About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

We have a long standing and obvious parochial, chauvinistic interest in claiming something unique about the attribute 'intelligence', and yet, while doing so, must ignore the cold hard fact that once we were not, and now we are, and no matter how clever we today are, that means, all that we made and make has in truth been made by whatever made us.
It appears to me that you equivocate between modern humans, and some earlier, pre-intelligence creature. It could be the chimp, the slug, the amoeba, or the oak tree -- but when you say that "we" were "not" intelligent, that looks like equivocation. Now, when you say "we", you could mean "life" -- as in plant life not being intelligent. Is that true?

Or are you equivocating between humans and fungus?

Ed


Post 21

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
or the fungus amungus? ;-)

Post 22

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

I don't think so. I'm not looking for 'a creature', or an entity. I'm a big cold process fan. I'm looking for evidence of creative cold process -- intelligence -- the machine inside the universe, to ponder how it differs -- if it does, then, in what ways-- from the machine inside of mankind.

Simple rules result in complex systems. Objective evidence of that all around us.

A tiny handful of physical constants.

The rules of recombinant DNA.

Wolfram's NKS analog, and his objective, repeatable experiments.

Is the complex system of systems we call 'intelligence' a consequence of simple rules? Or, is it really something unique to mankind/modern mankind, freshly arrived in the universe? La Cosa Nostra?

If only we compact cold process machines can intelligently create (we pretend to completely understand how), then it isn't immediately clear why cold process machines, acting under simple rules, elsewhere in this universe could not also intelligently create. What don't they have? A supernatural soul? A gall bladder? WHat makes human intelligence unique? That we care about our mortality?

What does 'care' mean? Couldn't that just be a wired weighting of some level of our neural nets, and if so, then couldn't we program any machine to 'care' about its mortality, by programming the proper weightings into a neural net?

Would that be 'really' caring? I don't know, the question really is, do we 'really' care? What does 'really care' mean, if the truth is, we are ultimately goal based evaluations of our wired neural nets and our wired neural net weightings? Hey, in that shake and bake cold process universe, the random weightings that 'didn't care' about their mortality probably did not survive. Evolution.

It's not at all clear to me why I should assume that the universe is all cold process shake and bake up to the moment modern man shows up, and that 'intelligence' only shows up after that point, very recently.

I promise, I am not secretly, looking for God. No, in fact, I'm looking for the machine inside of man. Objectively, we are what we are, and if that is cold process, then that is cold process. Not one damned atom shakes any differently, and that steak is going to taste just as good tonight.

I'm not arguing that the universe has a supernatural soul and a special unique intelligence, but neither am I arguing that you or I have a supernatural soul and a special unique intelligence. I have no idea what that 'really' means, we just are what we are, and so is the universe, no matter how we got here, no matter what we've done since we got here.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/24, 2:23pm)


Post 23

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 3:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

but when you say that "we" were "not" intelligent,

THat wasn't clear. I wasn't saying 'we' were 'not' intelligent.

I was saying 'we' were not, period. We were nothing, as in, there was a time that we didn't exist at all, and a time later that we were, and so, by some process, and I'm ok if it was cold process, we came into being.

That action, whatever it was, of bringing intelligent/creative 'we' into existence, also brought all that we have intelligently created into existence.

So, whatever that was... the question isn't even 'was that creative intelligence', the question really is, 'is what modern man, as he is, different from that act of creative intelligence, and if so, in what important way?

Maybe before mankind, all that creative bringing into being was all shake and bake. I can live with that, in fact, I do live with that, just fine.

But maybe after mankind, creative intelligence is still just shake and bake, cold process, and I can live with that, too. I'm not invested -- except for the obvious paraochial/chauvinistic bias -- in there being a 'special' nature to mankind's acts of creative intelligence.

I think its either 'intelligence' all the way down, or 'cold process' all the way up, and I'm fine with either, nothing changes either way. The most unlikely chain of events is, it all 'cold process' up until 100,000 years ago, and 'intelligence' only after that.

That belief in a sudden miraculous appearance of intelligence sounds almost like religion to me.

regards,
Fred

Post 24

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

I think it was 100% cold process up until the point of human intelligence (~1.5 Million years ago), and then it asymptotically approached 100% human intelligence (~0% cold process) over about a million and a half years.

