Fred, Bob and Saber-Toothed Tigers

_{Barry Arrington

March 11, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In this post the UD News Desk quotes from Nancy Pearcey’s new book concerning evolutionary epistemology:

An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

Piotr thinks he has a cogent response to this:

Does she believe “the ideas in our minds” are innate, or what? At best, it could be argued that the human mind has been shaped by natural selection in such a way that it can produce ideas which help us to survive and have offspring. As far as I can see, thought processes which allow us to understand the world and make correct predictions (and so are empirically “true”) are generally good for survival.

Sorry Piotr. Truth (i.e., saying of that which is that it is and of that which is not that it is not) has no necessary connection to survival. This has been illustrated many times along the following lines:

Assume you have two cavemen, Bob and Fred. Consistent with truth, Bob believes saber-toothed tigers are fearsome monsters that want to eat us. When Bob sees a saber-toothed tiger he runs and hides.

Contrary to truth, Fred believes saber-toothed tigers are warm and fuzzy and only want to be our friends. It just so happens that Fred also believes (again, contrary to truth) that “hide and seek with people” is saber-toothed tigers’ favorite game. Therefore, whenever he sees a saber-toothed tiger he also runs and hides.

Assume for the sake of argument that Fred’s running and hiding as part of the game he thinks he is playing is just as effective at eluding saber-toothed tigers as Bob’s running and hiding out of stark raving fear.

Here’s the kicker: Natural selection is blind to the difference between Fred’s belief and Bob’s belief. Natural selection “selects” for traits that result in differential survival rates. If Fred and Bob survive at the same rate, natural selection cares not that Fred is a loon.

Comments

Everything that a computer does can be traced back to the humans who designed and built it.Joe_{March 21, 2015
March
03
Mar
21
21
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

uuuuh, no. You ended your attack with an impossible hypothetical. You have cornered yourself. I am doing just fine, thank you. You simply can't assert "circularity", hit me with "your" version of my argument (Your version was an incorrect surmise of what I'd said, although I will allow that your version does follow from mine) and claim victory. Yet again, instead of answering my questions. You simply reframe them. Well, two can play that game: Here's one. Prove to all (three of us who continue to read this thread), that you are not me. Oh, I should add that you can do so only by posting something. RH7, I would only ask that you elucidate " structures recognizable as" --- I don't buy it (but am actually open to some movement in this area. Could there be a type of learning that is in response to limited freedoms for animals? Are animals in some limited ways types of persons in the realm of learning and creativity?) Right now, though, I say no. The beauty of form, symmetries, etc. . . we see in what animals do are constructs imposed by us. I looked up the weaver birds nests and was not that impressed --- spider webs, though, oooo--eeeeeeTim_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Poor Tim. You've backed yourself into a corner, haven't you? If you stick to "produced by a person" as the characteristic that distinguishes "real" acting/learning/creating from their "metaphorical" counterparts, then your argument is circular. But if you retract your answer, then you have to come up with something else that distinguishes the identical behaviors. Not a good position to be in.keith s_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

