What is intelligence, design, cause?

[cloudyday2]

I thought it might be interesting to discuss the meaning of "intelligence", "design", and "causes"? As I have thought about these words, I have realized that they seem hard to fine - kind of like defining "beautiful". They are fundamental to the Intelligent Design argument for Deism, so they need workable definitions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I thought it might be interesting to discuss the meaning of "intelligence", "design", and "causes"? As I have thought about these words, I have realized that they seem hard to fine - kind of like defining "beautiful". They are fundamental to the Intelligent Design argument for Deism, so they need workable definitions.

Shouldn't this be in the evolution/creation forum?

 

[cloudyday2]

Shouldn't this be in the evolution/creation forum?

I don't think so, because the evolution vs. creation debate is only one application of Intelligent Design reasoning. For example, Intelligent Design is applied to cosmology when theists argue that the perfect harmony of the universal physical constants imply the existence of a Creator.

I want to talk about the definitions of "intelligent", "design", and "cause". The difficulty defining these terms suggests that any reasoning that utilizes them is like a house built on sand. This applies to Intelligent Design, First Cause, etc. IMO

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think so, because the evolution vs. creation debate is only one application of Intelligent Design reasoning. For example, Intelligent Design is applied to cosmology when theists argue that the perfect harmony of the universal physical constants imply the existence of a Creator.

I want to talk about the definitions of "intelligent", "design", and "cause". The difficulty defining these terms suggests that any reasoning that utilizes them is like a house built on sand. This applies to Intelligent Design, First Cause, etc. IMO

Ok. So what are your definitions of intelligent, design, and cause?

 

[cloudyday2]

Ok. So what are your definitions of intelligent, design, and cause?

I don't have good definitions, but I will offer some thoughts on each:

INTELLIGENT
To a metaphysical naturalist, a human brain is simply a mechanism. A brain does things just like a volcano does things. What makes a painting intelligent and a lava flow unintelligent?

DESIGN
For design to work there must be a goal. Nature has no goal. We humans believe we have goals and design things, but are we actually any different than moss growing on a tree? Does the moss have a goal to grow on the shady side of the tree? Does the moss design?

CAUSE
Imagine a cannon ball traveling on a trajectory and impacting on a castle wall. What is the cause of the impact on the castle wall? An equation defines every point in the trajectory. Does the past cause the future or does the future cause the past? Of course there is an arrow of time connected to entropy and so forth, but it seems to me that "cause" loses all meaning when we apply to a reality before the universe existed. The First Cause argument doesn't work for this reason IMO.

So those are my thoughts. I'm curious what others think.

 

[ChetSinger]

The subject of intelligence is of interest to computer scientists. For example, what is an "intelligent" computer?

I think an aspect of intelligence is self-awareness. We all know we exist. I'm also convinced that higher mammals such as dogs, cats, horses, etc. know they exist. Insects, I'm not sure. Lava flows, nah.

 

[DogmaHunter]

INTELLIGENCE
I'ld say that "intelligence" is about having an ability to reason and learn. This makes "intelligence" a property of something, and not a thing on its own. There is thus no such thing as "an intelligence", just like there is no such thing as "a blue" or "a bitter". Rather, it's a property of something. This thing can be a human brain, or a computer or alike.
That also seems pretty consistent with our observations. Things that have the property "intelligent", are always physical objects with some kind of physical mechanism that produces the intelligence, like neural networks.

DESIGN
This is a rather ambigous term. There are 2 kinds of "design" imo. Natural design and artificial design. Natural design would be some, or any, "orderly" thing that was produced by, or was the result of, the forces of nature. Like a snowflake, a crystal, sand ripples, spherical planets, a nervous system, etc.

Then there is "artificial design". This would be something created by a thing with a certain level of intelligence. Like a car, a house or a robot.

The way to differentiate both would be a combination of knowing what the forces of nature are capable of on the one hand and having knowledge about manufacturing processes on the other. This is, for example, how geologist are capable of differentiating natural landscapes from artificial ones.


CAUSE
A cause is anything that produces an effect. This is a temporal phenomena. First a cause happens, then afterwards the effect takes place. Therefor, for causality to apply, a time dimension must exist. This is why talking about the "cause" of the universe is a nonsensical concept, since that would require something to happen "before" time itself existed.

 

[cloudyday2]

INTELLIGENCE
I'ld say that "intelligence" is about having an ability to reason and learn. This makes "intelligence" a property of something, and not a thing on its own. There is thus no such thing as "an intelligence", just like there is no such thing as "a blue" or "a bitter". Rather, it's a property of something. This thing can be a human brain, or a computer or alike.
That also seems pretty consistent with our observations. Things that have the property "intelligent", are always physical objects with some kind of physical mechanism that produces the intelligence, like neural networks.

DESIGN
This is a rather ambigous term. There are 2 kinds of "design" imo. Natural design and artificial design. Natural design would be some, or any, "orderly" thing that was produced by, or was the result of, the forces of nature. Like a snowflake, a crystal, sand ripples, spherical planets, a nervous system, etc.

