Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fred Reed on Wade’s Troublesome (Darwinian racism) Inheritance

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An opinion to respect here:

How did we get where we are? Through natural selection, says Wade. It is indisputable that selection can alter a species or subspecies. The unnatural selection which we call selective breeding produces animals of different sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Why would we think that human animals are different? If flu regularly killed those susceptible to it, presumably those genetically resistant would come to predominate. This is both reasonable and observable.

However, the thoughtful may be uneasy with some of this. Boilerplate evolutionary theory holds that when a beneficial mutation accidentally arises, its possessor has an advantage in the struggle for survival, has more children, and thus passes on the new trait. This makes sense, at least if the mutation does something really desirable.

But …

Wade points out that certain Asians, due to a mutation, have hair with thicker hair shafts. One is hard pressed to see how slightly coarser hair would promote survival so efficaciously as to result in having more children. It is not clear why it would be an advantage at all. In the absence of reason or evidence, various solutions may be adduced: thick hair cushioned the blows of clubs, or girls thought it was sexy and said yes, or … something. It smacks of desperation. More.

The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

For one thing, whatever survives, survives. It is easy to make up explanations after the fact.

Only predictions count. And predictions are only of value for what they can predict for behaviour, not for outcome. Some people might be more likely to fight injustice than others, but does that mean they will succeed? Or be smitten from the face of the Earth, their names lost to memory?

Then were they more fit, or less? Is that even the right way to look at it?

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution) — when you look at how little they have to go on, you can see why it ended up being about popular buzz like “race.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
RDFish:
I told you ID should provide a singular definition
No one cares what RDFish sez.
What I said was that most philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance (that is to say, most philosophers reject libertarian free will).
I doubt that but even if true, so what? Philosophers are not scientists.
Try and understand this, because you clearly don’t: Philosophers reject the distinction between intelligence and law+chance.
Del Ratszch is a philosopher who does not reject such a distinction.Joe
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
RDFish
I’ve explained this three times. Pay attention. I told you ID should provide a singular definition even though it is not reasonable because if ID attempted to do that it would become apparent that ID is not a viable theory, and it is my aim to demonstrate that ID is not a viable theory. Get it?
You would be far better off if I wasn't paying attention. That statement is totally irrational. You are saying that if only ID would do something unreasonable you could demonstrate that it is not a viable theory. Why not just admit your folly and move on. Otherwise, you will keep digging a deeper hole.
What I said was that most philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance (that is to say, most philosophers reject libertarian free will).
You said that no one, including philosophers, know what the word "intelligence" means. How could philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law/chance if they don't know what intelligence means? Do you not understand that you are getting killed in this exchange? Are you suicidal?StephenB
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.
You're wrong in two ways: 1) Libertarianism is that which transcends law+chance; when you declare that intelligence is distinct from law+chance then you are in fact positing that intelligence requires libertarian free will. Dembski actually acknowledges this - at least he's honest about his metaphysical commitments. 2) You were very (incredibly) wrong to think that everyone believes that intelligence is the complement of law + chance.
Meanwhile, you have contradicted yourself in two important ways:
Uh no, I have contradicted you.
Self contradictory assertion #1–
I've explained this three times. Pay attention. I told you ID should provide a singular definition even though it is not reasonable because if ID attempted to do that it would become apparent that ID is not a viable theory, and it is my aim to demonstrate that ID is not a viable theory. Get it?
[a] The term “intelligence” is incomprehensible. No one, including “most philosophers,” know what it means.
You are wrong yet again: I didn't say that term was incomprehensible. I said the term is meaningless until it is defined. Denyse said that nobody knows what it means.
[b] Most philosophers reject “intelligence” as an alternative explanation to law/chance.
Good grief, you are wrong yet again: I never said most philosophers reject "intelligence" as an alternative explanation to law/chance! I know you are, as usual, desperate to score a point - any point - here, but you're not going to do it by putting words in my mouth like this. What I said was that most philosophers reject the idea that intelligence transcends law+chance (that is to say, most philosophers reject libertarian free will). Try and understand this, because you clearly don't: Philosophers reject the distinction between intelligence and law+chance You better do better than this, SB - the peanut gallery is going apoplectic! Cheers! RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
You’re all getting pretty hysterical trying to shut down my very simple observation.
Your observation that is equal parts trite, dishonest, childish, and wrong? Denyse is simply wrong about "intelligence" having no scientific meaning, even in the limited context of comparing cognitive ability between and amongst groups of people. It has a lot of meaning. Then you take her limited error and run with it. Your claim, that design cannot infer intelligence because "no one knows what intelligence is" is so embarrassingly dishonest that "lol" is the only real response. Your further comments on the philosophy of consciousness only reveal more laughably ridiculous and embarrassingly laughable bad faith. 1) "Most philosophers"? Because UD is beholden to the norms of establishment academics? 2) Determinism coincides strongly with atheism and Darwinism, obviously--and you are surprised to find people on UD who dissent from that rubbish? 3) There are very strong reasons to reject determinism and embrace the reality of an independent mind, but of course you ignore these out of hand. 4) Denyse, your supposed champion, wrote a book called The Spiritual Brain. Could that be a clue that you have no idea what she is talking about? 5) Your precious determinists would never dream to pretend (as you do) that they don't understand what we are mean by "intelligence" or "design" or "consciousness". Well, some of them are as dishonest as you. But not all. 5) Lol.Timmy
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
"no one [know(s)] what it means."StephenB
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
RDFish:
StephenB, since you actually seem to think libertarianism is the reigning position in modern philosophy, you may want to see how VJTorley is trying to explain why it isn’t completely dead: https://uncommondescent.com.....aggerated/
Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. But thank you for playing. Meanwhile, you have contradicted yourself in two important ways: Self contradictory assertion #1-- [a] It is not rational for anyone to provide a singular definition for the word "intelligence." [b] Nevertheless, ID scientists should should provide a singular definition for the word "intelligence." Self contradictory assertion #2-- [a] The term "intelligence" is incomprehensible. No one, including "most philosophers," know what it means. [b] Most philosophers reject "intelligence" as an alternative explanation to law/chance.
The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence… we actually do not really know what we are talking about.
Does that include "most" philosophers who, according to you, reject it? Or, is it the case that, as you say, they reject intelligence as an explanation without even knowing what it means?StephenB
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.
Was News quoting someone here, or perhaps paraphrasing? In context, who does "we" refer to?Mung
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Context is always irrelevant to cowards, and so it is with RDFish. RDFish, if quote-mining is the best that you can do then why even bother?Joe
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
You're all getting pretty hysterical trying to shut down my very simple observation. But "LOLs" and insults and redirection do not amount to arguments. StephenB, since you actually seem to think libertarianism is the reigning position in modern philosophy, you may want to see how VJTorley is trying to explain why it isn't completely dead: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/free-will-why-reports-of-its-death-are-greatly-exaggerated/ Perhaps you should get out more :-) Anyway, it's not my fault that ID is based upon a concept that has no scientific meaning. I think Denyse here, astute scientific journalist and ID supporter, has said it best:
The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence... we actually do not really know what we are talking about.
Q.E.D. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Of course, that's not to say that choice can actual be a cause of anything. Ah, where's the link to that free will post by Charles/Chuck. :)Mung
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
intelligence (n.) late 14c., "faculty of understanding," from Old French intelligence (12c.), from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read" (see lecture (n.)).
Not knowing what intelligence is seems to be a modern phenomenon, probably related to a lack of discernment. =PMung
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Defn, at Wiki, a start. Note on ostensive defn.kairosfocus
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
RDFish:
In other words, most philosophers reject the notion that intelligence is a “counterpoise” to (i.e. is outside of, or transcends) law + chance.
I don't suppose you would care to support that rather extravagant claim with a wee bit of evidence, would you? In any case, we are not discussing which arguments or definitions people accept or reject, but whether or not the meaning of those arguments and definitions can be readily understood. So, your comment is both irrelevant and incoherent. In effect, you are saying that most philosophers reject intelligence as an alternative explanation to law chance even though they don't know what intelligence means!!! Your list of self-refuting arguments is accumulating at a rather alarming rate. Why not take a break and give yourself a chance to think things through.StephenB
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Off with their thumbs!Mung
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
What's the definition of 'definition'? ;-) How wet is the water? Anyway, some discussions here may never end because they really are not about the apparent subject(s) that are explicitly referred in the comments, but about opposite irreconcilable worldview positions. They can't agree on essentials. Hence such discussions eventually digress from the original subject(s) being discussed and end up in nasty ad hominem arguments that lead nowhere. Squandered time. But to some outside observers it might be fun to take a break from work and watch gladiators fight. Then, every once in a while thumb up or down, as it was done in the ancient coliseum Romano, for plain entertainment.Dionisio
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Why is RDFish such an ignorant little cry-baby? That must be why it chooses to remain anonymous so it can act like a cry-baby with impunity. RDFish:
Unless ID says which definition it’s using, the term is without meaning.
Then it is a good thing that ID says which definitions it is using. Your ignorance may mean something on non-ID forums but here we can easily expose it. And RDFish, please stop lying about what Denyse wrote. People can actually read what she wrote and we can easily spot your lies.Joe
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
RDFish:
In other words, most philosophers reject the notion that intelligence is a “counterpoise” to (i.e. is outside of, or transcends) law + chance.
And yet those philosophers would still know exactly what we are talking about, just as you do.
and ID ought not claim the cause of life transcended law + chance because there is no evidence that anything transcends law + chance.
Lol. That's the whole basis of ID, because we have almost unlimited evidence. And that's not even counting each person's individual conscious experience, which transcends laws + chance.
I have no doubt she’d join you in backtracking, but there’s really no doubt that in an unguarded moment Denyse has admitted the truth
Lol, there is quite a lot of doubt, actually. Just as there is quite a lot of doubt that your shenanigans reflect a conscious effort for honesty.Timmy
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
It is not a matter of what exact words they use, of course.
It is you who are obsessing over the words, laboring mightily to find a giant gap between two similar, though not identical, definitions, and claiming not to know what the definitions mean except to say that you do know what they mean by claiming that their meanings are in conflict.StephenB
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
RDFish
Neither Dembski’s nor Meyer’s definitions are operational.
They are operational according to my definition, which means that I would not be inclined to accept your definition of operational as authoritative. Either way, it's not important. What matters is that Dembski's definition of intelligence is appropriate for his paradigm and Meyer's definition is appropriate for his paradigm. There is no reason to expect that they would be identical. Indeed, you continue to contradict yourself by saying that [a] ID should use one singular definition of intelligence even though [b] it would be irrational for anyone to propose a singular definition of intelligence when there are so many aspects to it and so many ways to approach it.StephenB
May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB:
Everyone, including Darwinists, knows what it means to posit intelligence as a counterpoise to law/chance. Everyone.
Again, Denyse and I beg to disagree. Most philosophers of mind would instantly reject this statement, as it presents a very controversial and unpopular metaphysical claim as a universally accepted matter of fact. As VJTorley recently explained here in this very forum, libertarian free will is anything but a well-accepted position among scholars. In other words, most philosophers reject the notion that intelligence is a "counterpoise" to (i.e. is outside of, or transcends) law + chance. So no, it is simply and fully false that "everyone knows" intelligence is anything other than law + chance. So while your first definition of "intelligence" referred to consciousness, this one refers to the complement of law + chance. You have just given two completely different definitions, and neither of them are well suited to ID. (ID ought not claim the cause of life was conscious because there is no evidence that this is the case, and ID ought not claim the cause of life transcended law + chance because there is no evidence that anything transcends law + chance).
Denyse doesn’t deny it in the context of intelligence as a cause. She questions it in the context of intelligence as an effect to be measured. So do I.
Denyse said that nobody knows what "intelligence" means, and I'm afraid you can't rehabilitate her statement. I have no doubt she'd join you in backtracking, but there's really no doubt that in an unguarded moment Denyse has admitted the truth: Nobody has any idea what "intelligence" is.
Is intelligence (as an effect) the capacity to understand difficult concepts, or is it the capacity to simplify equations, do math, or solve problems? Who knows?
The answers to your questions are not questions of fact; the answers cannot be discovered. Rather, they are nothing but matters of arbitrary definition. If you would like to define intelligence as the capacity to do math, then that is your choice. It is neither true nor false - it is simply the way you wish to define the term. Until you define the term, it doesn't mean anything at all.
Returning to intelligence as a cause, Dembski’s minimalist emphasis on the choice between alternatives and Meyer’s emphasis on conscious choices with an end in mind are understood by all as a contrast to a purposeless, mindless process that doesn’t know where it is going.
Can something without conscious awareness "know where it is going"? There is no evidence that whatever caused life, etc. was conscious, or that it "knew where it was going".
For a number of reasons, consciousness is relevant to Meyer’s anti-chance paradigm, but it is not relevant to Dembski’s anti-chance paradigm.
You are now trying to say that ID is not really about some particular explanation for life, etc., but rather it is simply "anti-chance". A theory that offers "anti-chance" as an explanation is not a theory at all, of course. That's like saying "anti-alchemy" constitutes a theory of physical chemistry. Dembski and Meyer offer two different definitions of ID's explanatory construct. Einstein and Newton both explained apples falling to Earth by invoking "gravity", but they had different definitions of that word. The two explanations are completely at odds with each other. The same holds for Dembski and Meyer.
You claim that the term “intelligence,” as ID uses it, is meaningless.
Denyse said so too. Again: Everyone agrees that there are numerous ways that people define this word. Unless ID says which definition it's using, the term is without meaning. If anyone can choose whatever meaning they want, then ID everyone has a different theory. Once you choose a particular definition for "intelligence", ID can endeavor to provide evidence that the cause so defined in fact existed at the beginning of life and was responsible for complex biological systems.
Your answer simply sustains the contradiction: RDF: There is indeed no sense at all trying to explain phenomena such as the creation of life or the universe by appeal to “intelligence” without further qualification, because the term refers to nothing at all in the abstract. SB: (It is not rational to attempt a singular definition of intelligence)
Correct.
RDF: My exhortation for ID to actually attempt to put forth a canonical definition is simply meant to illustrate ID’s central problem: Once ID does actually say what they mean, it becomes clear that there is no evidence that it exists. SB: (ID should attempt a singular definition of intelligence)
Again: I would like ID to attempt a singular definition so that it will become even more clear that ID is a failed enterprise. Intelligence is not a thing, it is just a label we apply to various things. Just like "athleticism": "Athleticism" refers to various primarily physical abilities, and "intelligence" refers to various primarily mental abilities, but neither of these words refer to a thing or a cause of some sort.
But Dembski and Meyer both provide their operational definitions relevant to each one’s “analysis at hand,” (as you put it) and you complain that their definitions are not identical in every way.
Neither Dembski's nor Meyer's definitions are operational. (What test do you perform to decide if something experiences conscious awareness if you can't even observe the thing in question? And Dembski's most usual definition is tantamount to a description of libertarian free will; there is likewise no way to empirically establish that).
In any case, you didn’t really answer my question. Is it the discipline or the analysis at hand that decides the definition of intelligence. You indicated that it was both. I have stated that it is only the analysis at hand that makes the determination.
I don't actually understand your point. Again, people decide their definitions based on what they want to talk about. I don't think a discipline decides anything - a philosopher or a biologist or a psychologist may use the same - or different - definitions. What is your point here?
If it was only the analysis at hand, which I argue, then Dembski’s analysis, which is different from Meyer’s analysis, would not be expected to match Meyer’s definition in intelligence word for word.
It is not a matter of what exact words they use, of course. Different definitions of intelligence are as different as Newton's gravity (a force) vs. Einstein's gravity (spacetime geometry). Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a Reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: "Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb" - Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
Mung
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
Hi RD:
I don’t understand your point.
It could not be more clear. Everyone, including Darwinists, knows what it means to posit intelligence as a counterpoise to law/chance. Everyone.
Are you saying that while ID proponents such as Denyse deny that anyone knows what the term refers to, and while other ID proponents disagree about the meaning of the term (such as Meyer vs. Dembski, or Dembski vs. Dembski at some other time), Darwinists somehow have provided ID a scientific description of what intelligence is?
Denyse doesn't deny it in the context of intelligence as a cause. She questions it in the context of intelligence as an effect to be measured. So do I. Is intelligence (as an effect) the capacity to understand difficult concepts, or is it the capacity to simplify equations, do math, or solve problems? Who knows? Returning to intelligence as a cause, Dembski's minimalist emphasis on the choice between alternatives and Meyer's emphasis on conscious choices with an end in mind are understood by all as a contrast to a purposeless, mindless process that doesn't know where it is going. The differing emphasis is based solely on the paradigms being used and creates no conflict, as I have explained many times. For a number of reasons, consciousness is relevant to Meyer's anti-chance paradigm, but it is not relevant to Dembski's anti-chance paradigm. The first paradigm contains more information in order to study function as a product of consciousness and the second paradigm consciously leaves that information out in order to study function in the absence of consciousness. (Its called "bracketing."). ID scientists study the same problem from different perspectives, which provides a deeper understanding of the bigger picture. You are asking them to all come at it from the same perspective. If they did that, only one of them would be needed.
It ("I am not a Darwinst") is relevant to your bringing up what Darwinists think the term “intelligence” refers to. I don’t care what Darwinists think, either about evolution or about intelligence.
You continue to miss the point. You claim that the term "intelligence," as ID uses it, is meaningless. If ID's arch enemies understand its meaning, and argue against it on that basis, then its meaning is clear to them. No one besides yourself (including Denyse) takes the position that the meaning of intelligence as a cause is not clear. That should tell you something.
I’m talking about what the term “intelligence” is supposed to mean in ID theory, and how Denyse here confirms that it doesn’t mean anything at all.
Apparently, Denyse has moved on to bigger and better things, so it might be more prudent to address the issue directly with those who are available and are familiar with the context of the article she was alluding to, which had nothing at all to do with ID theory. Your attempt to link them is unworkable. Also, you have not yet addressed this contradiction:
“Intelligence” is not a unary thing, and so there is no sense in trying to come up with a single definition! ID surely ought to prominently present a clear, canonical, technical definition for its sole explanatory concept, but it doesn’t.
Your answer simply sustains the contradiction:
There is indeed no sense at all trying to explain phenomena such as the creation of life or the universe by appeal to “intelligence” without further qualification, because the term refers to nothing at all in the abstract.
(It is not rational to attempt a singular definition of intelligence)
My exhortation for ID to actually attempt to put forth a canonical definition is simply meant to illustrate ID’s central problem: Once ID does actually say what they mean, it becomes clear that there is no evidence that it exists.
(ID should attempt a singular definition of intelligence)
Again, when scientists use the term, they provide a clear operational definition of the term which is appropriate to what they are trying to show.