I will not be retracting the answer. I merely point out that the it is based on observation. Ok, you lob up such easy softballs that I just can't resist. It is impossible, in principle, for two beings to behave identically so far as each occupies a place in our Universe that the other cannot. I mean as long as you are going for the impossible, I can attempt to be just as picky. Rephrase your hypothetical. Is the human acting like a robot or the robot like a human. They can not be doing the exact same thing.Tim_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Tim: Although the rat really reaches the cheese, it only “finds its way through the maze” metaphorically. It's called spatial learning and memory. The rat learned the maze, just as it learns the corridors within the walls of a house.Zachriel_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Tim,
When you asked me to identify the “ingredient” I did so. However, you are twisting things around by saying that I “defined” real acting that way. I observed it to be that way.
No, you defined it that way. I asked for the "secret ingredient" that distinguishes the "real" forms from the "metaphorical" forms. I didn't ask you who or what does, or doesn't, produce "real" acting, learning, etc.:
What is the secret ingredient that distinguishes “metaphorical” acting, learning, creating, seeking, and finding from “real” acting, learning, creating, seeking, and finding?
You answered:
Personhood.
If you'd like to retract that answer, that's fine. Here's a question that gets at the crucial point: Suppose a human and a sophisticated future robot behave absolutely identically. According to you, the human "really" acts/learns/creates, but the robot only "metaphorically" does these things. Without knowing which is the human and which is the robot, can you distinguish between the "real" acting/learning/creating and their merely metaphorical counterparts? If so, how?keith s_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Tim:
If a person, then actual learning. Not actual learning. Therefore, not a person.
No. Here's your actual logic:
If and only if a person, then actual learning. Not a person. Therefore, not actual learning.
keith s_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Tim, I understand that you are agnostic on the issue of animal intelligence. But I hope you realize that Weaver birds, among others, build structures recognizable as products of "intelligent design". If your hunch is correct and the Weaver bird's intelligence is purely natural/material, then their nests are evidence that purely natural/material processes can produce intelligent designs.rhampton7_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Keith S, there is no problem; I am certain that you are mistaken. Instead of tautology, it is modus tollens. If a person, then actual learning. Not actual learning. Therefore, not a person. When you asked me to identify the "ingredient" I did so. However, you are twisting things around by saying that I "defined" real acting that way. I observed it to be that way. Personhood is the singular of peoplehood, you know, people in the 'hood. I will not be defining personhood for you. We have enough to deal with when talking about animals. Although the rat really reaches the cheese, it only "finds its way through the maze" metaphorically. Instinct is pretty easy to get our heads around. Rat smells food and by instinct somehow knows that walking gets food faster than the cheese walking to rat. But which way? The rat is conditioned for lefts and rights and voila success. In this sense the rat learns. But by being driven by instinct, the question arises, did the rat act or did it react to its instinct. If was driven by instinct, what becomes of actual learning in the way I defined it. It goes away. This is not to say that the rat can't be conditioned to run the maze quickly, it certainly can. This would be a good study: put a rat in an empty maze and see if it finds its way through the maze. I'd say doubtful because I don't think there would be anything to drive the rat. rhampton7, I have my biases about animals and would say no. No animal enjoys personhood according to my reckoning. All learning that they do is instinct-driven conditioning. Pets are the toughest not to be fooled by. I could be wrong about this and would welcome a tweaking of my definition in term of learning, especially. For now I plead agnosticism in this arena, and will say there is nothing to suggest anything beyond instinct-driven conditioning. Well KS, Z and RH7. That makes four of us. I am done. Talk to you again sometime.Tim_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Tim, Would Weaver birds qualify for personhood by your way of reckoning? Would bacteria qualify?rhampton7_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Tim, If you define "real" acting, learning, creating, seeking, and finding as things that can only be done by persons, then the claim that "non-persons can't really act/learn/create etc." is merely a tautology. Your argument is circular. Besides that problem, you haven't defined personhood. Is a rat a person? Can a rat really find its way through a maze, or only metaphorically? If we someday create robots whose behavior is indistinguishable from that of humans, will those robots be "persons"? Why or why not?keith s_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

What is the secret ingredient that distinguishes “metaphorical” acting, learning, creating, seeking, and finding from “real” acting, learning, creating, seeking, and finding? Be specific.
(. . . ignoring the pidgeonholing "ingredient". . . ) Personhood. We are people; things are not. I thought that through my examples, this would be clear. Is that specific enough? We are at an impasse. Personhood cannot possibly fit into your worldview beyond "persons-out-of-materials". That is why you can see no distinctions in my examples, why you see computers as effectively persons, or more likely why you see persons only as effective as computers, and why you refuse to admit what is plain for all to see. As you do, so I will let my statements stand, each confident that the argument is won.Tim_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Tim,
Speaking metaphorically, we can say the car found the route. In fact, it is convenient to do so. But, and I have made this clear, in a strict sense, it did not seek, so it could not find.
Of course, the car did seek a safe route through the obstacle course. Now I suppose you'll claim that it only "metaphorically sought" a safe route, while the human driver "really sought" it. We could continue this for a long time, but let's cut to the chase. What is the secret ingredient that distinguishes "metaphorical" acting, learning, creating, seeking, and finding from "real" acting, learning, creating, seeking, and finding? Be specific.keith s_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Tim: You are mistaken that according to my definition, computers learn. See “act” and “creating”.
act, the doing of a thing, the process of doing create, to make or produce (something), to cause (a particular situation) to exist
Computers do things, certainly. Computers produce correlations, they cause particular situations to exist. More particularly, computers can create original correlations, correlations never before seen.Zachriel_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Z, you showed nothing. The same-old-cut-out-paste-in-jest is not an argument or a demonstration. I made the key distinctions. There was no handwaving. I did NOT make the claim that "find" wasn't used with computers, but that it shouldn't, strictly speaking, be used. You are mistaken that according to my definition, computers learn. See "act" and "creating". Get over it. I know, the logical extensions of this doom your lame (as in hobbled) worldview. Move on to a better one.Tim_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Tim: I can’t tell from your last post whether you are finally seating the ability to be creative and to learn properly, or rather than defend your anthropomorphism of the computer, you have chosen to de-humanize me. We showed that your 'argument', which was nothing more than handwaving, applies to you as well as a computer. Tim: Convenience of language use and (God forbid) the New York Times are NOT metaphysical markers. You made the claim that "find" wasn't used with regards to computers. Glad to see that you have abandoned the semantic argument. You provided an operational definition of learning, "the act of creating an original, persistent association of two or more concepts. By that definition, computers learn.Zachriel_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Keith S, I grow weary of your rhetorical tricks. (. . . terribly frightened, "yes or no"). You are mistaken again; I am not afraid (why do you continue to editorialize about what I "must be" thinking and feeling?). Yes AND no. We have gone over this. Speaking metaphorically, we can say the car found the route. In fact, it is convenient to do so. But, and I have made this clear, in a strict sense, it did not seek, so it could not find. The people who built the car sought a solution to a problem and using the car as a tool, solved that problem. Zachriel, I notice that both you and Keith S continue to avoid my questions. I can't tell from your last post whether you are finally seating the ability to be creative and to learn properly, or rather than defend your anthropomorphism of the computer, you have chosen to de-humanize me. I suspect it is the latter. If I find a correlation; I, in a strict sense, learn. It is not "as if" I have learned. I struggle to see why you won't admit this somewhat obvious truth. Please, explain your thoughts on this rather than continuing all the little tricks. Further, as I have just explained, it is convenient to write in a way that imputes the "found" as if it is the "doings" of a machine which then might imply that it is solely the doings of the machine; this, of course, is not logically correct. Convenience of language use and (God forbid) the New York Times are NOT metaphysical markers. Either explain clearly or give it up, guys.Tim_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Tim: the computer hummed and purred, the correlation was known. I can see how you were fooled into thinking that it was the computer that found the correlation. Tim hummed and purred, the correlation was known. You were fooled into thinking it was Tim that found the correlation. Tim: nobody should say that the computer found the correlation. Sure they do. There are thousands of examples, including in the New York Times, which is often taken a guide to the use of the English language. There are also thousands of examples of "search algorithm found", including in academic papers.Zachriel_{March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Tim, You're terribly frightened of the word 'found', aren't you? Tell us, did the self-driving car find a safe route through the obstacle course? Yes or no?keith s_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

Tim is correct, but I would also add that computers without humans is like the universe without teleology. They're ultimately useless, meaningless, purposeless etc...computerist_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

I evade nothing. You are incorrect. By the same logic that dispells the myth that the computer alone "found", I also say that both the cars made it. But just as you have said, the second car followed the code (and other input) to navigate the course. This puts me in the rather reasonable position of saying that while both cars made it, it was by the creativity, motive, learning etc of a person that got them each there, not the vehicle or any computer on board which is nothing more than a tool. I am not stuck; you are smuggling. Either deal with it in a forthright manner, or don't. I will let the three other people reading this thread be the judge. I notice that you have assiduously avoided commenting on the binoculars, microscope, sonar, and Chevy, what gives? To find the way implies that the way was sought. Now it is you who are in the absurd position. You are saying that the auto-piloted car "decided" to make its way through the course. And, since you don't believe in magic; I guess you've got some 'splainin' to do. What is wrong with saying this: the advertisers found new correlations in my computing habits using the powerful computers at their disposal to better target ads to me? Why is it so important for you to continue to anthropomorphize computers?Tim_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Tim, Your evasions are becoming tiresome. Knock it off. You told us that in Zachriel's example, the Google ad server did not find a correlation between bicycles and energy drinks:
I like that part “having found”! No, they did not find! They were coded; they followed the code, and upon following the directions, produced a string of 0?s and 1?s which were then used, again following another set of directions, to send me some ads. [Emphasis added]
By the same faulty logic, the self-driving car did not find a safe route through the obstacle course. It was programmed; it followed the code; and upon following the directions, produced a string of 0's and 1's which were used to actuate the throttle, brake, and steering mechanism. That puts you in the absurd position of claiming that the human driver found a safe route through the obstacle course, but that the self-driving car didn't -- even though both cars started in the same place, followed the same route, and ended up in the same place on the other side. You've gotten yourself stuck, Tim. Better let the self-driving intelligence take over.keith s_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

According to (Tim), the human driver found a path through the obstacle course, but the self-driving car didn’t.
Me: I never said that!!
Nor did I accuse you of saying that.
And then this gem:
Both cars followed the same path. Both successfully navigated the obstacle course and made it to the other side. Yet according to you, the self-driving car did not find a safe route — only the human did.
I am sure you are wrong. In my example, I even came right out and said that the second car made it. Why can't you understand this? My point is NOT that the car did not make it, it most certainly made it. But what of the third vehicle? How? What is it about the second and third vehicles . . . oh nevermind! This is ground well-covered and obvious.Tim_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Tim:
Keith S, How confused are you?
Not nearly as confused as you, judging from this thread.
I never said the car didn’t make it!
Nor did I accuse you of saying that. You said that in Zachriel's example, Google's ad servers did not find the correlation between bicycles and energy drinks. By that same logic, the self-driving car didn't find a route through the obstacle course. Yet the human driver did. Both cars followed the same path. Both successfully navigated the obstacle course and made it to the other side. Yet according to you, the self-driving car did not find a safe route -- only the human did. Your position is nonsensical. Instead of dashing off another response, why not slow down and think about this for a while, Tim?keith s_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Keith S, How confused are you? I never said the car didn't make it! Now in your example of two cars I would say that both navigated the course. You keep referencing magic, but I have not (except in response to you): now it is my turn and there are three cars on the course! 1) person driving a car. 2) new-fangled programmed car that we all are reading about these days. 3) my friend's '69 Chevy pickup (no driver, human or otherwise.) Now, only two of the vehicles successfully navigate the course. Can you tell me which two and why? I hope you didn't pick the Chevy! Oh, and I hope you didn't get fooled about how the second car made it. By the way, in the example I gave, what role does "driver" play? Does the second car have a driver? What distinguishes the second car from the third? That's right, the program. Whence the program? Game over. I do not imagine that humans are magic unless by magic you mean supernatural. Obviously, only one of us is able to consider such ideas. I find it amusing and sane to be allied with GK Chesterton: “We talk of wild animals but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out. All other animals are tame animals; following the rugged respectability of the tribe or type.” Who are you aligned with?Tim_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

I repeat:
Tim, if you define learning and creativity in terms of magic, then of course they cannot be accomplished by physical systems. But then you’re simply assuming your conclusion.
Two cars navigate an obstacle course at separate times. They take the same path. One is self-driving; the other has a human driver. According to you, the human driver found a path through the obstacle course, but the self-driving car didn't. Yet they accomplished exactly the same thing, followed the same path, and ended up on the other side of the obstacle course. Why do you deny that the self-driving car found a path through the obstacle course? Because self-driving cars aren't magic, but you imagine that humans are.keith s_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, the correlation was not known; then, after the computer hummed and purred, the correlation was known. I can see how you were fooled into thinking that it was the computer that found the correlation. In fact, as I am in a concessionary mood, I will admit that "finding" is a bit confusing. So let's go back a bit. To find (at least in the case of unknown abstract correlations), one must seek. So, who was seeking? WE WERE!!! Not the computer! In the same way that nobody (I hope) would say that the binoculars found the distant bird, the microscope the virus or the pinging sonar the sub, nobody should say that the computer found the correlation. WE found the correlation USING the computer. Why do you not understand this? You know, Keith S, I was going to put "magic" into my definition , but I decided not to. You are grasping at straws now claiming that I have assumed the conclusion. I have not. I am simply locating the seat of creativity and learning in the proper place, the person. I can not help it if this undoes your evolutionary beliefs. Although you do not answer my questions I will answer yours. The car responds to its programming and features on the course. Nobody can balance my checkbook. The music system is creative if by system you include the people who programmed the computer. If you do not include the programmers, the computer is not creative, and you are smuggling. This last example is, in my book, the most illusory as when we hear the tones it is very easy (and once done, compelling) to do the work of making musical connections in theme and composition to composers' previous work.Tim_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

It appears that Tim has a magical definition for the word "found". Google's ad server isn't finding correlations. Why? Because there's no magic involved. A self-driving car that makes its way through an obstacle course isn't finding its way. Why? Because there's no magic involved. Tim, if you define learning and creativity in terms of magic, then of course they cannot be accomplished by physical systems. But then you're simply assuming your conclusion. If that self-driving car isn't finding its way through the obstacle course, then how does it end up on the other side, intact? If computers can't do arithmetic, then how are they able to balance your checkbook? If that music-composing system isn't creative, then how does it manage to come up with musical pieces that no one has ever heard before?keith s_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Tim: No, they did not find! They were coded; they followed the code, and upon following the directions, produced a string of 0?s and 1?s which were then used, again following another set of directions, to send me some ads. The correlation wasn't known until the computer performed the analysis; hence, the computer found the correlation.Zachriel_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

I like that part "having found"! No, they did not find! They were coded; they followed the code, and upon following the directions, produced a string of 0's and 1's which were then used, again following another set of directions, to send me some ads. . . . like those things, and you are fooled. get over it.Tim_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply