Intelligent Design - theory, examples, implications

[TeleMad]

I see no time when mechanics could be used to represent any level of intelligence.

 

What about a computer that can defeat the greatest human chess player that ever lived? Was there some spirit floating around inside the CPU?

[TeleMad]

blah blah blah...

 

Please demonstrate that brains cannot evolve enough complexity to pass a threshold of neural complexity that would possess intelligence. Until you do that, you're whole argument is baseless.

[James Putnam]

No, the question for evolution is NOT why. WHY is a metaphysical, philosophical concept. Evolution is science: it deals with HOW.

 

I should have used the word how. Evolution does not deal with how any more than does mechanical theory. We see parts. We see that parts fit together. We see that parts function. We do not know how they fit together. We do not know how they function. We see what happens, but do not know how anything happens.

 

James

[TeleMad]

I should have used the word how. Evolution does not deal with how any more than does mechanical theory.

 

Okay, so you don't know science. I'm getting a clearer and clearer picture of you.

 

James Putnam: We see parts. We see that parts fit together. We see that parts function. We do not know how they fit together.

 

Do you ever listen to yourself talk? You make no sense.

 

James Putnam: We do not know how they function. We see what happens, but do not know how anything happens.

 

YOU may not, WE do.

[James Putnam]

Let's see, dolphins can't predict the emergence of life and intelligence, therefore dolphins have been disproved. Let's see, Einstein's theory of special relativity can't predict the emergence of life and intelligence, therefore special relativiy has been disproved.

 

Okay, enough of looking at the statement in isolation.

 

Your larger argument is that intelligence must have existed before the universe because evolution cann't predict the emergence of intelligence. Well, evolution cannot predict the emergence of eyes either, so eyes must have existed before the universe. Hey, you know what, evolution can't predict the emergence of humans either, so I guess humans existed before the universe.

 

I say there is nothing we have learned by scientific means that predicts the emergence of intelligence. Evolution is about results and not prediction. Evolution does not predict the emergence of anything. I say evolution uses intelligence, but is not the cause of intelligence.

 

James

[TeleMad]

I say there is nothing we have learned by scientific means that predicts the emergence of intelligence.

 

That's great, now back it up.

 

James Putnam: Evolution is about results and not prediction. Evolution does not predict the emergence of anything.

 

And yet evolution DID produce a new species of hemp nettle...even though evolution did not predict that that new species would emerge. Your argument makes no sense.

 

And I'm not the only one who thinks that. I watched for days as you, in another thread about the universe, spun your wheels endlessly as no one agreed with you: heck, no one could even understand you. You even acknowledge this...

 

James Putnam: I seem to be struggling with making my case. This point I am making seems so clear to me that I may not be anticipating that it could seem obscure to others.

 

The discussion went nowhere and everyone lost interest. Same will happen here because of you.

[James Putnam]

What about a computer that can defeat the greatest human chess player that ever lived? Was there some spirit floating around inside the CPU?

 

Computers can mathematically evaluate and assign numerical values to variations of chess positions. One advantage is that it will not make tactical blunders. Another is it can retain a great amount of book moves in great depth. More than can a human. Now that computer style chess has a history and track record, the chess master can beat it. The chess master detects programmed preferences and takes advantage of them. The chess master takes the computer out of book moves early. The computer is then left with preprogrammed decision making. The transition from book moves to programmed evaluation can be seen in the time required for the computer to make its move. Book moves are immediate. The computer slows down greatly for programmed decision making about non book positions. The moves of the computer can be anticipated. The chess master can create positions that look favorable as determined by its human programmers, but contain opportunities unseen by the programmers. If the chess master is a superior chess player over those who developed the computer program, then the master can and does win. The chess master is playing against the skill of the programmers and the lack of blunders by the computer.

 

The computer knows nothing and understands nothing. It has no level of intelligence. All activity inside its processor and memory involves the change of position of charged particles of matter. They move here, they move there. In the end, the computer is compelled to perform a mechanical function that has no meaning except in the mind of the intelligent observer.

 

James

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

blah blah blah...

 

Bye bye bye

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

blah blah blah...

 

Bye bye bye

 

That's impossible! You just made a post that wasn't overly long, overly boring, and completely incomprehensible! Congratulations!

[Queso]

Congrats from me too. :cup:

[TeleMad]

Now that computer style chess has a history and track record, the chess master can beat it.

 

Uhm, no. Any one can buy a chess program for about $25 that can EASILY beat masters.

 

The chess master takes the computer out of book moves early.

 

Nope. That USED to work against the older computers. Newer programs have all viable openings stored in an internal database: even offbeat moves like 1. NC3, 1. b4, 1. g4, etc. The only way to get out of book early against a computer these days is to make a very bad move.

 

James Putnam: The computer is then left with preprogrammed decision making.

 

You mean like the preprogrammed decision making humans use?

 

James Putnam: The transition from book moves to programmed evaluation can be seen in the time required for the computer to make its move. Book moves are immediate. The computer slows down greatly for programmed decision making about non book positions.

 

Irrelevant. A HUMAN's speed of play also slows once out of book. An opponent and I, who hadn't played each other before, played the first 17 moves (34 plies) of a Sicilian Dragon, Yugoslave Attack, Soltis variation, game in a matter of seconds...because we were still in book. Once his book knowledge ran out, then he had to start taking minutes per move.

 

James Putnam: The moves of the computer can be anticipated.

 

The moves of a human can be anticipated.

 

Really, you're just talking for the sake of talkin, aren't you. You have no valid point you're making, just blabbering away aimlessly.

 

James Putnam: The chess master can create positions that look favorable as determined by its human programmers, but contain opportunities unseen by the programmers.

 

A chess computer can create positions that look favorable to its opponent, but hide a very deep trap.

 

James Putnam: If the chess master is a superior chess player over those who developed the computer program, then the master can and does win.

 

WRONG! Kasparov was the strongest player in the world. No one writing software could be stronger than him. Yet he lost to the computer.

[TeleMad]

James Putnam:The computer knows nothing and understands nothing.

 

A chess computer knows the rules of chess, the position of the pieces, whether it is ahead or behind in matieral, as well as tempo, sacrifice, control of the center, and the different objectives of the opening, middle game, and end game, and when to switch between them.

 

James Putnam: It has no level of intelligence.

 

Yes it does. From Websters:

 

"intelligence ... the ability to learn or understand or deal with new or trying situations"

 

There are chess computers that learn from their mistakes and any chess computer constantly finds itself in new and trying situations that it is able to handle appropriately. Webster's also says:

 

"INTELLIGENT stresses success in coping with new situations and solving problems.

 

Exactly what a chess computer excels at.

 

James Putnam: All activity inside its processor and memory involves the change of position of charged particles of matter.

 

All activity inside the brain, including memory, is caused by the change of position of charged particles of matter.

 

James Putnam: In the end, the computer is compelled to perform a mechanical function that has no meaning except in the mind of the intelligent observer.

 

In the end, a human playing chess is compelled to perform a mechanical function that has no meaning except in the mind of the intelligent observers.

[pgrmdave]

It has no level of intelligence. All activity inside its processor and memory involves the change of position of charged particles of matter. They move here, they move there.

But isn't that all that happens in the brain? All of our thoughts are mere electricity, and chemical reactions.

 

I also think that you might be using the wrong word - intelligence. I think that you may mean self-awareness, which is independent of intelligence.

[James Putnam]

But isn't that all that happens in the brain? All of our thoughts are mere electricity, and chemical reactions.

 

I also think that you might be using the wrong word - intelligence. I think that you may mean self-awareness, which is independent of intelligence.

 

Thank you for this good question. I will make a late night effort at answering it. I'll see if it looks the same to me in daytime.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that mechanical references miss the point. Intelligence is the ability to discern, understand, and cause meaning. This point has to be handled very carefully due to the tendency to equate artificial intelligence with real intelligence. Artificial intelligence is an imitation. It is a deception. Machines cannot understand, discern or cause meaning. We perform these functions before and after the operation of the machine. It is true our machines are made from the same kinds of particles of matter as are we. However, they are not used the same. We use the full potential of the properties of our particles. The machine uses only mechanical motion. If the machine is to convey meaning, then the meaning must be coded by us. Without the code there is no meaning. Even with the code, the machine does not participate in causing or discerning its meaning. It transports meaning without ever being aware of it or anything else.

 

Our ability to discern meaning and generate thought occurs in our subconscious mind. The interpretation of information occurs there. The decision about possible meaning occurs there. The generation of the thought conveying that meaning occurs there. The completed thought is communicated to the conscious mind. It is at that time that we are made aware of the thought. Understanding occurs in our subconscious mind. Awareness occurs in our conscious mind. Awareness, metaphorically speaking, is only the surface of our mental abilities. The great depth of human thought is not represented by conscious awareness.

 

Human thought is evidence of intelligence. However, intelligence is broader than human thought. We do not cause our own intelligence. We do not contain all there is to intelligence. We are not the cause of the intelligence of other life forms that exist both with us and before us. They, in turn, are not the cause of our intelligence, their own intelligence, or intelligence in general. The cause of intelligence is to be found in the properties of the particles of matter from which we and they are constructed. These properties are not defined or confined by theoretical mechanical interpretations.

 

Mechanical theory has relevance to artificial or imitation intelligence, but no relevance to natural, real intelligence. Motion and change are relevant, but mechanical interpretations are not. Motion and change include the chemical reactions you mentioned. Chemical properties are not predicted by physics theory. It is at the molecular level that the inadequacy of mechanical theory is made clear. Molecules exhibit properties the show purpose and meaning. Molecular purpose includes life. Molecular meaning produces intelligence.

 

I would appreciate your evaluation of my position.

 

James

[lindagarrette]

Chemical properties are not predicted by physics theory. It is at the molecular level that the inadequacy of mechanical theory is made clear. Molecules exhibit properties the show purpose and meaning. Molecular purpose includes life. Molecular meaning produces intelligence.

 

I would appreciate your evaluation of my position.

 

James

James, Your position is unique. It is an opinion based on your own interpretation of terms and theories. I suggest you read up on scientific explanations of how the brain works. It has been studied extensively and pretty well understood recently. You will find that the facts are quite different from your opinion. A good place to start is the following link previously suggested by Buffy. http://www.generation5.org/content/columns/mf-foundations1.asp

[James Putnam]

James, Your position is unique. It is an opinion based on your own interpretation of terms and theories. I suggest you read up on scientific explanations of how the brain works. It has been studied extensively and pretty well understood recently. You will find that the facts are quite different from your opinion. A good place to start is the following link previously suggested by Buffy. http://www.generation5.org/content/columns/mf-foundations1.asp

 

Hi Lindagarrette,

 

You are correct. My opinion is based to a large extent upon my own interpretations and theories. (Here is what I think. I would appreciate your opinion about it.) The reason I have gone to this extent is because I see two main problems with scientific knowledge. One is theory. Theory consists of guesses about the unknown. The guesses begin at the beginning and keep mounting up. I do not know the unknown, but I am able to discern unsupportable assertion substituted for the unknown. I see physics theory as almost entirely consisting of this kind of artificial knowledge. I try to point out to others, that these problems can be avoided. I give my own examples of how to avoid them. I show how the elimination of these problems leads to superior results. This is intented to contribute to scientific learning. Others may dismiss my work, if they feel confidence in their level of understanding.

 

However, concerning physics theory in particular: No one knows what is force. No one knows what is resistance to force. No one knows what is cause. No one knows what is electric charge. No one knows why gravity exists. There are theoretical efforts to substitute invented ideas that cannot be demonstrated empirically to be true. I recognize this probably does not seem to be possible to most others. The incredible successes of physics knowledge seems to solidly verify its truth. However, it is not the theory that is doing this. It is the imitation, by means of mathematical equations, of empirically determined patterns in motion that provides the means to extrapolate future predictions of motion. All evidence is gathered in the form of information about changes of velocity.

 

The analysis of the brain, or any other useful body part, consists of looking at parts and observing their effects. This is analogous to what is done in experimental physics. The parts are important and their effects are important, but we do not really know the causes of any of these effects. We have only theory to substitute for this lack of understanding. The article you cite speaks of intelligent functioning of the brain. However, that can only be said because we know we think by means of our brains. The effect of the brain is well known. Yes, parts of the brain participate in thought processes. This is a given. But, pointing to the parts and watching them function does not explain how thought is caused. We only know that thought is being generated, because we already know that thought is being generated. It could not be deduced that this would be the result simply by looking at the functioning parts. Do you think this is wrong?

 

Here is another position I would take: Everything we ever learn is intrinsically present within our minds when they are formed. Would you say this is correct or incorrect?

 

James

[TeleMad]

Theory consists of guesses about the unknown.

 

If it walks like a Creationist, and talks like a Creationist, then ....