But Dembski and Meyer both provide their operational definitions relevant to each one's "analysis at hand," (as you put it) and you complain that their definitions are not identical in every way. Further, you indicate that both the discipline itself and the analysis at hand shape the definition.. So, again, I must ask. Is the determination made by the discipline, the analysis at hand, or both. I have indicated that it is based solely on the analysis at hand and have explained that Meyer's analysis is different from Dembski's, which means that there is no reason to think that their operational definitions would be identical. Yet you insist that they should be. Why? In any case, you didn't really answer my question. Is it the discipline or the analysis at hand that decides the definition of intelligence. You indicated that it was both. I have stated that it is only the analysis at hand that makes the determination. You have indicated that it is both the discipline and the analysis at hand that makes the determination. If it was only the analysis at hand, which I argue, then Dembski's analysis, which is different from Meyer's analysis, would not be expected to match Meyer's definition in intelligence word for word.
For example, they (ID) may define “intelligence” as “that which IQ tests measure” if they are studying correlations between intelligence and wealth. Or they may define it as “the ability to learn from reinforced trials” if they are studying the effect of magnetic fields on the intelligence of sea slugs. And so on.
This is the very same principle that I am asking you to honor and acknowledge. Context is everything. Its all about bracketing. This is what ID scientists do. It's the analysis at hand that determines the definitions that are being used. Individual scientists choose their problem or research questions, define their terms in that context, and carry on with the analysis. However, they can also be part of a larger research program about intelligence in general (as a counterpoise to law/chance). Thus, terms can be understood from a big picture perspective (Intelligence as a cause in general) or in the context of an individual paradigm (intelligence as the act of making a selection between or among alternatives or intelligence as a conscious choice for the sake of some end, or something else.StephenB
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Alien Intelligence: A New Scientific Model That Defines Alien Intelligence Recognizing Extraterrestrial Intelligence Communication with Alien Intelligence Oh, and of course: SETI Institute Search for extraterrestrial intelligenceMung
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Or Irish rogue, if it comes to that. But that's not really relevant to this foray into epistemology and its purlieus.Axel
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Don't be fooled by any sweet-talking Irish brogue it adopts or anything like that.Axel
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Your #19 mung, with the last clause amended: 'Intelligence: They don’t know what it is, but .... they don't like using it, as they find it a painful activity; and worse... unrewarding. Either because of their fear of the light of truth, or because they can't locate it, anyway. Your #20: 'How will we know when machines become intelligent?' Because they will use special software, to make their clangy, metallic-sounding voices (I learned that's how they will speak from sci-fi films) sound kind of warmly human? A kind filter. So take an immediate step back and ponder for a while should this occur.Axel
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
An operational definition defines something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests used to determine its presence and quantity. That is, one defines something in terms of the operations that count as measuring it.
Yet ID isn't trying to count or measure intelligence or create a test to validate the presence of intelligence.Mung
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Santa Fe Institute: The evolution of complexity and intelligence on earth How will we know when machines become intelligent? Artificial intelligence Machine Intelligence Research InstituteMung
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Intelligence: They don't know what it is but they know it evolved! Evolution of human intelligence The Mentality of Crows: Convergent Evolution of Intelligence in Corvids and Apes The evolution of intelligence More than once!Mung
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Lol @ RDFish
But ID presents one singular explanation: intelligence. Not one other thing is ever mentioned by way of explanation – just intelligence, and that’s it.
Lol.
Well, that is your particular definition of intelligence. Other people use other definitions.
Genius! A word can be used to mean different things? Staggering.
(Please, Joe, spare us the archeology and forensics lecture, since those disciplines deal not with “intelligence” in the abstract but rather “human beings”).
Lol, so much for "not knowing" what we're talking about. Game, set, match.
For example, if ID adopted the definition you gave above, it would have to provide some reason to think that anything with the ability to produce complex mechanisms must experience conscious awareness like humans do. There is no scientific evidence that this is the case.
Uh, lol? We have no materialistic reason to think that anything (let alone humans) should experience conscious awareness like humans do, and we never will. And yet, here we are. The obvious deduction (obvious to all serious people) is that intelligence is a feature of certain consciousnesses, and that consciousness is fundamentally supernatural and supermaterial.Timmy
May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply