Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bird brains and ID definition of intelligence?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I (your regular News writer, O’Leary) am enjoying a week off to write something else, but noted that some commenters at How clever is that cockatoo? (and elsewhere?) wanted an ID definition of intelligence.

Here is the conventional definition with which I am familiar, and I think most ID theorists would accept it:

The Latin verb “intellego” (inter + lego) means “I choose between.” Intelligence, so defined, means the ability to choose one solution to a problem where other, less productive, ones are available.

An intelligent dog, observing humans raising the latch on a grooming shop cage’s door, may realize that he could raise the latch on his cage himself, using his jaw or paw. (I have seen a dog figure this out, unassisted.) A less intelligent dog would choose a less successful strategy—perhaps, just whine and bark for a human to come and do it (in a situation where no human has any intention of doing it until the groomer is ready for the dog). 😉

Choosing the correct solution is the way intelligence creates information. The more intelligent dog now has information about how to free himself from the cage. The less intelligent dog does not.

A human can frustrate even an intelligent dog’s escape efforts by transferring him to a different cage, perhaps one where 1) he cannot see exactly what the human is doing; or 2) fingers are needed to work the mechanism; or 3) a punched-in numerical code opens the door.

What the humans have done in this case is moved the search space for solutions beyond the physical and/or mental capacities of the dog.

Animals differ both individually and by species in intelligence in this sense. There does not appear to be a strict hierarchy of intelligence. Birds species, in particular, seem to vary widely in their ability to choose a successful strategy from alternatives, as opposed to simply following some sort of imprint, for good or ill.

Note that “intelligence” in this sense is quite distinct from “wisdom” or “insight” or other similar qualities.

Comments
Hi RD, Here's an interesting review of Stephen Meyers book by Dr. Frank Turek, and below is a sample from it: "As Meyer points out, he’s not interpreting the evidence based on what we don’t know, but what we do know. The geologically sudden appearance of fully formed animals and millions of lines of genetic information point to intelligence. That is, we don’t just lack a materialistic explanation for the origin of information. We have positive evidence from our uniform and repeated experience that another kind of cause—namely, intelligence or mind—is capable of producing digital information. Thus, he argues that the explosion of information in the Cambrian period provides evidence of this kind of cause acting in the history of animal life. (Much like any sentence written by one of Meyer’s critics is positive evidence for an intelligent being)." The concept of an 'Intelligence' being responsible for the universe, life on this planet etc is not proved null because you haven't recieved adequate answers to what you consider to be questions that need to be answered in order for to prove a positive for ID. Some of us, quite a lot of us actually, see it every where we look. Why not read the article. http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2013/07/09/untitled-n1634815/page/full# I personally don't see your questions as being difficult, orPeterJ
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
KF, @70, thank you. Yes, the capacity to choose from among options is critical. Indeed, there is a philosophical component in the mix as well, and it transcends the ID paradigm. Some materialists, for example, want to claim that some kind of physical law brought the universe into existence as a whole. This is impossible since any creative act that brings something new into existence requires the ability to choose or not choose the act of creating. A law (or law-like regularity) cannot make that choice. It can only do what it does without variation.StephenB
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
SB: Well said. Yes, ID is about the ability to really choose. Absent that ability, we are unable to be responsible in thinking, deciding and acting. Indeed, ironically, it is evolutionary materialism that is in reality incoherent as it implies that our thoughts, decisions and so forth are wholly produced and controlled by forces shaped by survival of the fittest that have no organic connexion to truth, right, logic or responsibility. (For why I freely say that, 1,800 onllokers per day, cf. here on in context.) The attempt to project that problem unto us is little more than a turnabout rhetorical stratagem. KFkairosfocus
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
RDF
But as for the iCause that ID says explains life and the universe, there is no evidence of any particular mental ability at all.
As I pointed out to you several times, ID doesn't presume to explain the "universe," it explains "certain features" in the universe. Since the point has been sufficiently explained and dramatized to the point where there could not possibly be any misunderstanding, I will, regretfully, have to conclude that your misrepresentation is willful. Please persuade me that this is not the case.StephenB
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
RDF
As I explain in the OP here the term “intelligence” means nothing at all in the context of ID unless it is given a specific definition. The problem for ID is that once you actually try to say what is meant by “intelligence”, it becomes clear that there is no evidence to support the claim that the iCause exhibited it.
Since your question seems to be exclusively yours, its implications will resonate differently with individual ID supporters. You already know my definition of intelligence as the capacity to fashion matter into form. It is that same form that is detected through the ID process. The evidence does support that claim that someone or something formed the matter. So if you are looking for a connection between the activity of design and the capacity to draw inferences from its effects, I think my scenario will do. Others may approach it differently because everyone will make of your unusual question what they will. Meanwhile, you continue to say that "no one," (I guess that includes me) has responded to that challenge. On the contrary, I did respond but you claimed not to know what intelligent agency means. When I pointed out that everyone has known what agency means since Plato and Aristotle defined it as art, and when I pointed out that my definition of agency is consistent with their definition of art, you dropped the matter since your claims about the incomprehensibility of the definition were no longer credible. Why you want to revive it again on this thread is a mystery to me.StephenB
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
RDFish
I don’t understand how you think libertarianism requires a separate capacity for moral judgement, but I’d rather not delve into that at the moment.
You say that you don't want to delve in to the very same subject you used as your opening gambit. Well, anyway, here is one definition of which I could approve: "Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being, one who operates independently, not controlled by others or by outside forces. According to the Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (InterVarsity Press, 2002), libertarian free will is defined as “in ethics and metaphysics, the view that human beings sometimes can will more than one possibility. According to this view, a person who freely made a particular choice could have chosen differently, even if nothing about the past prior to the moment of choice had been different.” In the libertarian free will paradigm, the power of contrary choice reigns supreme. Without this ability to choose otherwise, libertarian free will proponents will claim that man cannot be held morally responsible for his actions." I would say, then, that the ethical component is part of the definition. That is why ID does not require libertarian free will properly defined. ID does require the capacity to choose from options, of course, but that is a more narrow concept. It is kind of important to get the definition right since you claim that libertarian free will is an incoherent concept and are striving to associate it with ID, presumably for the purpose of claiming that ID is incoherent as well.
