RoR: Forum

Steve,

Let me answer Fred, and see if that answer answers you.

Fred,

For example, Man is >> ape. (I am not arguing that Man is 2*ape. The same logic applies to tripling or quadrupling or even, any multiple factor > 1.0; doubling is an arbitrary illustration.)

1] Any constant positive growth in something results in a finite doubling time, longer or shorter is just a matter of time. Evolution has operated over a long time.

2] Eventually, the tyranny of geometric progression, if that is maintained, _tends_ to fill the universe with that something. Or, the rate of growth levels off, or even, goes negative.

3] Filling the universe is not possible for every such something(like 'McDonald's), though, it may be possible for some somethings. A concept -- well, it is more than a concept, but 'Intelligence' might be an example of that something.

The increase in intelligence between ape and man might be enourmous. And, unless evolution as a process is done, the next such doubling(or whatever)may well make the difference between mankind and apes look small, just like all geometric progression elements.

Okay, but this reasoning involves the assumption of a continuous variable, rather than a dis-continous variable (I think it's called a discrete variable?). You're assuming that the intelligence of man and the intelligence of an ape are the same kind of intelligence -- just that man has way more of it (e.g., 2 times more, 3 times more, 4 times more, etc). But that is not the case. Above, I semi-coherently provided the following spectrum (interested readers will note that that was just admission of error on my part):

man -- ape ---- cat -------- dog ---------------- mouse ------------------------ plant ------------------------------- rock

... but here is a more proper graph based on a view of intelligence that is, itself, highly-intelligible:

man ---------------------------------------------------------------ape, cat, dog, mouse, plant, rock

The above spectrum (it's actually a dichotomy) is one where intelligence is taken to be "abstract awareness" -- which is not merely the awareness of things not immediately available to sense-perception, it is the awareness of both the yet-to-be-perceived and awareness of the impossible-to-merely-perceive. This view puts perception down as non-intelligent, even though perception helps animals adjust their behavior to their surroundings -- which, itself, can be envisioned as a kind of intelligence.

On this relaxed view of intelligence -- where intelligence is taken to be merely the ability to adjust behavior based on sensory inputs -- the spectrum would be more spread out, but the rock would be dead last and the plant not too far behind. Troublingly (yes, I know, that's probably not a real word), the difference in intelligence between man and ape -- the one that we all admit exists -- disappears. In fact, animals perceive better than man, so animals show up as more intelligent than man. Because this contradicts reality -- the reality we all admit to -- it is "wrong" to view intelligence in this second way.

If I stick to my first view of intelligence (the one that hasn't been shown to be wrong), however, your geometric doubling time scenario becomes contextually meaningless -- because it relies on a continuous variable. Do you agree?

Ed

Post 41

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 7:59pm

Ed:

I think of mankind as a superset. Indeed, we got stuff that apes don't have, which permits us higher brain functions as well as the stuff we share. Which is why I said both, different in kind, and degree.

But I don't think it is a magical, mystical quality separate from our wetbits. I think it is a consequence of process. I regard the basic concept of neural nets as generally programmable wetbits, and we got more complex stuff, permitting those higher brain functions -- in the same way that apes got more stuff than earthworms, and so on. We are able to self adjust our neural net weightings -- even, manufacture goals -- to a far greater extent than the apes. Even as we have a medullah oblongata, dumbly doing its thing.

So, yes, we are different, we have higher brain functions, but what permits us to have that higher brain function is partly the x2, x3, x4, plus new, unique wiring. But an earthworm's brain just doesn't have enough stuff to even deliberately wire with the unique wiring we have. An ape might be closer to having the required real estate, but just doesn't have the required wiring. So, in my view, it is both the real estate (the x2, x3, x4) and the special wiring.

I don't regard it as some magical special thing that was bestowed on us, I think of us as the current leading edge of a local process. We have dominion over animals because we do, not because it was granted to us (by what mechanism?) as a special thing. We have dominion over animals because we have far greater intelligence, period.

And, if/when a far greater intelligence shows up from somewhere else, a competing local maximus, then that far greater intelligence will have dominion over us, for exactly the same reason, and only we in all the universe will really care about that one way or the other.

One of the things we are able to do is fool ourselves into believing we are special, have a soul, and so on.

It's kind of cute.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/27, 8:09pm)

Post 42

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 8:54pm

Fred,

And, unless evolution as a process is done, the next such doubling(or whatever)may well make the difference between mankind and apes look small, just like all geometric progression elements.

Until that step, we are indeed special. There is nothing wrong with enjoying being at the top of the local heap, a local temporal maximus.

This view implies the acceptance of a "second-hander" premise -- wherein what it is that makes man special is not what man is, but what he is in relation to other things. Sure, man is special now, while at the top of the heap ...

I disagree with the basic premise required in order to make this statement. My disagreement is based on knowing what man is, and knowing (rather than merely justifiedly believing) that that is enough to make man special, regardless of what other kinds of beings exist or are known to exist.

Is evolution done? I don't know. Do you?

I know that regardless of whereever evolution is on its unplanned trip, that man, on earth (at least), has grabbed ahold of the steering wheel. In a sense then, evolution is done ... and man is in control now. Here is evidence -- from an old article in "New Scientist" -- that cold process is no longer running roughshod in this town, and that there's a new sheriff in town ... and it is man (and his intelligence):

Helen Phillips

LANGUAGE

AS FAR as humans are concerned, language has got to be the ultimate evolutionary innovation. It is central to most of what makes us special, from consciousness, empathy and mental time travel to symbolism, spirituality and morality. Language may be a defining factor of our species, but just how important is it in the evolutionary scheme of things?

A decade ago, John Maynard Smith, then emeritus professor of biology at the University of Sussex, UK, and Eors Szathmary from the Institute of Advanced Study in Budapest, Hungary, published The Major Transitions in Evolution, their description of life's great leaps forward. They identified these crucial steps as innovations in the way information was organised and transmitted from one generation to the next - starting with the origin of life itself and ending with language.

Exactly how our ancestors took this leap is possibly the hardest problem in science, Szathmary says. He points out that complex language - language with syntax and grammar, which builds up meaning through a hierarchical arrangement of subordinate clauses - evolved just once. Only human brains are able to produce language, and, contrary to popular belief, this ability is not confined to specialised regions in the brain such as Broca's and Wernicke's areas. If these are damaged others can take over. Szathmary likens language to an amoeba, and the human brain to the habitat in which it can thrive. "A surprisingly large part of our brain can sustain language," he says.

But that raises the question of why this language amoeba doesn't colonise the brains of other animals, especially primates. Szathmary is convinced the answer lies in neural networks unique to humans that allow us to perform the complex hierarchical processing required for grammatical language. These networks are shaped both by our genes and by experience. The first gene associated with language, FOXP2, was identified in 2001, and others will surely follow.

So why don't our close evolutionary relatives, chimps and other primates, have similar abilities? The answer, recent analysis seems to suggest, lies in the fact that while humans and chimps have many genes in common, the versions expressed in human brains are more active than those in chimps. What's more, the brains of newborn humans are far less developed than those of newborn chimps, which means that our neural networks are shaped over many years of development immersed in a linguistic environment.

In a sense, language is the last word in biological evolution. That's because this particular evolutionary innovation allows those who possess it to move beyond the realms of the purely biological. With language, our ancestors were able to create their own environment - we now call it culture - and adapt to it without the need for genetic changes.

Recap:

The unique power of the unique plasticity of the human brain now supercedes the old, worn-out need for cold-process (i.e., "unmanned") genetic change -- in order to maximize survival (survival as the kind of creature that we are, and on the planet where we live). We have reached the point previously thought to be occupied only by God (or a god), where we can start to think about creating the world we want or need (and even genetically engineer ourselves, if needed), rather than waiting for our genes to passively adapt to the world as it -- with cold process -- is.

Post 43

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 9:23pm

Fred,

And, if we coldy accept evolution, then, do we accept the probablility that evolution in the Universe has only occurred on earth?

I do not understand the question.

First, it's not "cold" to accept evolution (i.e., cold process), it's smart. And second, whatever the probability that there's absolutely no life evolving anywhere else -- let's say, for discussion, that there's a 1% probability that that there's no life evolving anywhere else -- whatever this probability is, then, yes, we should accept that probability (the 1% chance we're alone; and 99% chance we're not).

It's like you are not using the word "probability" in a mathematical sense, or something.

Or, I can say no to that, and line up with the Bible thumpers, and claim a universally special status for mankind's intelligence ...

You're setting up a false dichotomy (a Straw Man). You're presuming that there are these 2 choices:

1) Bible thumping (or a reasonable facsimile)
2) thinking like you

But there are other choices (hence, this argument which I'm having with you right now). Now, if you want to say that I'm some kind of Bible thumper (rather than a man-worshipping Objectivist), then go ahead and do it, but I will then ask you for evidence of that. And, if you do not have the evidence, would you please stop referencing it? I'm trying to have a philosophical discussion with you, but each time you bring it up, it is like you are "poisoning the well."

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/27, 9:40pm)

Post 44

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 9:37pm

Steve,

My point, which wasn't very well made, is that we define intelligence differently depending upon what we are measuring. We have to do that because there is something that is intelligent-like in software, in mice, in apes and in humans. If I compare the relative intelligence of one computer program to another ...

As you foresaw, we're using different views of intelligence. On my view, no computer program is (or can ever be) "intelligent." Computer programs are written by humans and, as such, are not categorically different from tools. We make tools to do tasks. We design them to respond a certain way to various forces (e.g., a screwdriver is designed to fit into and then to help us to turn screws which would, otherwise, be next to impossible to do).

I'm currently convinced that computer programs aren't fundamentally different than that (i.e., than well-made screwdrivers). And on my view (if you should accept it), you would have to say that a screwdriver is intelligent -- which is absurd.

Ed

Post 45

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 11:02pm

Ed,

Are you ready to say that there will never be a time when "artificial intelligence" is a contradiction in terms? You did say "...no computer program is (or can ever be) 'intelligent.'"

Because something is a tool doesn't preclude it being intelligent. The only way you can preclude something from being subsumed by the definition of intelligence is to provide the definition.

I'm not sure that it isn't valid to say that current computer software isn't "intelligent" in a limited way - because it is a product of human rationality that replicates a predetermined set of choices - that is it accepts 'sensory' inputs, performs analysis (but not volitional), and makes a choice (predetermined - like people who always react in a programmed way).

Need a definition of intelligence to pursue this intelligently :-)

Post 46

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 5:51am

Ed:

You take great offense where surely none is meant, and my mere opinions thrown against your absolute certainties pique you for some reason. Forgive me; I'm a student of Feynman's scientific doubt, as well as Rand's philosophical certainties. It's just me, and that's ok with me. You can be you, and my head won't explode, I promise.

By 'cold' I mean, without the aid of a Magic Spirit external agent, period.

By 'not special' I mean, more like 'not the singular example of intelligence.' Not that mankind isn't deserving of all kinds of self-awarded blue participatory ribbons and local awards and such.

But, yes, personally, my eyes do kind of glaze over at those parts of Rand's writing where she seems to go into self-awarded blue participatory ribbon mode, analogous to religions. But, not a problem, there isn't much of that to skip over.

At heart, she wasn't a scientist, she was a romantic philosopher. But in fact, scientific observation is not only on her side (mankind's intelligence is unique in all the universe, there is none other approaching it in all of existence,) but the Bible thumpers/soul believers/special nature of mankind as well, for exactly the same reason. Where is the evidence of any other being like us?

Rand wrote about scientists. Feynman was a scientist. There is the philisophical inquiry into intelligence in the universe, and there is the scientific inquiry into intelligence in the universe.

Feynman had a philosophy of scientific query which was essentially identical to Rand's, in my evaluation, which is 'what is?' without pre-judgement, and was a scientist.

And his contemporary, Wolfram, makes a compelling case with his 'computational equivalence' argument that there are some -- many -- complex systems of process from simple rules that we are unable to computationally predict the outcome of without simply letting the process 'run,' and my suspicion is, the evolution of intelligence is an example of that.

Wolfram suggests that the theory of computational irreducibility may provide a resolution to the existence of free will in a nominally deterministic universe. He posits that the computational process in the brain of the being with free will is actually complex enough so that it cannot be captured in a simpler computation, due to the principle of computational irreducibility. Thus while the process is indeed deterministic, there is no better way to determine the being's will than to essentially run the experiment and let the being exercise it.

One of my favorite Feynman quotes: "Philosophers need to learn to laugh at themselves."

Post 47

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 6:22am

Steve:

Need a definition of intelligence to pursue this intelligently :-)

Ha! As if, by doing so, we change one damn atom in the universe, as it is...

Parochial, chauvinistic self-serving definitions of intelligence don't rewrite history.

We are here; we once were not. We don't know, but we once may not be again. (As mankind, a species. Certainly true individually, not what I meant.)

A process brought us about. If we exit stage left, a process will bring that about, too.

If we exit stage left, is that the end of intelligent process in the universe?

I seriously doubt it. The universe has alot of time to shake and bake. It shaked and baked once. It shaked and baked here. There is alot of 'once' in the universe. There is alot of 'here.'

To truly believe that mankind is singularly special as an example of intelligent process in the universe, and not just a local maximus, I might as well accept the religious interpretation.

Not just 'special' as in, a unique snowflake among trillions of snowflakes, but 'the only snow on any planet of trillions of planets.'

And, if we continue to evolve as augmented humans, a process that has already started, the process that Kurzweil runs sprinting ahead with(trying to violate Wolfram's warning about the unpredictability of computational irreducible systems by just 'guessing' at how this is going to turn out), will what comes out of that process still be intelligent? Whatever it is, it will be part of this same process, a continuum, even if there are leaps and bounds.

It for sure won't be purely human wetbit intelligence. That will matter to humans, I guess. Just as ours is not purely Neanderthal intelligence. That might have mattered to the Neanderthals, I suppose.

So, time out. This entire discussion so far has been about the process of intelligence in the universe, triggered by a discussion of 'intelligent design.' Where did it run off into anything resembling Genesis Creationism?

Is it possible to see, from the discussion in this thread so far, that in theory(not practice), the citizens of Dover _could_ have legitimately let a discussion of 'intelligent design' into their curriculum, had it been reasonably formulated(and not simply what it was in practice, a subterfuge of repackaging of Genesis Creationism?)

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/28, 6:35am)

Post 48

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 8:05am

Steve:

Are you ready to say that there will never be a time when "artificial intelligence" is a contradiction in terms? You did say "...no computer program is (or can ever be) 'intelligent.'"

I think it is possible to define intelligence in such a way for him to say that and be entirely consistent, but I also think that has nothing to do with a scientific inquiry into the process. It is an arbitrary, artificial classification of the process.

What is, is. When I look for evidence of the machine inside of mankind, as well as the machine inside the universe, it keeps showing up. I can define terms to try and wave that off, but ... what is, is.

Kurzweil runs off on great leaps of imagination-- guesses-- about the evolution of augmented humans. Wild stuff. Wolfram argues, I think, that there are some complex systems so complex that the only way to see their future is to just let them run; any guess would be pure luck.

Meanwhile, there is and has been the observable fact of human augmented computer programs. Complete with APIs.

Amazon.com's 'Mechanical Turks'. HITS (Human Intelligence Tasks). 'artificial artificial intelligence.'

What comes out of that(sometimes--rarely)is part wetbits, part silicon. And, humanity being what it is, an awful lot of least common denominator. There are few things more disheartening, more pessimistic about the future of mankind then to see what the concept Mechanical Turks is actually used for. ('go to this website and click on this link.' Please.)

It's one thing for a Jeff Bozos to bolt up silicon to wetbits. I'm not blaming amazon.com for the abuse of Mechanical Turks. They turned it on, and mankind happened. That mankind isn't always pretty isn't their fault.

But, it's another thing for a Wolfram to do something similar. What comes out of all that bolting up of silicon to wetbits is far from predictable in advance.

Is that intelligence? I picture that quiet conversation on some sleepy sidewalk, as meanwhile, in the streets, a process is going 'whooooooooooosh!......' on the way to the stars.

Post 49

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 9:25am

Steve,

Need a definition of intelligence to pursue this intelligently :-)

You're right. On that note, what do you think of the one I offered (i.e., abstract awareness)? Also, what do you think about my refutation of the rival definition of intelligence (i.e., altering responses due to altering inputs)?

Ed

Post 50

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 9:37am

Fred,

You take great offense where surely none is meant ...

I gave a good reason for bringing up the issue of Bible thumping. I don't take so much offense. There is a rhetorical (debate tactic) reason to keep bringing up Bible thumping, even if the term doesn't apply. I merely pointed that out.

By 'not special' I mean, more like 'not the singular example of intelligence.' Not that mankind isn't deserving of all kinds of self-awarded blue participatory ribbons and local awards and such.

But, yes, personally, my eyes do kind of glaze over at those parts of Rand's writing where she seems to go into self-awarded blue participatory ribbon mode, analogous to religions.

You're missing her point about man. Rand was once asked about hypothetical, highly-intelligent Martian spiders. She did not react with horror that someone would even dare to postulate that there might be other creatures more intelligent than man. Yet listening to you, I'd think that you'd think that of her. Instead, she entertained the question and answered, honestly, that we would then have to reorganize current concepts in order to incorporate the new data.

What makes man special has nothing to do with his "superiority" over the other known creatures. As I said before, that kind of thinking is the thinking of a "second-hander." Are you very familiar with what Rand meant by "second-hander"? Do you agree that that kind of thinking is the thinking of a "second-hander"? Do you, if you do, still think of it as a good -- or at least perhaps an inescapable? -- way (for you) to think?

Ed

Post 51

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 9:54am

Ed:

I don't mean to interrupt, I am just commenting.

It seems to me it could easily be both:

altering inputs -> abstract awareness -> altering responses.

Else...abstract awareness of what? self?

Caring about that awareness, about the self? About self preservation?

I don't know this to be the case, what is is, but I could imagine all that based on self-weigtable neural net feedback. Because we have higher brain function, we are able to not just respond like automatons to inputs, but to self-adjust our neural net/goal based weightings. Literally 'values' -- the things we choose to value. Including the concept of 'self' - self awareness, self preservation.

In fact, we are so self-reprogrammable, in terms of our weigthings of these higher level neural net goal based evaluations, that even some of the highest goals -- self-awareness of mortality, self-preservation -- can and is sometimes, in some instances, self programmed as a lessor weigthing. Humans do self terminate.

Evidence of the machine inside of mankind. Machinery also breaks.

Silicon based neural nets could be developed with high weigthings for 'system viability', and silicon neural nets could be developed with self-reprogrammable weigthings.

Silicon based neural nets could be developed with the ability to 'what if' -- run disconnected to all output responses scenarios of alternative weightings. Run disconnected from all actual input simulated playback of sensory inputs through those purely imagined wieghtings.

Would that be 'real' intelligence? The pertinent question is, is the machine inside of man 'real' intelligence in some fundamentally different way, and if so, what is that difference?

That we 'care' about our mortality? What is 'care?' What if, at its root, 'care' is a wieghting of one of our higher level neural networks? Is that a fundamentally different 'care' then a similar weigthing in a silicon based neural network?

What is the special human ingredient?

regards,
Fred

Post 52

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 10:00am

Fred,

I suspect that some of your dissonance in this issue, where you contrast bible thumping with cold process, the mystical view with the scientific... and then feel impelled to step back from Rand's worship of man is something that can be resolved.

Rand has identified a framework necessary for man to live - morality - a rational identification of pro-life, anti-life values. Of necessity, this takes us to realization that the framework is based upon man and goes no farther. It is a construct that we impose upon reality, that is based upon reality, but once imposed, it makes us dichotomize the universe into them and us.

I would approach this as one of the byproducts of the cold process. Evolution takes awareness so far and it reaches the point of needing volition to reach the next plateau of efficiency. Volition requires that framework of valuation. Now we are 'programmed' such that we can make choices (including that needed ability to choose values and even the choice to choose or not).

Whether it is Kurtzweil's guesses, or Wolfram's unknown, we are at a point in what could be a continuing process. Fine. But while we are here and looking about, abstracting, choosing, valuing, we are logically driven to value the experience of living - flourishing as the kind of creature we are - and our nature includes, Hell, is dominated by, emotions. When Rand worships man, she has not veered into an analog of creationism, or made a secular version of bible thumping, she is being more consonate with our nature and not avoiding the capacity to experience as well as abstract about the values that, along with volition, are trademarks of our (Man's) unique (on Earth, as of this date) form of intelligence.

It is Rand's rigorous logic and unflinching focus of purpose that has her worshiping man. Not any similarity to the bible thumpers. For her the cold process may have brought us here and it may have gone different directions in other parts of the universe and it may go further here on earth, but all of that has no meaning for her (apart from idle curiosity) because she has asked, "Of value to whom?" And recognizes that answer on our planet, in our time, only applies to man. For her the value structure is fully compatible with the scientific - both are of reason - but the value structure has a very special "value" to us.

Post 53

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 11:28am

Ed,

I took a quick trip out to Google and brought back some of the following:

"Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason ..."

"...the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience."

-- artificial intelligence, business intelligence, military intelligence, competitive intelligence, office of naval intelligence ---

"An intelligence agency is a governmental agency that is devoted to information gathering (known in the context as "intelligence") for purposes of national security and defense. ..."

"Intelligence (abbreviated int. or intel.) refers to discrete information with currency and relevance, and the abstraction, evaluation, and understanding of such information for its accuracy and value. ..."
--------

Then there are some pages at Wikipedia (of varying worth):

Multiple intelligences which points out the difficulty of narrowing down what processes constitute intelligence in our mental/emotional processes.

Emotional intelligence which point out the unavoidable fact that we are also emotional and that can't be separated from our purely intellectual faculties.
------------

Some random thoughts:

Capacity or Ability (potential versus actual) - can we talk about an abstract capacity because it only arises in actual use - what are the 'concretes' we are attempting subsume under our definition?
---

Product or process - they aren't separate in practice. The process requires input and produces product - there is always content.
---

Is self-awareness of the process required? Might it be true that there is a gradient of self-awareness whereas a process too low on that gradient is not intelligence - just parroting - automatic stimulus-response behavior?
---

Is volition (self-guiding) required?
---

Is there a reason to define it in such a way as to precude non-humans?
------------------------------------

Wikipeida: "From Latin intellegentia (“‘the act of choosing between, intelligence’”), from intellegō (“‘understand’”), from inter (“‘between’”) + legō (“‘choose, pick out, read’”)."
---

That seems like a good place to start. The common vernacular has things that are intelligence (like the Military Intelligence and it's products - e.g., "current intelligence on Afganistan suggests..." That is a poor use of language and should be thought of as a slang short hand for "current product of thinking on military aspects of Afganistan suggests...") So, we should set aside any definition of 'intelligence' that is a product or agency.

Intelligence is a process or a capacity, and not the product that it produces. When we ask how intelligent a person is, we are asking for a measure of their capacity. The capacity is restricted to certain processes - not just any. We aren't asking how well the person jogs or how well they can hear or see.

Intelligence is the capacity to engage in mental processes - but that still isn't narrow enough since 'mental processes' includes processes like the experience of sensory input.

Intelligence is the capacity to create and choose between different abstractions in a way that provides a more accurate representation of reality.

That definition would limit intelligence to man, since at this point, we don't know of any other entities that engage in volitional processes of abstraction.

I see computers as intelligent, but not on their own. They are extensions of human intelligence. As a former programmer, I see aspects of a program as a choice 'being' made by the programmer - as if he were behind the scenes, remotely making things happen in response to my actions. And I look at his choices as intelligent or stupid. It really doesn't matter that he made those choices long before I bought the program and installed it, or that they are now 'frozen' and incapable of new 'thought.' The computer isn't really intelligent, it is the programmer who is intelligent. But if computers achieve volition... all bets off. We understand the mechanism that causes the heart muscle to contract and pump blood. We don't understand the wetware well enough to talk about the process of volition.
----------------------------------------

I think it makes sense to have a very broad definition of intelligence so that we can talk about mice and ameoba and their different levels and kinds of awareness. I think that we need to have a definition of human intelligence in particular. And I know that psychology needs to focus on practical intelligence - the proper functioning of the processes that provide the best choices. As to neurophysiology or evolution or computational sciences... I haven't a clue.

Post 54

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 11:40am

Ed:

What makes man special has nothing to do with his "superiority" over the other known creatures.

I've been making a hypothesis based on neural net weightings as values, pure analog. There is plenty of evidence that what is, in terms of the human brain and higher order functions, is fundamentally related to the actions of neural nets, or neural net-like systems, not just as a reasonable analog, but a factual 'is.'

You have been claiming a 'special' nature of man by telling me what that special nature 'isn't', like the above example, which doesn't help a poor, concrete bound second hander like me very much. (Please.) If we are going to weed out all the things in the universe that special nature 'isnt', then your argument has a perhaps infinite long way to go.

What is that special nature? Not, what isn't it. How does it differ from a higher level nerual network with self-reprogrammable weigthings of values, including self preservation, self continuity, and avoidance of termination as high level goals? High level goals that aren't even themselves universal, as evidenced by the many instances of self-termination.

A fools errand. Clearly, a loaded question. Please, don't even try to answer such questions, it is just embarrassing, and in fact, has no place in a scientific discussion of the nature of the evolution of intelligence. On Sunday, in church, fine, but I was hoping to avoid church today.

But, maybe illustrative. Maybe that is why the folks in DOver were absolutely verbotten from introducing the topic. That, it unavoidably leads to religious based arguments. I don't think that is what they tried to do. I think they bluntly tried to introduce religious arguments, in their own analogous battle to defend the special nature of man. But that is them, not me. I don't think that is necessary at all. I'm perfectly happy looking for the machinery inside of man, and the universe. Cold? It's the only home we got. As Feynman once famously said, "If you don't like the answers, then go live somewhere else, in another universe."

What is, is. I'm OK with that. In fact, I'm ecstatic with that.

Look, I get Rand. Few I have read influenced my life in such a positive way as Rand. OK, already, all hail local maximus, mankind. But, after we put away the need to line up in yet more rows and throw that very special parade, there are much more interesting questions to ponder, which is in fact exactly what makes us the local maximus. Focusing on mankind's scrap book of self awarded trophies just isn't that interesting to me. I AM NOT SAYING YOU OR RAND DID THAT. I am saying, I am not doing that, and I am saying, that is how I inevitably characterize all this 'man is special' stuff. I can live with that. Fine, thank you. It isn't necessary in the least for me to accept or not accept that 'man is special' in order to ponder the process of the evolution of intelligence. In fact, only in religious circles would that be necessary in the least.

I don't regard this as 'anti-man.' I regard it as 'anti-crap.'

I'll tell you a man who really was special: Feynman. And, he sure as Hell wasn't perseverating about how special he or anyone was. But, he was primarily a scientist, not a philosopher.

regards,
Fred

Post 55

Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 9:13pm

Steve,

Good points all around. Again, I will need some time to digest before answering ...

Ed

Post 56

Monday, March 1, 2010 - 5:32am

According to Rand:

Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”

(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)

...

What is Reason?

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

The Virtue of Selfishness “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 20.

Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

Other than her naked assertion ("which he alone can reach"), if a sufficently capable mass of silicon based goal driven neural networks, capable of self reprogramming weightings, capable of generating self simulated what-if scenarios ('imagination'), governed at a very high level by several axioms, such as 'what is, is, and what works, works' then, I still have not found 'the special nature of man's intelligence' that is not at least on the horizon of being duplicatable by silicon.

When Rand said what she said, she was right. Certainly, when she wrote AS, no machine was anywhere near on the horizon of being able to implement such complex neural network based systems-- the 'faculty' she refers to, without knowing how that 'faculty' was implemented, either via wetbits or silicon.

I suspect, if she had an awareness of the new technology horizon, she would have to amend her assessment of 'which he alone can reach.'

The 'at this time' was implicit, not cast in stone, and it has been through the efforts of those she admired, and wasn't one of, that this is true.

The literal worship of her words is a huge mistake.

regards,
Fred

Post 57

Monday, March 1, 2010 - 6:15am

A lathe has precision turned parts, created on a lathe.

So how was the first lathe made?

The classic answer is, 'not very well.' But, it was a lathe.

And, no matter how capable and precise lathes are today, that first lathe was still a lathe, and it did not create itself.

The evolution of intelligence in the universe, I think, is a process not only similar to that, but a process that example was in fact a part of. A difference being, we would like to think that prior to that first lathe or whatever, it was all shake and bake, but that the building of the first lathe was an example, an illustration of Rand's claim of the special nature of man the tool builder, that for the first time, there existed directed shake and bake, goal based shake and bake. And that is true, man the tool builder was something new in the evolution of intelligence. Because man does continue to build tools, including, tools of intelligence. (It matters little that the first lathe could have been, and might have been, just playful toymaking, shake and bake. Man eventually built lathes as tools.)

And, just like lathes, when the first lathe was produced, those who produced it had no idea in total what future lathes would be used to create.

That is one of Wolfram's NKS principles. And, that is likely, I think, also the nature of the evolution of intelligence. We can't possibly analyze in advance where it is ultimately going. It will spill out and retool itself wherever it can, limited only by what can be.

We can follow it forward, and we can follow it backward, but that first lathe didn't create itself, it was part of a process, a continuum. Another of Wolfram's principles, more an observation, is that such processes are often ultimately based on exceedingly simple rules, even if they result in complex systems and processes, and those simple rules are usually not discernible from the complex processes. There is no innate need, based on observation, that underlying every complex process is an even more complex process; just the opposite, and his NKS demonstrates this principle with repeatable experiments. Underlying complex processes are often/usually exceedingly simple rules, unfolding in complex ways.

With some irony the search for 'intelligent design' in the universe leads not back to a complex all powerful being, but back to exceedingly simple rules playing out in a complex fashion.

In exactly the same fashion that the search for the machine inside the universe is perceived as a threat to those claiming a special God, the search for the same machine in side of mankind is perceived as a threat to those claiming a special Man-- soul, 'special mind', or whatever internal spirit(Ed, not you, but others.) we wish to imagine in parallel with those external magic spirits. The 'special nature of man's intelligence' is illustrated by the lathe example -- directed shake and bake. But, I stop short of regarding that as a terminus of any kind, precisely because of the lathe example, and with some knowledge of the 'silicon lathes' that man has been working on for decades now.

That search is not a threat to those with the spirit of scientists, who find joy in what is. It may be a threat to philosophers. It may be a threat to religionists. But it is not a threat to scientists. What is, is. What can be, can be. What works, works.

What 'should be' is a popular form of entertainment, except when those embued with the truth of their imagined 'should be' resort to violence to bring their visions about. Which, let's face it, happens regularly.

regards,
Fred

Post 58

Monday, March 1, 2010 - 11:35am

Fred,

What is, is. What can be, can be. What works, works.

At first glance this appears to affirm the metaphysical premises of the scientists, and be complete in itself. But with some thought, I can see there needs to be more said. Because of our particular faculty of awareness (the components of volition and of emotion in particular), there is an implied phrase that goes with each of those statements, "We should understand and accept that..."

We should understand and accept that what is, is.
We should understand and accept that what can be, can be.
We should understand and accept that what works, works.

Now those metaphysical truths are fully stated as they need to be for creatures capable of choosing to accept metaphysical truths or not. That's important because we must go through a mental process that involves choosing between alternatives and in that choosing we must separate out reason from emotion.

This is a truth that applies to scientists (may the climate warming 'scientists' be paying attention at this point), as well as philosophers. Scientists have as great a need for philosophy as anyone - without a solid metaphysics and epistemology they will founder when attempting to create the base of a philosophy of science which is needed to keep science as science and not pseudo-science.

Rand takes the position that you not only can derive a 'should' from an 'is' but that you must.

Post 59

Monday, March 1, 2010 - 2:35pm