Then there is "artificial design". This would be something created by a thing with a certain level of intelligence. Like a car, a house or a robot.

The way to differentiate both would be a combination of knowing what the forces of nature are capable of on the one hand and having knowledge about manufacturing processes on the other. This is, for example, how geologist are capable of differentiating natural landscapes from artificial ones.


CAUSE
A cause is anything that produces an effect. This is a temporal phenomena. First a cause happens, then afterwards the effect takes place. Therefor, for causality to apply, a time dimension must exist. This is why talking about the "cause" of the universe is a nonsensical concept, since that would require something to happen "before" time itself existed.

I totally agree with you, @DogmaHunter - especially about causality.
I might add that a definition of a "designed" object would be something that can be described by a mathematical equation. For example, a spring in a watch looks like a spiral. A planet looks like a sphere. A snowflake has symmetry and looks like a fractal. The equation is connected with some physical law that constrained the object.

 

[dcalling]

INTELLIGENCE
I'ld say that "intelligence" is about having an ability to reason and learn. This makes "intelligence" a property of something, and not a thing on its own. There is thus no such thing as "an intelligence", just like there is no such thing as "a blue" or "a bitter". Rather, it's a property of something. This thing can be a human brain, or a computer or alike.
That also seems pretty consistent with our observations. Things that have the property "intelligent", are always physical objects with some kind of physical mechanism that produces the intelligence, like neural networks.

The ability to learn is a intelligence of a lower level. For example machine learning, I can design a program with a model, feeding it data and the behavior of the model changes based on the data.

Real intelligence shows itself as the force of creation. i.e. we use FFT to compress sound, use electric to drive motors. In that sense computers are never really intelligent because they can't create. All they do is number crunching, and appears to be intelligent because of some clever program designed by us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The ability to learn is a intelligence of a lower level. For example machine learning, I can design a program with a model, feeding it data and the behavior of the model changes based on the data.

Real intelligence shows itself as the force of creation. i.e. we use FFT to compress sound, use electric to drive motors. In that sense computers are never really intelligent because they can't create. All they do is number crunching, and appears to be intelligent because of some clever program designed by us.

All your brain does is process input as well. How is that any different from a computer that uses neural networks, or alike, to "learn"?

Machine learning is not anywhere near the capacities of a human brain, sure.
But the principles are the same.

We don't have the technology capable of it yet, but it certainly is in principle possible to build a computer that will far surpass the capacities of the human brain.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I thought it might be interesting to discuss the meaning of "intelligence", "design", and "causes"?

Intelligence refers to the ability to mentally grasp something using the power of abstract reasoning.

Design is suggestive of Aristotle's final causation, though it is normally thought of as resulting from an intelligent mind. If something is designed, that means that an intelligent being had created that something with the goal (the form of that something) in mind. It can't just be the result of unintelligent natural processes.

Causes are explanations for a state of affairs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

A cause is anything that produces an effect.

Unfortunately, that's a circular definition, because an effect is defined as the result of a cause.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

INTELLIGENT
To a metaphysical naturalist, a human brain is simply a mechanism.

It may be a mechanism, but it is not "simply" a mechanism. It is a very special sort of mechanism.

A brain does things just like a volcano does things.

Like erupt with lava?

Anything "does things", but that doesn't make intelligence indistinguishable from other "doings".

What makes a painting intelligent and a lava flow unintelligent?

Lava flows do not act with an end in mind. Paintings are the result of acting with an end in mind. When Leonardo da Vinci finished the Mona Lisa, it's not like the result was a complete surprise to him. At some point along his work on the painting, he knew what he intended to create and sought to create just that.

What you are presenting is a straw man of naturalism.

DESIGN
For design to work there must be a goal. Nature has no goal. We humans believe we have goals and design things, but are we actually any different than moss growing on a tree?

Yes, we are. And we have proven this throughout our history with our technology and our creations.

Does the moss have a goal to grow on the shady side of the tree? Does the moss design?

No, moss does not design because it can't model reality. Moss is very much unlike Leonardo da Vinci.

CAUSE
Imagine a cannon ball traveling on a trajectory and impacting on a castle wall. What is the cause of the impact on the castle wall? An equation defines every point in the trajectory. Does the past cause the future or does the future cause the past?

A cause is an explanation for the cannon ball striking the castle wall. The explanation is someone firing a cannon, and gravity doing the rest. There's no need to over-complicate that.

Of course there is an arrow of time connected to entropy and so forth, but it seems to me that "cause" loses all meaning when we apply to a reality before the universe existed. The First Cause argument doesn't work for this reason IMO.

Cause doesn't lose meaning if there actually is an explanation for the existence of the universe prior to the universe. Of course, if there is no "prior" to the universe, cause does lose all meaning in that context.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

Intelligence refers to the ability to mentally grasp something using the power of abstract reasoning.

Design is suggestive of Aristotle's final causation, though it is normally thought of as resulting from an intelligent mind. If something is designed, that means that an intelligent being had created that something with the goal (the form of that something) in mind. It can't just be the result of unintelligent natural processes.

Causes are explanations for a state of affairs.

Yes this.^ For the fun of it I checked the etymology of the word intelligence. It has to do with understanding, comprehension, discernment, etc., not just doing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I thought it might be interesting to discuss the meaning of "intelligence", "design", and "causes"? As I have thought about these words, I have realized that they seem hard to fine - kind of like defining "beautiful". They are fundamental to the Intelligent Design argument for Deism, so they need workable definitions.

It's even more difficult if, for example, you see "design" in everything.

 

[dcalling]

All your brain does is process input as well. How is that any different from a computer that uses neural networks, or alike, to "learn"?

If you ever study neural networks, you will know it is all fake, it is just like any other program. The so called training is accumulate data for your algorithm, nothing creative about it. It can't create anything that is out of your design parameters.

Machine learning is not anywhere near the capacities of a human brain, sure.
But the principles are the same.

We don't have the technology capable of it yet, but it certainly is in principle possible to build a computer that will far surpass the capacities of the human brain.

Same as above. You can build a computer that suprass some part of human brain capacity (speed, memory etc), but not the creative design process. That is why you will never see computers replace humans in certain areas, even the coolest games became dual after some time, unless it has a human opponent.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you ever study neural networks, you will know it is all fake, it is just like any other program. The so called training is accumulate data for your algorithm, nothing creative about it. It can't create anything that is out of your design parameters.

The same goes for your brain.
The potential of your brain is limited, simply because it, as a physical structure, is also limited.

Same as above. You can build a computer that suprass some part of human brain capacity (speed, memory etc), but not the creative design process.

And you have determined this, how exactly?

That is why you will never see computers replace humans in certain areas, even the coolest games became dual after some time, unless it has a human opponent.

Unlike you, I'm a bit more careful when making absolute truth-claims about stuff that we, in reality, don't know about.

While machine learning is currently limited by our technology and general know-how, I don't see how it is, in principle, "impossible" to have it achieve brain-like abilities and/or potential and even beyond.

That's just your assertion, which remains unsupported.

 

[dcalling]

The same goes for your brain.
The potential of your brain is limited, simply because it, as a physical structure, is also limited.

The brain is limited, but the computer and software are even more limited, they can't create.

And you have determined this, how exactly?

No one has come up with a process of creation. This model does not exist. Humans are the smartest kind on earth, we created things that nature can't create in millions of years. We come up with advanced models that way before computer exists, most can't be used without computers (think about that, fratuals, FFT, convolution etc), they shine with the help of computers because of speed, we come up with the models. And no one can come up with a model of creation.

Unlike you, I'm a bit more careful when making absolute truth-claims about stuff that we, in reality, don't know about.

While machine learning is currently limited by our technology and general know-how, I don't see how it is, in principle, "impossible" to have it achieve brain-like abilities and/or potential and even beyond.

That's just your assertion, which remains unsupported.

Maybe you are right. I would suggest you to study a computer language, and make a decision yourself. Either you found out that you solved the age old mystery, or you found out you got fooled by the sify channel

EDIT:Just saw your name, "code monkey", I guess you are a software engineer as well What do you do? What language you usually use? You might want to study neural network a bit, most of my friends in those fields come to the same conclusion as me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No one has come up with a process of creation. This model does not exist.

This isn't actually true.
But let's assume it is.

In that case, you are making a ginormous argument from ignorance, right out the gates.

Maybe you are right. I would suggest you to study a computer language, and make a decision yourself.

Hi. I'm a professional software engineer and have been doing that for a living for almost 13 years now.

EDIT:Just saw your name, "code monkey", I guess you are a software engineer as well What do you do? What language you usually use?

Primarily .NET and the closest I've been, profesionally, to anything remotely connected to machine learning, are genetic algoritms.

You might want to study neural network a bit, most of my friends in those fields come to the same conclusion as me.

Then your friends also engage in arguments from ignorance.

 

[dcalling]

This isn't actually true.
But let's assume it is.
In that case, you are making a ginormous argument from ignorance, right out the gates.

Your statement does not even make sense.

If my statement is not true, can you give me one example of computer actually created something?

Hi. I'm a professional software engineer and have been doing that for a living for almost 13 years now.

I find it amazing that after 13 years you are still in the dark. I am also a software engineer and doing it a bit longer, I come to the realization that computers will never be as creative as us or be self aware as us back when I was doing my masters.

Primarily .NET and the closest I've been, profesionally, to anything remotely connected to machine learning, are genetic algoritms.

So you are interested in machine learning What are the things in common of machine learning? Do you see anything in machine learning that could lead to computers been creative (when i say creative, I mean something that is out of the bound of the original model, not something in the order of google's computer dream).