet? I'd say the planet's dominance is much more likely; that is why I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find those intelligence phases.
If, on the other hand, you are addressing "why are we as intelligent as we ARE?" - then I'm sorry - I fail to understand your (or the scientifically accepted) answer.
There may be (in the future) examples of physical infinities.., but to this point in time I don't think there are any
If you're talking about spacetime events, then "to this point in time" there cannot be any examples of anything "infinite" - because, if we had such examples, they would have been, by definition, finite. All examples would always be in the future. This spacetime - it seems - STARTED; and as it has a start (first point on the line), then if we had an example (2nd point on the line), it would have had to have occured - and then it would have been finite! That is counter-definitive (here it is again; apparently, I also don't know how to spell 'mansion').
And, I think it answers the question of why our brains can't really fathom infinity - it goes back to the reference problem: we've never experience it, so we have no reference for it. AFAICT, nothing has yet experienced it.
So, as far as "reference problem" of infinity - there is none. To have one (reference, that is) would be to have "experienced" something infinite - which would immediately render that "something" finite.
Nothing has experienced it? I do not subscribe to any kind of monotheism, but I cannot rule out the possibility that something has experienced it. It seems that - logically - that something (if there is a "something") would necessarily transcend our spacetime - because in our spacetime (or is it in our "understanding"?) infinity is infinite, and, therefore, cannot be experienced.
About multiverse - please don't feel like you have to prepare yourself for a battle :) I have 2 VERY simple questions - I'm sure you can easily handle them; I just don't want to impose. Originally posted by yanka
However, the "dominance" thing... Are we really dominant on this planet? I'd say the planet's dominance is much more likely; that is why I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find those intelligence phases.I simply meant that out of all the species on the planet, I think we can rightfully call ourselves the donminant one.
If, on the other hand, you are addressing "why are we as intelligent as we ARE?" - then I'm sorry - I fail to understand your (or the scientifically accepted) answer.I guess to me it's no different than addressing "why are the peacock's feathers as colorful as the ARE?" Like a great many other things, we know the story in outline but weren't there to witness many of the plot twists and turns.
If you're talking about spacetime events, then "to this point in time" there cannot be any examples of anything "infinite" - because, if we had such examples, they would have been, by definition, finite.Well, I'll contradict myself here and say that there could be an example of intinity right now. If the universe isn't closed, then it takes a hyperbolic shape and is infinite (I believe) in volume and size. A hypersphere can be finite but unbounded, but I don't think a saddle-shaped universe can be. It must be infinite, and evidence suggests that is the case. Again, I just find it intriguing that there isn't any proof of a physical infinity yet. Black holes were once thought to be such examples, but we now know they're not.
So, as far as "reference problem" of infinity - there is none. To have one (reference, that is) would be to have "experienced" something infinite - which would immediately render that "something" finite.In the way I was using it, the "reference problem" is simply that there is no reference. But you could be right... understanding infinity could be more like understanding death than understanding a four dimensional volume; the problem could be a logical barrier and not one of reference.
About multiverse - please don't feel like you have to prepare yourself for a battle :) I have 2 VERY simple questions - I'm sure you can easily handle them; I just don't want to impose. Then fire away. :) I guess to me it's no different than addressing "why are the peacock's feathers as colorful as the ARE?"
Lol, I think I'll let this horse die (reluctantly, though). For the record, I don't think the theory itself is chauvinistic - I was referring to your "picking up chicks" remark.
Again, I just find it intriguing that there isn't any proof of a physical infinity yet.
OK, I understand now what you mean; agreed.
I can't think of any smooth transition, so here you go.
1. Why does our bubble have to be 14 billion ly in size? This is how far away the objects (?) whose light is now reaching us as microwave radiation are. I understand that the light from the objects that are farther away than that has not reached us yet, but when it does - what? - the size of the bubble will grow? Conversely, a billion years ago the bubble was 13 billion ly in size? That does not jive.
Just in case, none of this is addressing expansion yet. This does:
The farthest that we can observe is currently about 4X10^26 meters, or 42 billion light-years - the distance that light has been able to travel since the big bang began. (The distance is greater than 14 billion light-years because cosmic expansion has lengthened distances.) taken from here (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000)
So, even taking the expansion into account, the point of reference is still the "observable" bubble. But why?
The universe's age is estimated to be between 10 and 20 billion years. Let's say it's 14. THAT should be the size (well, plus expansion) - but then why refer to |