Human brains have a "uniquely-high" need for certain omega-3 fatty acids. According to the Aquatic Ape hypothesis, hominids have had exposure to fish-born, omega-3 fatty acids for 1.5 Million years. It's possible that the first instance of high (human-like) intelligence in hominids was "by accident."

After that, however, the intelligence "grew." An intelligent hominid would simply catch more fish, leading to more brains, leading to more fish, etc. The abstract below shows that early hominids had exposure, on purpose or "by accident", to these special "brain ingredients."

Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683789

Ed

Edit: Here is the PubMed citation for this study:
**********
J Hum Evol. 2009 Dec;57(6):656-71. Epub 2009 Aug 15.

Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins: a case study from Trinil (Java, Indonesia).

Joordens JC, Wesselingh FP, de Vos J, Vonhof HB, Kroon D.
**********
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/24, 6:07pm)


Post 25

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 6:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My theory, extended and embellished on, means that if you fed chimps a diet high in fish, for a million years -- then you'd eventually get a human baby popping out of a mother chimp.

Well, maybe not so abrupt, but I think you know what I mean:

You need 3 things to purposefully create "human intelligence" ...

1) a great ape (actually, 2 of them, so that they can mate and you get their offspring)
2) the keys to a warehouse full of tuna
3) lots -- and I mean lots -- of time

:-)

Ed

Post 26

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It seems to me there is a single word describing the patterns of complexity Wolfram describes resulting from the first simple rule (pattern). Saw a wonderful program on it last year, but brain dead tonight. Can anyone help?

jt

Post 27

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 5:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From the Wiki on Wolfram's NKS:

*********
At the deepest level, Wolfram believes that like many of the most important scientific ideas, the Principle allows science to be more general by pointing out new ways in which humans are not special. In recent times, it has been thought that the complexity of human intelligence makes us special — but the Principle asserts otherwise. In a sense, many of Wolfram's ideas are based on understanding the scientific process — including the human mind — as operating within the same universe it studies, rather than somehow being outside it.
*********

This sounds anti-man and anti-mind ...

Ed


Post 28

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 7:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Downright heretical!

I don't take anything in Wolfram's NKS as anti-man. He demonstrates his principle with repeatable experiments. He didn't make it up.

He's not claiming that mankind is not a local maximus, or anything like that.

(In fact, I have no idea what 'he' is claiming.)

But his work demonstrates that complexity can result from extremely simple rules.

What I take from that is, I wonder if the evolution of 'intelligence' is not a step function (ape + fish oil = human intelligence), but rather a continuum, a process.

And, the universe ain't done yet. Mankind is a local maximus, and with extreme luck and insight and courage, not a local terminus.

Ed, your tuna+time theory is pretty much exactly what I am saying.



(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/25, 7:39am)


Post 29

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know anything about Wolfram, but I've always thought that intelligence was a natural product of the broadest form of evolution (broader than biological evolution). That just as life and death are the most fundamental alternatives in biology, that some form of evolution versus some form of decay was the most fundamental alternative in the universe that could be described as a pattern. Decay is always the breakdown of complex to simple with a loss of structure. Evolution is always an increase in complexity (or a reorganization of complexity that provides more efficiency) that results in more efficiency and/or options per unit of efficiency.

As a side note, on this discussion it would be easy to conflate the two uses of the word intelligence - one is clearly a human faculty and we can only compare it to the level of 'intelligence' of other animals, imagined aliens future generations, or artificial intelligence that might exist in future computers in a way that would be very human-like. There is always a kind of anthropomorphism at work in those comparisons. We always see an active awareness that is separate from what it is aware of.

The other is the more suspect term. It is what gets encoded, for example, in genes of an ant based upon biological evolution, that represents 'what works' in the ant world to reproduce more ants. It is something that allows more 'intelligent' reactions to an external world. The 'intelligence' of ants that milk aphids, protect their eggs, shape tunnels, store food, recognize enemies, etc. It is a measure of units of 'knowledge' or effective application of those units (ergs/unit?) apart from a mind in any normal sense of a mind.

It is possible, with this broad meaning of 'knowledge' to compute a maximum amount of knowledge in the universe. (We assume bits of some sort are 'stored' in a relationship that represents 'knowledge'). Then intelligence is a measure of the effectiveness in reactions, or the range of reactions, or the option given as possible reactions, or some combination there of, that are part of the nature of an entity. Evolution's broadest definition becomes the drive towards this recombining and organizing of 'knowledge' to raise the level of intelligence. It consumes the available components of 'knowledge' but at ever increasing levels of efficiency. It is balanced with the laws that govern what works in this process such that failures result in decay, the release of knowledge, the decrease in intelligence, the move towards randomness.

Post 30

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is essentially how I see the issue, too [tho even using quotes have a problem using the words 'intelligence' and 'knowledge' in such fashion - tho understand and agree with how you're using them]...

Post 31

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

What I take from that is, I wonder if the evolution of 'intelligence' is not a step function (ape + fish oil = human intelligence), but rather a continuum, a process.
Okay, but let me ask you a provocative question:

Is the difference between man and ape (or of the intelligence of man and the intelligence of apes) a true difference in kind, or merely one of degree?

Ed


Post 32

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Let me ask you a question. To what degree does that depend upon context, and upon how the word "intelligence" is used. For example, the answer to your questions would be "It is a matter of degree" if we were asked to compare the intelligence of different species - and given a list that included a wide range of mammals. But it would be a difference in kind if we were asked about the difference in intelligence between primates, including man.

I certainly think our intelligence is unique in the sense that we don't know of any other animal or computer program that conceptualizes as we do, or has our ability to abstract, to fantasize, to exercise volition as we do, to reason explicitly, or to exercise our level of self-awareness.

To be totally unique over-all, or in key aspects, doesn't preclude us from fitting on a spectrum that measures some aspect of our awareness, does it?

Post 33

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

I'll have to think about it a while before I answer ...

Ed


Post 34

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Is the difference between man and ape (or of the intelligence of man and the intelligence of apes) a true difference in kind, or merely one of degree?

Speaking as an individualist, it clearly depends on the man, but not on the ape.

I take it you never swam in the Sea of Stupid known as High School Football?

regards,
Fred



Post 35

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

OK, that was just silly.

I think the answer to your question is both, I think mankind is a superset, and I think that is reflected in brain structure and wiring.

I think mankind is a local maximus on this process, even as he is a leap from whatever is #2. But, I still think of it a process, a continuum.

Said another way, and this I think reflects some of Steve's thinking on intelligence vs. decay, but, it's as if this universal process is a quantum computer, coldy answering the question 'What works?' What is, is what works. What doesn't goes by the wayside.

It's not even necessary that it is answering a question that was actually posed, it just is.

regards,
Fred



Post 36

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

For example, the answer to your questions would be "It is a matter of degree" if we were asked to compare the intelligence of different species - and given a list that included a wide range of mammals. But it would be a difference in kind if we were asked about the difference in intelligence between primates, including man.
I disagree with this reasoning, as it implies that the difference between man and ape really does "become" smaller when viewed from a distance (by an observer).

man -- ape

It's a potential equivocation to just say that, when viewed from a afar, the distance between man and ape is small.

man -- ape ---- cat -------- dog ---------------- mouse

It is like a 'primacy of consciousness' or perhaps a 'naive realism' phenomenon -- things appear closer together from a distance, but that doesn't change the distance between them; the distance remains the same. If, for instance, you extend your proposed spectrum to include plants and even rocks (things with no real intelligence to speak of), then the distance between man and ape appears really, really small -- like a blip or something.

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

But including the plants and rocks doesn't really affect the distance between man and ape at all. On that view, there's virtually no difference between man and ape -- but that view is the "wrong view" to take when thinking about intelligence. You're right that context affects things, but the point is moot because there is a "right" and "wrong" context (you don't get to jostle between contexts at will).

Imagine if you owed someone $1000 and you only paid them $900. And when they complained that the difference between $900 and $1000 is large, you replied by asking them to view the difference as part of the still larger difference between $1000 and $90 -- convincing them that they really didn't get short-changed, because they could have been so much more short-changed than they were.

You'd be equivocating. The difference between man and ape is a difference in kind, even if you purposefully pull way back and "view it" as merely a difference of degree.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/27, 9:00am)


Post 37

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 9:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

"...viewed from distance..." is a bad analogy. If I stand ten feet from you and the observer moves farther and farther away the distance between us appears to grow smaller. But the "thing" being observed stayed the exact same entity - a linear, spacial relationship and its concret measurement stayed the same. I would never argue otherwise.

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, versus comparing the intelligence of computer programming to human reasoning, versus comparing the intelligence of a man compared to an ape, I must change the paramenters defining intelligence. I do this on purpose, and hopefully in a way that doesn't introduce equivocation into my discussion, because there are many different kinds of intelligence.

There are a number of abstracts that are like this. For example, "life." The definition of life, by itself will not tell you what is proper to the life of a man. Compare the life of a mouse to the life of a man. This is not an argument for words not having meaning, or that meaning is arbitrary, but rather an argument that the meaning can't always be determined without the context.

I don't believe we have a real disagreement. I believe that there is a difference of kind between the intelligence of an ape and a man. In that sentence the context is defined by that which is common to man and ape alone in the realm of intelligence. Then, from that context of what they share in mental capacities the question is what are the primary features that separate them. It is seen to be a difference in kind - not degree. Now, shift context and include a computer program. This is not the same intelligence that would be shared between man and ape. It must be a much broader defintion. From inside this new context man and ape merge to become "primate" and primate and machine will differ in kind, but man and ape will be different points on a spectrum and differ in degree.

That is valid use of context and not an improper jumping from one context to another.

If you disagree with this, I suspect that it can only be because you have a set definition of intelligence. If that is so, you need to trot it out for us to see.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

There is a professor emeritus at Colorado, totally unrelated to me in any way, Albert Bartlett, who is the geometric progression go to guy. He's a modern day Malthusian. I ran across some of his lectures recently while looking into something totally unrelated. But the focus of his many presentations on geometric progression does expose some common sense insights into things related to growth.

For example, he amply illustrates that, approx., 7% growth is a 10 year doubling time, as one example, and 2% growth is a 35 year doubling time, and so on, simple facts of compounded steady growth.

One part of his commn sense insight is, no matter what the 'doubling' period is, that once doubled, the newly doubled amount of whatever exceeds the sum of all previous growth combined.

You can easily see this:

1>0
2>1
4>3
8>7
16>15... and so on.

It's not only 'twice as big' as the last value, it is in total greater than the historical -sum- of all previous doubled values.

(Aside: he illustrated this with the chess board story; the inventor asked the king who commissioned the game to be rewarded with a single grain of wheat on the first square, two grains on the second square, four grains on the thrid square, 8 grains on the fourth square, and so on. The King was happy to (try) to oblige to come up with 2^64-1 grains of wheat...)

The last doubling is always a monumental increase. 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.

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.

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

I've been going back and searching out alot of Feynman's talks recently. He was talking about religion and fatih, but one of the topics he talked about was a scepticism of some of the myths that have arisen about the 'special nature of man.' His criticism was that 'they are too local--too parochial.' He could not look at the universe and conclude that it was a mankind centric event.

I tend to agree with him. We're here, we're capable, we're intelligent. But I stop short of deifying the special nature of our intelligence.

The point of this is, there is distance, and there is distance.



(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/27, 10:04am)


Post 39

Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

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

I don't know, but I doubt that, find it unlikely to the max.

If I accept the probability that evolution is occurring all over the Universe, then the probability that either we, as a local maximus, are also a universal maximus, is very small -- especially intellectually understanding the blink of cosmic time between apes and mankind.

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

Ironically, much of science is on the side of the Bible thumpers in this regard-- where is the evidence of life anywhere else?

So what is it that we individually believe?

1] Cold process everywhere in the universe, with the evolution of intelligence a part of that cold process.
2] Cold process everywhere in the universe, but a special local exception here, called intelligence, that occurs nowhere else.
3] A God who created a man centric universe.

Looking ahead to some hypothetical future day, when we discover evidence of life elsewhere in the universe, an irony in advance is, it doesn't kill the God theory, it just changes the mythology.

And...scientists don't care about any of that. Scientists only want to play in the universe as it is, and discover what it is, no matter what it is.





Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.