It is interesting, though, for you to suggest that ID does not require libertarianism, as it seems to imply that a deterministic physical system operating according to fixed law and chance should be able to produce complex functional systems.
To repeat, libertarian free will is not only about making strategic choices, it is also about making moral choices, especially in the context of being held morally responsible. Since you mistakenly claim that it is an incoherent concept, and since you want to associate it with ID without taking account of the moral component, I think it is important to begin with accurate definitions and characterizations.StephenB
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
RD:
I merely point out that the term “intelligence” is used without a definition in ID, ...
And IDists have pointed out that you are sadly mistaken.
I should think we’d conclude that the builders were human.
LoL! THAT's it?!?!
And if not human, we should conclude that the builders were life forms.
LoL! We cannot test to see if those "life forms" can produce Stonehenge. We cannot test them to see if they can do anything. IOW RDguyFish is erecting strawman after strawman, not realising that reality alone, refutes him.Joe
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
RD:
There is evidence that evolutionary processes can learn..
Please present that evidence.
but ID presents no evidence that the iCause that created the first cells, the universe, and so on was capable of learning anything.
There isn't any evidence that the iCause needs to learn anything.
Again, we can see that evolutionary processes solve novel problems – we can even confirm that experimentally.
Again, RD is NOT talking about blind watchmaker evolutionary processes. No one has ever seen blind watchmaker evolutionary processes solving anything but overpopulation.
But as for the iCause that ID says explains life and the universe, there is no evidence of any particular mental ability at all.
Just the design!Joe
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Hi PeterJ,
I am at odds however to work out why you think ID should be able to support certain claims, especially ones that are very possibly outwith our abilities, and ones that I don’t consider ID to have made in the first place.
I don't think ID "should" do anything. I merely point out that the term "intelligence" is used without a definition in ID, so ID is a vacuous theory. In order to give ID any meaning, specific attributes must be declared for whatever it is that ID is presenting as the cause of life and the universe. But no specific attributes can be supported emprically.
Take for example something Joe mentions quite often ‘Stonehenge’. We can of course deduce that it was constructed using ‘intelligence’ as opposed to a random act of nature, but there are certain mysteries we cannot know for certain.
What do you mean by "intelligence" in this context? I should think we'd conclude that the builders were human. And if not human, we should conclude that the builders were life forms.
We speculate that it was designed by an intelligence, but we cannot show any other evidence of that, other than the construct itself.
What do you mean by "an intelligence"? For example, if I said I have "an intelligence" in my room here, what can you tell me about it? What test can you apply to see if I am correct that this thing is "an intelligence" or not? The point is that you can tell me nothing about this thing simply because I say it is "an intelligence" - not one single thing - because "intelligence" has no concrete meaning until it is qualified by saying what some particular thing (life form, being, entity, process, system, whatever) can actually do, or how it does it. Read the OP HERE Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Hi Lizzie, I would say that there is no evidence that the iCause can learn, no. There is evidence that evolutionary processes can learn (actually, they learn by definition), but ID presents no evidence that the iCause that created the first cells, the universe, and so on was capable of learning anything. As for problem solving: In order to assess whether something can solve problems, one needs to present the subject with a novel problem. Otherwise, you may simply be observing sphexish behavior that can be unmasked. Again, we can see that evolutionary processes solve novel problems - we can even confirm that experimentally. But as for the iCause that ID says explains life and the universe, there is no evidence of any particular mental ability at all. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
OK, so ID has defined "Intelligence" and it is too bad for RD that he doesn't like it or cannot understand it.Joe
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Lizzie sez:
What it doesn’t seem to be very good at, however, is thinking ahead.
And yet the iCause figured out what conditions we humans would need to survive when we arrived. IOW once again Lizzie proves to be clueless.Joe
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Hi RD, Thanks for your reply to me questions, and yes I think I understand you better now. I am at odds however to work out why you think ID should be able to support certain claims, especially ones that are very possibly outwith our abilities, and ones that I don't consider ID to have made in the first place. Take for example something Joe mentions quite often 'Stonehenge'. We can of course deduce that it was constructed using 'intelligence' as opposed to a random act of nature, but there are certain mysteries we cannot know for certain. Who were its designers? What was the purpose of its design? How was it constructed? etc. We can use our knowledge of humans and what we know about design to speculate on all of the above but we connot be certain about any of it. We speculate that it was designed by an intelligence, but we cannot show any other evidence of that, other than the construct itself. I am with StephenB on this, I think you are simply moving the goal posts a little. I think you are perfectly entitled to pose the question, but I don't believe it necessitates an explanation as such. Some things are outwith our spectrum of detection, well, certainly for the time being. However there are some interesting studies being carried out that may yet yeild the answers you are seeking. EL, You suggest the Tree of Life shows evidence of the icause learning. Can you be more specific, and can you tell me which tree you have chosen to base this observation on, and how you know that it is the right one? Thanks guys.PeterJ
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
What it doesn't seem to be very good at, however, is thinking ahead. At least, that's the evidence that it does is the most shaky.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
RDFish: I know exactly where you are coming from, but let me put a counter-point: We know that the iCause can learn, because the tree of life shows evidence of learning. We know that the iCause can solve problems, because it has repeatedly solved far harder problems than crossword puzzles, for instance, inventing many modes of locomotion, energy storage, self-replication (something we still struggle with), resource exploitation etc, which I think addresses your 2 and 3. The one missing, I'd say, is 4, unless you count "evidence of desire to optimise" as one. Which I might.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
In our last correspondence, you associated ID with libertarian free will. I explained why that cannot be the case, but you didn’t respond to my corrective. Can I assume that you now agree that ID does not require libertarian free will or should I provide more information?
Sorry for dropping that thread. Regarding libertarianism, you argued:
I would argue that animals do not have libertarian free will on the grounds that they cannot weigh moral options or make moral choices. Simply being a design agent (capable of manipulating nature to serve some end) is not enough to qualify for libertarian free will. Moral sensibilities are also required.
I don't understand how you think libertarianism requires a separate capacity for moral judgement, but I'd rather not delve into that at the moment. It is interesting, though, for you to suggest that ID does not require libertarianism, as it seems to imply that a deterministic physical system operating according to fixed law and chance should be able to produce complex functional systems.
Meanwhile, you have launched a new round of questions, the relevancy of which is not clear to me.
Here's the point of those questions: Along with those questions, I could ask about evidence ID presents regarding any number of other particular claims, for example: 1) Evidence that the iCause could learn new skills? 2) Evidence that the iCause could solve a crossword puzzle? 3) Evidence that the iCause could take an IQ test and score more than zero? 4) Evidence that the iCause had beliefs and desires? And so on. I believe you would be compelled to answer in each case that no, ID had no evidence to support any of these claims. The point is this: As I explain in the OP here the term "intelligence" means nothing at all in the context of ID unless it is given a specific definition. The problem for ID is that once you actually try to say what is meant by "intelligence", it becomes clear that there is no evidence to support the claim that the iCause exhibited it. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
Hi PeterJ,
RDF: ‘I have never seen any of these claims from an ID supporter.’ PJ: But that’s not what your questions suggest. For the last 24 hours you have been asking ID supporters to to ‘support’ various ‘claims’ made by ‘ID theory’.
I began by asking for a specific definition of "intelligence" in the context of ID Theory. As usual, it was not forthcoming, and Stephen tired of my asking for that. So I said I would stop asking for a specific definition of "intelligence", and instead I would ask some particular questions in order to try to pin down what it was that ID was saying explains the origin of life and the universe.
Like Joe, and others, I would quite like to engage you in those ‘claims’ but before I do I would really need you to provide me with the specific citations where those ‘claims’ are made.
Those claims are simply things that might be implied by the term "intelligent cause". For example, some people insist that anything intelligent must be conscious; others disagree. I believe your position is the ID does not attempt to support any claims regarding whether the cause of life and the universe was conscious, nor that it could anything else in particular other than produce the CSI we observe in biology and the fine-tuned universal constants. I could then ask about evidence ID presents regarding another set of particular claims, for example: 1) Evidence that the iCause could learn new skills? 2) Evidence that the iCause could solve a crossword puzzle? 3) Evidence that the iCause could take an IQ test and score more than zero? 4) Evidence that the iCause had beliefs and desires? And so on. I believe you would be compelled to answer in each case that no, ID had no evidence to support any of these claims. The point is this: As I explain in the OP, the term "intelligence" means nothing at all in the context of ID unless it is given a specific definition. The problem for ID is that once you actually try to say what is meant by "intelligence", it becomes clear that there is no evidence to support the claim that the iCause exhibited it. Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
StephenB, As much as pains me to do so I have decided to try and understand where RD is coming from with the above questions, where he considers 'ID' to have made such 'claims', and hopefully then I can begin to make some sort of sense of it. I have asked for specific citations so that I can at least read about it in its entire context. Like you I am a little baffled as to the point in it, but I'm sure it would be made much easier if he would disclose its source. Perhaps? ;)PeterJ
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
RDF
I think these questions would help clarify positions here regarding ID quite a bit. The “iCause” is just a neutral term I’m using here to mean “That which ID proposes as the best explanation for life and the universe”.
In our last correspondence, you associated ID with libertarian free will. I explained why that cannot be the case, but you didn't respond to my corrective. Can I assume that you now agree that ID does not require libertarian free will or should I provide more information? Meanwhile, you have launched a new round of questions, the relevancy of which is not clear to me.
1) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the iCause experiences conscious awareness?
None as far as I know.
2) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that this iCause could explain in grammatical language how biological systems operate?
None as far as I know.
3) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the iCause can do anything else aside from produce the very features we are trying to explain (biological complexity, fine-tuned constants, etc), and if there is such evidence, what other things does this evidence lead us to believe the iCause could do?
None as far as I know. Was there a point?StephenB
July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
Hi RD 'I have never seen any of these claims from an ID supporter.' But that's not what your questions suggest. For the last 24 hours you have been asking ID supporters to to 'support' various 'claims' made by 'ID theory'. Like Joe, and others, I would quite like to engage you in those 'claims' but before I do I would really need you to provide me with the specific citations where those 'claims' are made. ThanksPeterJ
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
Hi PeterJ, I have never seen any of these claims from an ID supporter. I assume from your response that you'd answer that there is no attempt in ID to support any of the claims I mentioned. Is that right? Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
PeterJ- I live and I learn. Thank you.Joe
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
To better understand where RD is coming from, as I haven't been involved with this discussion, would someone please point me to where 'ID' has claimed: 1)the iCause experiences conscious awareness? 2)that this iCause could explain in grammatical language how biological systems operate? 3)the iCause can do anything else aside from produce the very features we are trying to explain (biological complexity, fine-tuned constants, etc), and if there is such evidence, what other things does this evidence lead us to believe the iCause could do? ThanksPeterJ
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
It’s a dangerous game pondering difficult questions. Best avoided altogether!
Well that is EXACTLY what you and your position does. Go figure...Joe
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Hey I’ve got a theory to explain how the universe started too! It is called “X Theory”, and it is the best explanation of all for what caused the Big Bang and determined the universal constants. We should teach X Theory in all the schools!!!!
X Theory is better than materialism as materialism doesn't even have an explanation for what caused the big bang. However when compared to ID it fails. At least ID has the mechanism of design and we have many years of experience with design.Joe
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
RDick:
JOE SAYS: ID Theory says there is an explanation for life and the universe, but it doesn’t say anything about what that explanation is!
It says it was via some intelligent agency. That is all is says about it.
1) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the iCause experiences conscious awareness?
ID doesn't say anything about the iCause other than it existed and can do things that nature, operating freely cannot (just like humans can and do). ID is about the iEffect.
2) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that this iCause could explain in grammatical language how biological systems operate?
Just our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Plus the fact that no one can demonstrate nature, operating freely, doing so.
3) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the iCause can do anything else aside from produce the very features we are trying to explain (biological complexity, fine-tuned constants, etc), and if there is such evidence, what other things does this evidence lead us to believe the iCause could do?
OK wait- when trying to explain Stonehenge we say it was designed by some unknown humans- ie intelligent agencies. We don’t ask if those agencies could have also built the pyramids.Joe
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Don’t go wasting any more time with it, and lets move on.
Yes indeed! It's a dangerous game pondering difficult questions. Best avoided altogether!Alan Fox
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
ID says there was an iCause and that is it. ID doesn’t say anything else about it.
JOE SAYS: ID Theory says there is an explanation for life and the universe, but it doesn't say anything about what that explanation is! Hey I've got a theory to explain how the universe started too! It is called "X Theory", and it is the best explanation of all for what caused the Big Bang and determined the universal constants. We should teach X Theory in all the schools!!!! What's that? You want to what X Theory says the explanation is? Oh, it doesn't. AAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * * * 1) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the iCause experiences conscious awareness? 2) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that this iCause could explain in grammatical language how biological systems operate? 3) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the iCause can do anything else aside from produce the very features we are trying to explain (biological complexity, fine-tuned constants, etc), and if there is such evidence, what other things does this evidence lead us to believe the iCause could do? Anyone? Cheers, RDFishRDFish
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Joe, 'well I say we should let him wallow in it…' I would say that is a very good idea. RD is simply toying with you. Don't go wasting any more time with it, and lets move on.PeterJ
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
RD:
The “iCause” is just a neutral term I’m using here to mean “That which ID proposes as the best explanation for life and the universe”.
ID says there was an iCause and that is it. ID doesn't say anything else about it. And that is because we can only make scientific determinations about the iCause by studying the effects it produced. This has been explained to RD many times and he just chooses willful ignorance over knowledge. Well I say we should let him wallow in it...Joe
July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply