Home » Intelligent Design » About intelligence and ID – a response to scordova

About intelligence and ID – a response to scordova

My post intends to be a response to a previous UD article by scordova. Scordova, who asks “should ID include AI as a form of intelligence?” and answers “I think so”, is aware to have put on the table a critical topic because himself writes:

I know many of my ID colleagues will disagree or will remain skeptical of adopting such a convention.

I am one of his ID colleagues who disagrees and I will explain why.

Scordova wrote:

So what is the evidence of intelligence? I would suggest the ability to construct artifacts or events with Specified Improbability (the usual term is Specified Complexity, CSI, etc. but those terms are too confusing).

This is an extremely reductive way to consider intelligence. Why consider only the construction of artifacts? Are people not constructing artifacts all stupid? There are countless evidences of higher activities by human intelligence. For example: the elaboration of logic, languages, mathematics, philosophy, sciences… To reduce intelligence only to its practical uses is pragmatism/materialism of the worse kind. A movement that names itself “intelligent design movement” cannot have a conception of intelligence so low.

Thus factories with robots, smart cruise missiles, genetic algorithms, bacteria, a collective network of ants, etc. can be considered intelligent systems. The problem is that we have no means of distinguishing real from artificial intelligence in any formal way.

“Factories with robots, smart cruise missiles, genetic algorithms” are not “intelligent systems” because what they produce is entirely due to the intelligence of their human designers. It is not the artificial system to be “intelligent”, rather its designer.

With no disrespect intended toward those with severe mental handicaps, yes such people are conscious, but there is a point a robotic automaton might be capable of generating more Specified Improbability than such an individual.

Conscious persons with mental handicaps, also if unable to produce “Specified Improbability”, are far more than robots because consciousness is always ontologically superior to any machine.

Some of us have imagined building robots that will land on a planet and tame it and build cities. They will act pretty much like human engineers and construction workers… Hence, the line between real and artificial intelligence gets blurred.

Again, robots build cities because they are programmed to do so by human engineers. In this case, the “line between real and artificial intelligence” is the clear hierarchical demarcation between “who programs and what is programmed”. “Who” are the human robotics engineers, “what” are the robots.

From an empirical standpoint, I don’t think it does ID much good to try to distinguish the outcomes of real vs. artificial intelligence, since we can’t formally demonstrate one from the other anyway, at least with regard to Specified Improbability.

On the contrary, I think that ID should carefully distinguish between real vs. artificial intelligence. (A general exhortation of Scholasticism was “distingue frequenter” in all fields.) One of the goals of ID theory is indeed to show that chance and necessity cannot produce information. Machines belong to “chance and necessity” because they are “necessitated” by their designer, so to speak. Therefore an IDer who denies the above ID proof self-contradicts.

We can even assume the process of natural selection is AI (where Natural Selection is an AI genetic algorithm in the wild), given it’s level of intelligence, we do not expect it to build extravagant artifacts.

To consider natural selection an “AI genetic algorithm” is to attribute it a merit that it doesn’t deserve. Not only natural selection is unable to build “extravagant artifacts”, it is unable to build the least artifact.

We can say an adding machine is intelligent, but we do not think, in and of itself it will build a space shuttle.

Actually I have on my desk an old mechanical adding machine. If you call it “intelligent” then why don’t call “intelligent” the reading lamp or the paperknife?

We rate the capability of various intelligence systems, and it is reasonable to affix limitations on them.

True, but here you contradict what you said before “we have no means of distinguishing real from artificial intelligence”. In fact, if we can rate various intelligences, we can see they form a hierarchy where at the top there is the real intelligence and at the bottom the artificial “intelligence”.

Whether the Intelligence that made the wonders of life is God, A Computer in Sky, Aliens, the Borg Collective, some mechanistic intelligence…it is irrelevant to the design inference. We might however be able to make statements about the level of capability of that intelligence.

Here again I see an inconsistence. I agree that we are able to grasp the level of capability of intelligence. But then, before a design inference on the universe as a whole, we cannot suppose that it was designed by “a Computer in Sky, Aliens, the Borg Collective, some mechanistic intelligence”. See here.

To sum up, to scordova’s question “should ID include AI as a form of intelligence?” my answer is: “no, we cannot consider an artificial system really intelligent”. Here I explained that real intelligence is direct connection to what I called “Infinite Information Source” (God). Here I explained that without such direct connection no comprehensibility of the world, also at the least degree, is possible. Here I explained that artificial systems (also those more sophisticated considered by AI) can show only false intelligence.

The direct connection to the Infinite Information Source (IIS) is the reason why the potentiality of knowledge of the real intelligence is infinite, as its source. No machine has this direct connection. As such the potentiality of real direct knowledge of a machine is zero. From the point of view of potentiality, the difference between real intelligence and its caricature – artificial “intelligence” – is like the difference between infinite and zero.

To deny the IIS and its connection to man is to consider man as an isolated finite system, whose potentialities are necessarily limited, due only to the configuration of its parts. This way real intelligence with its infinite potentiality of knowledge remains entirely unexplained. Said in theological terms: if man is not image of God, then man couldn’t have the potentiality of understanding he effectively has. If this simplistic materialist conception is supported by evolutionists/materialists no wonder. If it is supported by an IDer/creationist I am a bit bemused.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

137 Responses to About intelligence and ID – a response to scordova

  1. niwrad :

    This is an extremely reductive way to consider intelligence. Why consider only the construction of artifacts? Are people not constructing artifacts all stupid? There are countless evidences of higher activities by human intelligence. For example: the elaboration of logic, languages, mathematics, philosophy, sciences… To reduce intelligence only to its practical uses is pragmatism/materialism of the worse kind. A movement that names itself “intelligent design movement” cannot have a conception of intelligence so low.

    Well, what scordova wrote is this, “So what is the evidence of intelligence? I would suggest the ability to construct artifacts or events with Specified Improbability (the usual term is Specified Complexity, CSI, etc. but those terms are too confusing).” I think his use of the word ‘events’ in his definition includes all the examples you mentioned.

  2. Again, robots build cities because they are programmed to do so by human engineers. In this case, the “line between real and artificial intelligence” is the clear hierarchical demarcation between “who programs and what is programmed”. “Who” are the human robotics engineers, “what” are the robots.

    This is incorrect, IMO. I think scordova is speaking of truly intelligent robots, i.e., robots that can learn to speak, read, write and get an education, just like human children. Such robots are not pre-programmed to do anything in particular. They can be trained to learn to become experts at various things, just like humans. True, we don’t have robots with that capability now but they are coming. And sooner than most people think.

  3. niwrad,

    Ok, I was going to critique the rest of your article but I realize that your entire point of view is based on what you think an intelligent robot is and will always be. Your view is that robots do what their programmers programmed them to do. I think it’s an archaic view, one that is faulty. The new thing in AI is machine learning, not programming. Therefore, I think your conclusions are also faulty.

  4. Mapou

    I understand why you think so. You are an AI scientist. No wonder you appreciate your field. Me too appreciate high technology, as robotics. But the question of principle remains. A machine that learns remains a machine. A living intelligent being is a manifestation of God itself. There is a little difference…

  5. niwrad, I agree with you. I wrote this on Sal’s thread:

    “ID is about the source or cause of the creative conception that informs CSI rather than the method by which it is produced? A robot could never be the source of that creative conception? ID less about playing the music and more about writing the score?”

  6. I thank you for airing an opposing opinion. I think it is fair to say I’m in the minority at UD in my position, but I sense I’m not alone. Because there is not unity in the ID camp over the topic, I felt it had to be put on the table.

    There was a comment buried in my discussion which I elaborate here. A cell from the father and a cell from the mother join to conceive a human being. The cells, are presumably non-sentient entities.

    Yet they spawn a conscious being. I do think consciousness is spiritual, but the fact conscious beings are being spawned by non-sentient entities is paradoxical.

    Those non-sentient entities (the sperm and ovum egg) are arguably weak AI systems. They are able to govern the fabrication of a new human being. That weak AI system (the sperm and the Ovum) in terms of what it makes, surpasses all known man-made technologies.

    Of course I believe God made the first cells, but “mindless” cells kind of put to shame human intelligence in terms of what it can do and “understand” at the nano-scale. After all, these “mindless” cells can make a thinking mindful conscious human being.

    Thus it is hard for me (and James Shapiro) to say cells don’t possess some sort of intelligence (albeit mechanical, and presumably non-conscious). The cells possess an intelligence that is God-given, just like a computer possesses an intelligence that is man-given.

  7. scordova

    thank you for honestly accepting my critic. If I decided to counter a position (a rare event) of one of my colleagues (a very intelligent and clever IDer, by the way) it is because the topic is really very important.

    You say:

    A cell from the father and a cell from the mother join to conceive a human being. The cells, are presumably non-sentient entities. Yet they spawn a conscious being. I do think consciousness is spiritual, but the fact conscious beings are being spawned by non-sentient entities is paradoxical.

    Here is a key point. It is paradoxical according to a materialist worldview. It is not paradoxical according to the traditional worldview. In traditional cosmology, the parents, their sperm and ovum eggs and the embryologic development are not mere pieces of matter and material events. They are “animated”, in the sense the entire business has an “animic” (non-corporeal) counterpart. (This explains why a newborn receives from his parents, beyond a corporeal heirdom, also a psychical heirdom.) The parents, their sperm/ovum couple and all the process forming a new human, imply the potentiality of consciousness just from the beginning. The newborn will not be conscious because consciousness is an “emergent property” of matter – as evolutionists claim -, rather because consciousness was just potentially present in the process started by his parents.

  8. Niwrad, it all comes down to the point I made recently, namely, that intelligence is exclusively a faculty of human personality, and, more specifically, the soul: the memory, will and understanding. But these boffins won’t listen to their uncle Dudley – even when he pronounces definitively!

  9. … which of course, predicates the mystery of God-given life, in the first place!

  10. Mr. Cordova claims:

    Of course I believe God made the first cells, but “mindless” cells kind of put to shame human intelligence in terms of what it can do and “understand” at the nano-scale. After all, these “mindless” cells can make a thinking mindful conscious human being.

    Thus it is hard for me (and James Shapiro) to say cells don’t possess some sort of intelligence (albeit mechanical, and presumably non-conscious).

    The false assumptions in Mr. Cordova’s thinking are that the fertilized human egg can develop into a human being all by itself and that the consciousness/soul of any particular person can be reduced to a non-conscious, i.e. to a ‘mindless’, source. That is, of course, a reductive materialistic position that is thoroughly at odds with mainstream Theistic thought and with current scientific evidence:

    Psalm 139:13
    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

    Jeremiah 1:5
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,,,”

    Despite Mr. Cordova’s confidence, or is it hubris, that a fertilized human egg, all by its lonesome, can develop into a person, solely by reference to the deterministic (local) causes inherent within physics and chemistry, the actual state of knowledge in science as to how a single egg actually develops into a grown human, comprising trillions of intricately positioned cells, is now strongly pointing to the fact that an ‘outside’ source for information (outside of space and time) must be appealed to. For an example of how woefully inadequate the “local”, within space and time, laws of physics and chemistry are to explaining molecular biology, researchers, despite years of research, cannot even explain how a bacterial flagellum moves by reference to solely the deterministic causes inherent within chemistry and the laws of physics, but now find that they must appeal to a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain the movement of a ‘simple’ bacterial flagellum. For instance Jonathan McLatchie, who has already studied the flagellum extensively, and was just assigned to do his research dissertation project on the importance of RNA-Protein interactions in Caulobacter flagellar gene regulation, under the supervision of Dr. Phil Aldridge, who is an internationally known expert on bacterial flagella, stated this to me in reply to me congratulating him:

    Philip, we don’t even fully understand the mechanism of rotation (for the flagellum)!

    And indeed we find that in explaining the movement of the flagellum we must appeal to ‘non-local’ quantum effects in order to explain its motion. Yet, ‘non-local’ quantum effects simply are not within the classical reductive materialistic framework of science, i.e. chemistry and the laws of physics, to explain. We find that a non-local, beyond space and time, cause must be appealed to.

    INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR
    Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito
    Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state.
    http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf

    Thus, since we cannot explain the ‘simple’ movement of a flagellum solely by reference to within space and time causes, what gives us the hubris to believe that we can explain the development of human being, comprising trillions of cells, from a single fertilize egg?

    Here are a few notes along that line:

    Extreme Genome Repair – 2009
    Excerpt: If its naming had followed, rather than preceded, molecular analyses of its DNA, the extremophile bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans might have been called Lazarus. After shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces by desiccation or a high dose of ionizing radiation, D. radiodurans miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal.,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3319128/

    “When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,”,,,

    An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications – video – September 2011
    Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1Qn306IUU
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....usand.html

    What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011
    Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements… take unique meaning from their context.[3]“,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....nisms-mean

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

    Epigenetics and the “Piano” Metaphor – January 2012
    Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we’re talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components — tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....54731.html

    Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth — visualized – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70

    Comment on preceding video: Mathematician and medical image maker Alexander Tsiaras offers a stunning visualization of the process that in nine months takes an emerging human life from conception to birth. He speaks of “the marvel of this information,” “the mathematical models of how these things are done are beyond human comprehension,” “even though I look at this with the eyes of mathematician I look at this and marvel. How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us?”

    Psalm 139:15
    My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

    As to how woefully inadequate the current reductive materialistic framework of biology is to explaining the preceding, please see,,,

    Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
    Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
    1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
    2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
    3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
    Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.
    http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

    Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress – Paul Nelson – April 7, 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45581.html

  11. Mr. Cordova claims:

    Of course I believe God made the first cells, but “mindless” cells kind of put to shame human intelligence in terms of what it can do and “understand” at the nano-scale. After all, these “mindless” cells can make a thinking mindful conscious human being.

    Thus it is hard for me (and James Shapiro) to say cells don’t possess some sort of intelligence (albeit mechanical, and presumably non-conscious).

    The false assumptions in Mr. Cordova’s thinking are that the fertilized human egg can develop into a human being all by itself and that the consciousness/soul of any particular person can be reduced to a non-conscious, i.e. to a ‘mindless’, source. That is, of course, a reductive materialistic position that is thoroughly at odds with mainstream Theistic thought and with current scientific evidence:

    Psalm 139:13
    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

    Jeremiah 1:5
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,,,”

    Despite Mr. Cordova’s confidence, or is it hubris, that a fertilized human egg, all by its lonesome, can develop into a person, solely by reference to the deterministic (local) causes inherent within physics and chemistry, the actual state of knowledge in science as to how a single egg actually develops into a grown human, comprising trillions of intricately positioned cells, is now strongly pointing to the fact that an ‘outside’ source for information (outside of space and time) must be appealed to. For an example of how woefully inadequate the “local”, within space and time, laws of physics and chemistry are to explaining molecular biology, researchers, despite years of research, cannot even explain how a bacterial flagellum moves by reference to solely the deterministic causes inherent within chemistry and the laws of physics, but now find that they must appeal to a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain the movement of a ‘simple’ bacterial flagellum. For instance Jonathan McLatchie, who has already studied the flagellum extensively, and was just assigned to do his research dissertation project on the importance of RNA-Protein interactions in Caulobacter flagellar gene regulation, under the supervision of Dr. Phil Aldridge, who is an internationally known expert on bacterial flagella, stated this to me in reply to me congratulating him:

    Philip, we don’t even fully understand the mechanism of rotation (for the flagellum)!

    And indeed we find that in explaining the movement of the flagellum we must appeal to ‘non-local’ quantum effects in order to explain its motion. Yet, ‘non-local’ quantum effects simply are not within the classical reductive materialistic framework of science, i.e. chemistry and the laws of physics, to explain. We find that a non-local, beyond space and time, cause must be appealed to.

    INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR
    Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito
    Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state.
    http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf

    Thus, since we cannot explain the ‘simple’ movement of a flagellum solely by reference to within space and time causes, what gives us the hubris to believe that we can explain the development of human being, comprising trillions of cells, from a single fertilize egg?

    Here are a few notes along that line:

    Extreme Genome Repair – 2009
    Excerpt: If its naming had followed, rather than preceded, molecular analyses of its DNA, the extremophile bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans might have been called Lazarus. After shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces by desiccation or a high dose of ionizing radiation, D. radiodurans miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal.,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3319128/

    “When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,”,,,

    An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications – video – September 2011
    Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1Qn306IUU
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....usand.html

    What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011
    Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements… take unique meaning from their context.[3]“,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....nisms-mean

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

    Epigenetics and the “Piano” Metaphor – January 2012
    Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we’re talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components — tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....54731.html

    Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth — visualized – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70

    Comment on preceding video: Mathematician and medical image maker Alexander Tsiaras offers a stunning visualization of the process that in nine months takes an emerging human life from conception to birth. He speaks of “the marvel of this information,” “the mathematical models of how these things are done are beyond human comprehension,” “even though I look at this with the eyes of mathematician I look at this and marvel. How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us?”

    Psalm 139:15
    My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

  12. As to how woefully inadequate the current reductive materialistic framework of biology is to explaining the preceding, please see,,,

    Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
    Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
    1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
    2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
    3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
    Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.
    http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

    Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress – Paul Nelson – April 7, 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45581.html

    Of related note, in the following video I was immediately struck, as Dr. Paul Nelson is at the 12:21 minute mark of this following video clip on butterfly metamorphosis, with the notion that metamorphosis is, by all rights, a miracle with no possible naturalistic explanation as to how it came about nor a complete explanation as to how it currently happens:

    The Miracle of Development Part 1 – Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video – April 2013
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=736s

    Also of interest is that even the DNA and protein molecules themselves cannot be explained without referenced to a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause:

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – Elisabeth Rieper – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    etc.. etc..

    As to the Mr. Cordova’s claim that

    ““mindless” cells can make a thinking mindful conscious human being”,,,,

    Despite Mr. Cordova’s willingness to degrade humans to the point of being merely the product of purely mechanistic processes, in which God had no direct hand in each humans formation, the consciousness of each human simply is not reducible to any material causation:

    Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/pro.....9919758.do

    In fact, breakthroughs in quantum mechanics have allowed that the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    Colossians 1:17
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    Verse and Music:

    Luke 12:7
    Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

    Third Day – “Children Of God” – Official Music Video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6jO7xhU_Pw

  13. ‘As to how woefully inadequate the current reductive materialistic framework of biology is to explaining the preceding, please see,,,’

    It is no more adequate today than it was almost 100 years ago, is it Philip? Before they can address science with integrity and optimal effectiveness – leaving aside their ‘de facto’ reliance on QM to earn their daily bread – they must learn to follow logic, irrespective of personal antipathies as to where the logic leads them.

    In fact, this forum, fascinating though it is in apprising us of the findings of modern science, is, in reality, always fighting a battle (ultimately, the only battle here) to persuade our secular-fundamentalist brethren that logical inferences are simply not optional or negotiable; no more in science than in any other sphere of knowledge.

  14. scordova #6

    Thus it is hard for me (and James Shapiro) to say cells don’t possess some sort of intelligence (albeit mechanical, and presumably non-conscious). The cells possess an intelligence that is God-given, just like a computer possesses an intelligence that is man-given.

    Natural real intelligence is always a reflection of God’s intelligence. But it is a hierarchical concept. The reflection is maximum (has the highest degree of “light”, the maximum focus, so to speak) in man. The reflection decreases in lower animals. Some intelligence is even present in cells, bacteria, etc. I don’t deny that. I do affirm that God’s intelligence somehow reverberates in all living beings, as a light beam hitting a multi-faced diamond. It is not here our disagreement.

    What I deny is that such natural real intelligence has something to do with artifacts like computers. For me, to speak of real intelligence about computers is improper. Computers, also if they are able to learn, simply reverberate the intelligence of their designers. They don’t receive intelligence directly from God. For this reason they don’t deserve the attribute of real intelligence.

    In two words, it seems to me our diatribe is between a mechanistic analytic bottom-up view of intelligence (your) and an organic synthetic top-down view of intelligence (mine).

  15. As Dembski has said, ID basically reduces to the ability to make choices unconstrained by natural law, that is free will. AI does not have free will.

    Therefore…

  16. niwrad @7:

    The newborn will not be conscious because consciousness is an “emergent property” of matter – as evolutionists claim -, rather because consciousness was just potentially present in the process started by his parents.

    Although I fully agree that consciousness is not an “emergent property” of matter, I am not sure I agree that “consciousness was just potentially present in the process started by his parents” or maybe I just don’t understand what you mean by that. I don’t believe that there can be consciousness until a spirit takes possession of the developing infant’s brain when the latter reaches a level of maturity that makes it possible.

    I believe the human brain has certain physical properties that makes interactions with a human spirit possible. Even non-human spirits (demons) can take over a person’s brain if the human spirit is too weak to fend off an invasion. Here, of course, I’m speaking on faith as a Christian.

    But then again, maybe this is what you meant. Correct me if you think I’m wrong.

    I must add that I do disagree with some on this forum that the brain is not needed for intelligence or that intelligence is entirely in the spirit. The brain is a wonderfully designed and extremely complex organ with close to 100 billion neurons and more than a trillion synaptic connections between those neurons. To say that it has no function other than to be a channel for the spirit is to underestimate the brilliance of the creator.

  17. tragic mishap @14:

    As Dembski has said, ID basically reduces to the ability to make choices unconstrained by natural law, that is free will. AI does not have free will.

    Are you and Dr. Dembski claiming that an intelligent robot cannot create CSI? If you are, I disagree.

  18. Mapou #15

    In traditional cosmology the standard “layering” of the macro-micro cosmos is “spiritus-anima-corpus“. This means that a newborn birth is always a vertical causation crossing the three layers. Man is a vertical manifestation of God (or vertical instantiation of an image of Him) on earth. … “Spirit made flesh”.

    So, according to this point of view, it seems to me improper to say that spirit or soul “take possession” of the body only when the latter reaches a level of maturity that makes it possible. Causes have possession (have the potentiality) of their effects just from the beginning. This is the reason I said that – somehow similarly – consciousness was just potentially present in the birth process. Of course consciousness will be actual only when the body is ready.

    This matter is similar to the evolutionary question: “could an human spirit/soul be injected in a non-human creature transforming it in a true human?”. Similar answer: no.

  19. as to:

    Are you and Dr. Dembski claiming that an intelligent robot cannot create CSI? If you (and Dembski) are, I disagree.

    Okie Dokie. Thanks for your opinion. But your specific peer-reviewed refutation of Dembski and Marks’ work can be found on the web where exactly?

    LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW – William Dembski – Robert Marks – Pg. 13
    Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case.
    http://evoinfo.org/publication.....ation-law/

    Before They’ve Even Seen Stephen Meyer’s New Book, Darwinists Waste No Time in Criticizing Darwin’s Doubt – William A. Dembski – April 4, 2013
    Excerpt: In the newer approach to conservation of information, the focus is not on drawing design inferences but on understanding search in general and how information facilitates successful search. The focus is therefore not so much on individual probabilities as on probability distributions and how they change as searches incorporate information. My universal probability bound of 1 in 10^150 (a perennial sticking point for Shallit and Felsenstein) therefore becomes irrelevant in the new form of conservation of information whereas in the earlier it was essential because there a certain probability threshold had to be attained before conservation of information could be said to apply. The new form is more powerful and conceptually elegant. Rather than lead to a design inference, it shows that accounting for the information required for successful search leads to a regress that only intensifies as one backtracks. It therefore suggests an ultimate source of information, which it can reasonably be argued is a designer. I explain all this in a nontechnical way in an article I posted at ENV a few months back titled “Conservation of Information Made Simple” (go here). ,,,

    ,,, Here are the two seminal papers on conservation of information that I’ve written with Robert Marks:
    “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486
    “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051-1061
    For other papers that Marks, his students, and I have done to extend the results in these papers, visit the publications page at http://www.evoinfo.org
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....70821.html

    Conservation of Information Made Simple – William A. Dembski – August 28, 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63671.html

    How Information Theory Is Taking Intelligent Design Mainstream – William Dembski PhD
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UCLJKLQNbs

  20. niwrad @18:

    In traditional cosmology the standard “layering” of the macro-micro cosmos is “spiritus-anima-corpus“. This means that a newborn birth is always a vertical causation crossing the three layers. Man is a vertical manifestation of God (or vertical instantiation of an image of Him) on earth. … “Spirit made flesh”.

    I’m sorry but I really have no idea what any of this means. Sounds like medieval theology. It’s rather nebulous, if you ask me. How did they arrive at their conclusions? That worldview seems to imply that viruses, bacteria, animals and plants are conscious, which I think is both unproven and false. I believe that there must be a spiritual substrate that gives matter its properties, and not just animate matter, mind you. But consciousness is something else. It comes from a different kind of spirit. If demon spirits can enter and possess a human brain, so can a human spirit.

  21. If I decided to counter a position (a rare event) of one of my colleagues (a very intelligent and clever IDer, by the way) it is because the topic is really very important.

    Thank you for the kind words. I very much appreciate your posts at UD as well, and I appreciate you stating the opposing case.

    Whether or not the UD community finds resolution on the matter, it is a topic that needed to be discussed. I’ve mostly avoided this topic for quite some time, but I’ve alluded to it all the way back to my ARN and ISCID days on occasion.

    AI and Robotics was a topic of interest when I studied computer science and electrical engineering. I actually thought that was my career path until I realized the AI community wasn’t quite delivering what we saw in the science fiction movies (like C3PO in Star Wars, or the Arnold Schwarzenagger Terminators, especially the Kristanna Lokken Advanced Terminator in Terminator 3).

  22. Dennett on Competence without Comprehension – William A. Dembski – June 2012
    Excerpt: In 1936 Turing proposed a universal mechanism for performing any and all computations, since dubbed a Turing machine. In the last seventy-plus years, many other formal systems have been proposed for performing any and all computations (cellular automata, neural nets, unlimited register machines, etc.), and they’ve all been shown to perform the same — no less and no more — computations as Turing’s originally proposed machine.,,,
    Something is a Turing machine if it has a “tape” that extends infinitely in both directions, with the tape subdivided into identical adjacent squares, each of which can have written on it one of a finite alphabet of symbols (usually just zero and one). In addition, a Turing machine has a “tape head,” that can move to the left or right on the tape and erase and rewrite the symbol that’s on a current square. Finally, what guides the tape head is a finite set of “states” that, given one state, looks at the current symbol, keeps or changes it, moves the tape head right or left, and then, on the basis of the symbol that was there, makes active another state. In modern terms, the states constitute the program and the symbols on the tape constitute data.
    From this it’s obvious that a Turing machine can do nothing unless it is properly programmed to do so.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....PWiRP.dpuf

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson
    Excerpt: For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~dou...../info8.pdf

    Free Will
    In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices determine past material states:

    Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
    Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
    According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html

    In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,,

  23. I thought ID was strictly science but I see that a lot of the discussion here getting into theology and philosophy. In an effort to get away from that I would like to submit a question – or two.

    How can a programmer quantify a personal preference in digital form? I mean I like broccoli while Bush Sr. hates it, who is right? If some else likes broccoli but only cooked is that person any more right than either Bush Sr. or me and who is to decide what is right on that issue? But all of this is part of what we commonly call intelligence.

    If such things cannot be adequately programmed then my computer can never be considered intelligent. Furthermore, computers are digital automation machines. Even though analog circuits can be built into them they still have to convert that information over to digital data for processing. So I like a certain room temperature but my friend thinks it is too warm while another likes the temperature somewhere in between. The problem is that temperature is a linear analog quantity. How does one program something like that? How do we program preferences that have infinite possibilities?

  24. bornagain77 @19:

    Okie Dokie. Thanks for your opinion. But your specific peer-reviewed refutation of Dembski and Marks’ work can be found on the web where exactly?

    Please stop being so pompous. Peer review has nothing to do with it. After all, all the Darwinist crap that’s being put out by the academic community is peer reviewed.

    That being said, I don’t see how Dr. Dembski’s work disagrees with my claim about intelligent robots. Quoting from your comment above:

    Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information.

    How does this contradict what I am saying? An intelligent robot is not a natural force.

  25. Not pompous at all. Just want to see your rigorous mathematical work backing up your opinion. As to:

    “An intelligent robot is not a natural force.”

    And what exactly is ‘non-deterministic’ (i.e. supernatural?) within the robot? Does the robot have free will?

  26. Mapou #20

    What I wrote concerns man. So I didn’t claim that “viruses, bacteria, animals and plants are conscious”. Ancient traditional teachings may seem nebulous to whom has a modern mindset.

    You say:

    If demon spirits can enter and possess a human brain, so can a human spirit.

    You seem to speak of devil possession. I don’t deny that. But the issue wasn’t that, rather the causation chain generating a new human with all his three aspects (spirit, soul, body).

  27. What is thinking when there is no one who is thinking? How can there be understanding if there is no one who understands? What is the meaning of letters without words, the meaning of words without sentences, the meaning of sentences without a story, the meaning of a story without consciousness?
    What is (artificial) intelligence if there is no one who is intelligent?

  28. boragain77 @25:

    Not pompous at all. Just want to see your rigorous mathematical work backing up your opinion.

    Mathematics have nothing to do with it. Math is only descriptive, not explanatory. Like I said, I don’t see how Dr. Dembski’s work contradicts my opinion on this topic.

    As to:

    “An intelligent robot is not a natural force.”

    And what exactly is ‘non-deterministic’ (i.e. supernatural?) within the robot? Does the robot have free will?

    Non-determinism has nothing to do with free will in my opinion. All of nature is non-deterministic (probabilistic) at the quantum level. But I never claimed that robots can have free will. It is possible to program a robot to have random motivations but that would not be free will. And I never claimed that intelligent learning robots can create new information. But they can certainly learn from their environment and use that information to create CSI. A robot does not need to have free will to create CSI. It only needs the capacity to anticipate the future and plan its future actions to accomplish its goals. Furthermore, its goals are generated from being conditioned (motivated) by either the environment or a human trainer.

  29. “Mathematics have nothing to do with it.”

    OKIE DOKIE, thanks for your opinion.

    “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
    Leonardo Da Vinci

  30. “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
    Leonardo Da Vinci

    You love to argue from authority, don’t you, bornagain77? You don’t have a lick of creativity or self-confidence do you? Is Da Vinci some sort of infallible god? Why is he dead then? Da Vinci also believed that humans could fly by flapping artificial wings. He even designed a flying screw that was intended to be powered by humans. You need to get a clue before you can argue with me, OK?

    So give it a rest, bornagain77. Maybe you need to be reborn again and again.

  31. Tragic Mishap #15,

    The way I read Dembski is that he rather means choices indifferent to law-like necessity and/or chance contingency because being unconstrained by physical reality is a divine property. However, if my understanding is correct, AI is capable of that, too. Having said this, I am not taking either side of this debate.

  32. “Is Da Vinci some sort of infallible god? Why is he dead then?”

    And yet, his spirit lives on, perhaps in heaven, but most definitely on Earth:

    Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour – interactive image
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....iatour.jpg

    “Speaking as one who has examined the original Vitruvian Man drawing, I can say that Leonardo was looking for a numerical design scheme that informs the proportions of the human body.
    The drawing began as an illustration from Vitruvius’ book, De Architectura where Vitruvius justifies the use of the square and circle as design elements because those shapes are integral to the human body: a man’s height is equal to his width (with arms outstretched) as a square, and a circle drawn with the navel as center and feet as radius is coincident with the hands’ reach.
    Leonardo also notes the other proportional relationships from Vitruvius such as the head height measures to the whole as well as the arms and hand sections.
    Leonardo then continued measuring (from the evidence of pin point indentations made by walking dividers, especially along the left vertical edge) to find more proportional relationships. He would take a measure of a part of the figure with the dividers and walk that measure along the height to see if the measure would fit an even number of times.
    From this drawing and others where Leonardo was working on the same type of problem it is evident that Leonardo believed there was a something like a unified field theory of design where everything in nature was related by numerical and geometrical design systems.
    He was one of the original ID thinkers.”
    - Dr. Ford
    Of note: The Vitruvian Man is a world-renowned drawing created by Leonardo da Vinci c. 1487. It is the one commonly associated with the science of physiology
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-455233

  33. It is also interesting to note another place where exemption is claimed from rigorous mathematical proof:

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, Intelligent Design (ID) does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor:

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

  34. bornagain77, again give a rest. I am not disagreeing with Dembski. You are.

    Dembski’s work on NFL has nothing to do with free will or consciousness. It has to do with the conservation of information. An intelligent robot does not create new information. It simply converts existing information that it learns from the environment into CSI.

    An intelligent robot is not a threat to ID nor is it evidence for Darwinism. Stop being so defensive. But then again, I can see where it could be a threat to your personal worldview and that of other Christian fundamentalists.

  35. “An intelligent robot”

    that is an oxymoron

  36. Mapou at 17:

    “Are you and Dr. Dembski claiming that an intelligent robot cannot create CSI? If you are, I disagree.”

    Mapou at 34:

    “It simply converts existing information that it learns from the environment into CSI.”

    So is the “intelligent” robot creating information or is it simply converting information?

  37. Just to clarify on my post #31 because it reads a bit ambiguous. I mean AI is capable of making choices indifferent to physicality (such as devising the rules of a game for example). I do not mean AI is capable of being unconstrained by physical reality.

  38. So is the “intelligent” robot creating information or is it simply converting information?

    You see? This is what I’m talking about. There is no need to invoke authority to make a good point every time you write a comment. It exercises the mind. Doesn’t that feel better?

    So OK, I realize now that I should not have used the word ‘create’ in reference to CSI. In a sense, if a robot rearranges building blocks to come up with a new configuration of matter that was not not there before, it is creating something new even though the total information in the universe is always conserved. This is because the robot’s “knowledge” is always acquired (via learning or what have you), never generated or created.

  39. bornagain77 @36:

    Mapou at 17:

    “Are you and Dr. Dembski claiming that an intelligent robot cannot create CSI? If you are, I disagree.”

    I realize that my choice or words can be confusing. Maybe I should rephrase the question thus:

    Are you and Dr. Dembski claiming that an intelligent robot cannot construct new objects with CSI?

    No new CSI is created.

  40. Salvador:

    I thank you for airing an opposing opinion.

    You’re welcome.

  41. Mapou, I disagree with some nuances in 38 but I don’t feel like being talked down to for correcting you. Thus I will not point them out to you.

  42. bornagain77 @41:

    Well, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones in my opinion.

  43. Mapou, other than in your imagination, I can find no place I talked down towards you in this thread. I’ve tried patiently to correct your misconceptions with friendly discourse extended to a fellow ID advocate and with trustworthy references (not with my personal opinions save those I can back up with trustworthy references). But in my attempts to correct your unreferenced misconception about intelligent robots creating CSI (which you finally admitted to ‘using the wrong word’) I was repeatedly talked down to. A quick glance finds the disrespect from you towards me as such:

    stop being so pompous.

    You love to argue from authority, don’t you, bornagain77? You don’t have a lick of creativity or self-confidence do you?

    You need to get a clue before you can argue with me, OK?

    I can see where it could be a threat to your personal worldview and that of other Christian fundamentalists.

    You see? This is what I’m talking about. There is no need to invoke authority to make a good point every time you write a comment. It exercises the mind. Doesn’t that feel better?

    I challenge you, a brother ID advocate, to find where I treated you in such manner in this thread.

  44. bornagain77, you started it with this:

    Okie Dokie. Thanks for your opinion. But your specific peer-reviewed refutation of Dembski and Marks’ work can be found on the web where exactly?

    This is insulting, in my opinion. It means this: you got nothing interesting or intelligent to say unless you can publish a peer-reviewed paper to refute Dr. Dembski’s work. First off, I happen to have a very low opinion of the peer review process. I don’t believe it should even exist. I think science should be a free for all system just like the arts and other human occupations. I detest elitism. Second, I also happen to know a little about AI and robots and I know what they can do and what they’ll be able to do in the near future.

    I can’t stand having to defend obvious facts. Countless computer programs are creating complex events and objects with CSI in them as I write. It’s part of the machine learning and big-data revolution going on right now. Video games have intelligent entities that learn about your moves as you play. Cars are getting smarter all the time. Many have collision avoidance systems. Some can tell whether or not you’re distracted and act accordingly. Still others are driving autonomously, making complex judgments about the road ahead, lane markings, road signs, the behavior of other vehicles, their current locations and how to get from point A to point B using virtual maps, etc. Advertisers and retailers have systems that constantly monitor what you do on the internet and tailor their offerings according to your habits. It goes on and on.

    All of that stuff is based on the automatic creation of data with complex specified information. You seem to think of it as a threat to your (archaic, in my opinion) view that the brain is not needed for intelligence, which is fine (although you are about to be sorely disappointed in the not too distant future) but there is no threat to ID that I can see.

  45. Mapou

    Sure machines are getting smarter we design and build them that way bit here is my question to you? Will a machine ever be able to think what it’s like to be a bat? You see machines do not think….. they compute.

  46. The problem with AI as actual intelligence is aptly demonstrated in the movie 5th Element when Gary Old man chokes on a cherry and none of the intelligent machines knew what to do, but a human would…..

  47. Mapou, but without math and peer-review, regardless of your personal opinion of math and peer review, IT IS just your personal opinion. There is no insult in that that is just the way it is. You may not like it but OH WELL what can I say! Now conservation of information is fairly simple to understand in that no computer program can create information over and above what is programmed, and feed, into it, by an original conscious intelligent being. To claim otherwise, as you have admitted mistakenly done, without reference to mathematical peer review, is to ignore what has been established by much hard work by Dembski and Marks, as well as numerous others before them as well as alongside them
    (Please look at the credentials and references here Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/ ).

    There is no fine line for you to play with in conservation of information. It is a strict demarcation that clearly delineates the actions of a conscious intelligent being, with free will, from that of a deterministic machine (even one programed with very sophisticate algorithms, quantum randomness, and etc..) For you to pretend otherwise, and to want me to give your personal opinion as much weight as I give to Dembski and Marks seminal work is severely misplaced on your part to put it mildly.

    Note:

    Can a Computer Think? – Michael Egnor – March 31, 2011
    Excerpt: The Turing test isn’t a test of a computer. Computers can’t take tests, because computers can’t think. The Turing test is a test of us. If a computer “passes” it, we fail it. We fail because of our hubris, a delusion that seems to be something original in us. The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls.,,, It’s such irony that the first personal computer was an Apple.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45141.html

  48. Andre:

    The problem with AI as actual intelligence is aptly demonstrated in the movie 5th Element when Gary Old man chokes on a cherry and none of the intelligent machines knew what to do, but a human would…..

    LOL. I remember that scene. Gary Oldman was great as the bad guy. It was a very unrealistic movie, though. The writers and directors understood very little about AI.

  49. Are you and Dr. Dembski claiming that an intelligent robot cannot create CSI? If you are, I disagree.

    Yes. As BA noted, that’s the entire point of the Law of Conservation of Information. No program can create CSI that is not somewhere in its original program, that is, coming from its programmer.

  50. bornagain77:

    no computer program can create information over and above what is programmed, and feed, into it, by an original conscious intelligent being.

    Actually, I disagree with this. There are machines now that can learn things from their environment, things that their programmers have never programmed into them. But hey, this is also true of us humans to a great extent. Almost everything we know comes from learning. Creativity is hard.

    In the not too distant future, there will be machines that will start their “lives” like babies and learn just like babies. They will learn to walk, speak, read and write just like humans. They will understand what’s going on around them as well as and more than likely, even better than you and I. They will do everything you and I can do. It will be the end of work as we know it.

    But guess what? These machines will not be invented by a bunch of superstitious, materialist academics who believe they can gain immortality by uploading their brains to a machine (how dumb is that?). No sirree. They will come from the one place that you and they least expect. The secret of how to design intelligent machines is staring everybody in the face as I write but you are all too blind to see it. It gets even better. They will not require any fancy math either, just a bunch of simple artificial neurons arranged in various network configurations.

    To claim otherwise, as you have admitted mistakenly done, without reference to mathematical peer review, is to ignore what has been established by much hard work by Dembski and Marks, as well as numerous others before them as well as alongside them

    Look, the NFL theorem has been around for years. But this is not what bothers you. What bothers you is the idea that there can be a machine as intelligent as you. That would go against everything you believe in. That’s too bad.

  51. tragic mishap:

    Yes. As BA noted, that’s the entire point of the Law of Conservation of Information. No program can create CSI that is not somewhere in its original program, that is, coming from its programmer.

    What I wanted to say is that machines will be able to construct objects with CSI in them. Do you disagree with that? Are you also saying that no program can learn things from its environment that was not programmed into it? Such programs already exist.

  52. Mapou

    Real intelligence is not simply to create CSI (this was my first critic to scordova). Real intelligence is to grasp meanings. It is to do a thing and in the same time to understand/know/comprehend what is the meaning of the thing, the meaning of to do the thing and the meaning of being the agent.

    This is possible because real intelligence is directly connected to the Infinite Information Source. In my previous cited post “comprehensibility of the world”:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....the-world/

    I even provided a schema of this connection. Please refer to it. It is the IIS that contains the meanings. The meanings are not in the world, not in the environment. The meanings are in the infinite Divine Intellect (=IIS). Humans have real intelligence because are reflections of the Divine Intellect. Analogy: if the Divine Intellect is the Light Source, any man is a light beam.

    I agree with you that future robots will mimic men better than now. But they will never grasp the meanings of their actions/imitations. Because machines are not reflections of the Divine Intellect.

    For the sake of argument, I even go in AI further than you, mind you. Soon robots will be able to talk and even to post comments in a forum. But they will do that without understand/know/comprehend the meaning of their own output character strings and let alone the meaning of the human comments.

    In two words, real intelligence implies thought/action with meaning. The false/artificial intelligence of robots is action without meaning.

  53. So you built a robot with AI…. then you tell it it is free and may do whatever it likes….. What does Robots like?

  54. Will AI ever have emotion? Will it understand anger sadness? I’m not talking about what it perceives of others but itself?

  55. niwrad,

    I’m sorry, I’m a logical thinker and metaphysics is not my cup of tea. Infinite divine intellect? This is nonsense, man. Infinity is BS. God regretted that he created man on earth. If he had infinite knowledge about everything, he could not possibly have any regrets. Infinity is illogical metaphysical nonsense, IMO.

    But as far as understanding the meaning of things is concerned, it’s not the big incomprehensible metaphysical miracle you are making it out to be. It’s all about causes and effects. And causes and effects are about timing. The brain is just a timing supercomputer. It memorizes the timing of sensory events and creates an internal model of how they change. This malleable temporal model is where meaning resides.

  56. Andre:

    So you built a robot with AI…. then you tell it it is free and may do whatever it likes….. What does Robots like?

    Andre, I will be the first to tell you that robots will never have free will. They will never rebel against their masters as the clueless materialists, atheists and Singularitarians believe. That is pure superstitious, brain-dead hogwash. Machines will always act according to the motivations and Pavlovian conditioning we give them and that’s it. However, they will do it very intelligently, very human-like, so much so that their behavior will evoke in us what some are calling the uncanny valley. Still, reward and punishment is what will motivate them, just like animals. They will not “like” anything and they will not see beauty in anything. They will never be conscious even though many humans will swear that they are conscious.

    Yes, they will be frustrated if unable to achieve their goals and they will act emotionally but it will not be a conscious emotion. It will just be the artificial neurons firing.

  57. Mapou

    So no conscience, no free will and no consciousnesses. That means they have no intelligence only a program that mimics intelligence….

  58. Mapou

    Your negation (and even your depreciation!) of the Divine Intellect, containing all possibilities, and which is the Total Truth (of course including the logical truth you appreciate) explains why unfortunately you are actually unable to grasp the difference between real and false intelligence.

    I am very sorry, but if you deny this Principle (in other terms you are an atheist), I can do next-to-nothing to help you understand.

    You rightly wrote yesterday: “I fully agree that consciousness is not an “emergent property” of matter”. Then, where do you think consciousness comes from, but from that Principle?

  59. Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video (with Gregory Chaitin)
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8516356
    Quote from video: Turing recast incompleteness in terms of computers and showed that since they are logic machines, there would always be some problems they would never solve. A machine fed one of these problems would never stop (halting problem). And worse, Turing proved there was no way of telling beforehand which these problems were.”

    Gödel’s philosophical challenge (to Turing) – Wilfried Sieg – lecture video
    (“The human mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine.”)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je9ksvZ9Av4

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine”
    ~ Godel

  60. It is interesting to note in the preceding video that although Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, he failed to realize that his entire idea for computers came to him suddenly, ‘in a vision’, thus confirming Godel’s contention that humans had access to the ‘divine spark of intuition’. A divine spark which enables humans to transcend the limits he, and Turing, had found in his incompleteness theorem for computers, mathematics, and even for all of material reality generally:

    etc.. etc…

  61. correction: “transcend the limits he, and Godel,”

  62. OOPS,, nevermind,,,

  63. Bornagain77

    By the way, thank you for your indefatigable and priceless support, never missing in my posts.

    Obviously Godel’s “divine spark of intuition” you cite has a lot to do with what I called “light beam” connecting every man to the Light Source of all knowledge. (Light is always a symbol of knowledge, in the traditional doctrines.) Godel was a Platonist (as most mathematicians), and as such, believed in the realm of eternal Ideas (which is the same thing as the theological Divine Intellect). Another great Platonist mathematician was Paul Erdos, who believed in an “eternal book” containing all mathematics…

    It is always the same concept, expressed in different ways. There must be an infinite information source, First Cause of all.

  64. Machines make CSI. They can make CSI we have never seen before.

    Yes. As BA noted, that’s the entire point of the Law of Conservation of Information. No program can create CSI that is not somewhere in its original program, that is, coming from its programmer.

    I do not like the way the Conservation of Information theorem is stated. The current discussion poses a paradoxes for that theorem:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....000-coins/

    The better way of phrasing it is that an AI system ultimately has limitation in what it can do because AI systems are ultimately constraint propagation systems. These constraints cannot be violated unless the machine is reprogrammed or is broken. That is the better way of framing the problem.

    For example a chess system might be able to create databases on the fly of its opponent. It will thus “learn” and apply information over time. However, unless it is reprogrammed to do more than chess it will never build space shuttles. That’s the better way to frame the conservation of information theorem.

    Accepting we have free will, emotion, etc. is formally beyond questions of improbability and computation. That is conflating theological ideas with what we can actually say about the evolution of information processing systems.

    The real question is not whether AI systems are limted in terms of what they can self-evolve into (they cannot evolve past the constraints they were designed with, even though the human designers might not actually know what those limits are since human designers can barely remember what computer code they wrote a few days ago).

    The real question is whether human intelligence is like an automaton. That cannot be proven one way or another, it is a matter of faith that humans have free will and moral responsibility. Calvinists have posed an interesting problem: how can the be predestination and free will? They accept both.

    But those questions are beyond the current discussion.

    Can machines make novel CSI? Yes, depending on how you define CSI. Can a machine reprogram itself? Only to certain limits.

    With respect to natural selection, the limits are empirically observable and can be reasonably inferred unless one is a Darwinist who relies on imagination and cherry picks data that indicates real evolution is downward.

    I’m limiting my arguments here because this is niwrad’s discussion, and I want to give his ideas priority.

  65. Thanks niwrad, although I don’t know how much credit I personally can take, since referencing the Turing-Godel video came to me in a moment of ‘intuition’. :) But as you say it always boils down to the same point, “There must be an infinite information source, First Cause of all.”

    A few notes on human intuition:

    This ability to ‘instantaneously’ know answers to complex problems, that would take supercompers days to calculate has long been a very intriguing characteristic of some autistic savants;

    Is Integer Arithmetic Fundamental to Mental Processing?: The mind’s secret arithmetic
    Excerpt: Because normal children struggle to learn multiplication and division, it is surprising that some savants perform integer arithmetic calculations mentally at “lightning” speeds (Treffert 1989, Myers 1903, Hill 1978, Smith 1983, Sacks 1985, Hermelin and O’Connor 1990, Welling 1994, Sullivan 1992). They do so unconsciously, without any apparent training, typically without being able to report on their methods, and often at an age when the normal child is struggling with elementary arithmetic concepts (O’Connor 1989). Examples include multiplying, factoring, dividing and identifying primes of six (and more) digits in a matter of seconds as well as specifying the number of objects (more than one hundred) at a glance. For example, one savant (Hill 1978) could give the cube root of a six figure number in 5 seconds and he could double 8,388,628 twenty four times to obtain 140,737,488,355,328 in several seconds. Joseph (Sullivan 1992), the inspiration for the film “Rain Man” about an autistic savant, could spontaneously answer “what number times what number gives 1234567890″ by stating “9 times 137,174,210″. Sacks (1985) observed autistic twins who could exchange prime numbers in excess of eight figures, possibly even 20 figures, and who could “see” the number of many objects at a glance. When a box of 111 matches fell to the floor the twins cried out 111 and 37, 37, 37.
    http://www.centreforthemind.co.....hmetic.cfm

    At the 11:50 minute mark of this following video, Magnus Carlsen, who is very shortly poised to become the next world Chess champion with his 3rd victory over Vishy Anand today, explains that he does not know how he knows his next move of Chess ‘instantaneously’, that ‘it just comes natural’ to him to know the answer to the chess problem instantaneously.

    Mozart of Chess: Magnus Carlsen – video
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/w.....contentAux

    A chess prodigy explains how his mind works – video
    Excerpt: “What’s the secret to Magnus’ magic? Once an opponent makes a move, Magnus instantaneously knows his own next move.”
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....er;housing

    Nicola Tesla had a ‘vision’ of the AC electric motor:

    Electrical genius Nicola Tesla was born in Serbia in 1856,,, (his father and farther in law were both clergyman).
    Excerpt: While walking in Budapest Park, Hungary, Nikola Tesla had seen a vision of a functioning alternating current (AC) electric induction motor. This was one of the most revolutionary inventions in the entire history of the world.
    http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html

    Moreover, The following video is very suggestive to a ‘spiritual’ link in man’s ability to learn new information in that the video shows that almost every, if not every, founder of each discipline of modern science was a devout Christian:

    Christianity Gave Birth To Science – Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer – video
    http://vimeo.com/16523153

    And there is a mysterious correlation between technological progress and Christianity even to this day

    Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany – October 2011
    Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
    http://charltonteaching.blogsp.....-wife.html

    A very strong piece of suggestive evidence, which persuasively hints at a unique relationship that man has with ‘The Word’ of John 1:1, is found in these following articles which point out the fact that ‘coincidental scientific discoveries’ are far more prevalent than would be expected from a ‘random’ materialistic perspective,:

    List of multiple discoveries
    Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of “multiple independent discovery”. Robert K. Merton defined such “multiples” as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....iscoveries

    Of course all this is just interesting trivia, ‘icing on the cake’, to supplement the fact of ‘conservation of information’ that has been solidified/established by Godel, Turing, Chaitin, Marks and Dembski. i.e.

    “There must be an infinite information source, First Cause of all.”

    Verses and Music:

    John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    John 15:5
    “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

    Steven Curtis Chapman – Lord of the Dance (Live)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXbvMcMbU0

  66. Mr. Cordova claims:

    it is a matter of faith that humans have free will

    And yet,

    Free Will
    In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices determine past material states:

    Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
    Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
    According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html

    In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,,

    It is a strange ‘matter of faith’ that can be bore out empirically like that!

  67. Andre:

    Mapou

    So no conscience, no free will and no consciousnesses. That means they have no intelligence only a program that mimics intelligence….

    Not true. Intelligence is intelligence, free will is free will and consciousness is consciousness. Either you have them or you don’t. Robots will have the first of the three but not the other two.

  68. scordova

    The real question is whether human intelligence is like an automaton.

    Automata (Turing machines) are numerable/countable. Differently, problems and their solutions are not countable (they have a cardinality/potency higher than the integer number set).
    Human intelligence has shown to be able to resolve a large range of problems. What’s more, human intelligence invented the Turing machines themselves, while no Turing machine invented human intelligence. This asymmetry is sign of the ontological superiority of human intelligence compared to any automaton. It is the hierarchical demarcation between “who makes and what is made” I already stressed in the OP. This means that the answer to your question is: “human intelligence is more than an automaton”. Obviously this agrees with my metaphysical/theological argument about the infinite information source and its direct connection to man. It couldn’t be otherwise.

  69. The real question is whether human intelligence is like an automaton.

    And to extend the thought, if human intelligence is like an automaton, it too is subject to NFL limitations.

    I do not think human intelligence is like an automaton, partly because :

    1. it is not completely deterministic
    2. it actually makes many computational errors
    3. consciousness does not seem resolvable to computation

    But we cannot say that human intelligence is completely unlike an automaton either. AI captures the automaton features of the human intelligence, it tries to throw out the miscalculating features of human intelligence, but it cannot duplicate consciousness as that seems to transcend computation.

    To me, AI is a valid representation of some aspects of human intelligence. Chess playing is a good example.

  70. I do not think human intelligence is like an automaton, partly because :

    1. it is not completely deterministic
    2. it actually makes many computational errors
    3. consciousness does not seem resolvable to computation

    What examples of computational errors come to mind? Acceptance of Darwinism. That is a serious malfunction of the thinking process.

  71. scordova

    To me, AI is a valid representation of some aspects of human intelligence. Chess playing is a good example.

    Yes, you say correctly “some aspects”, those more mechanistic, the lowest ones. Other higher aspects of human intelligence are not affordable by AI. Example: to prove mathematical theorems is an activity more difficult than chess playing, not mechanizable in principle by robots (as Godel proved).

  72. Mapou,

    Intelligence is intelligence, free will is free will and consciousness is consciousness. Either you have them or you don’t. Robots will have the first of the three but not the other two.

    I’m obviously sympathetic to that viewpoint. Why? Very difficult to actually describe what consciousness actually is.

    Niwrad,

    Human intelligence has shown to be able to resolve a large range of problems. What’s more, human intelligence invented the Turing machines themselves, while no Turing machine invented human intelligence.

    I agree with you, but I feel discomfort in asserting that unequivocally. That is I think you are right, privately, but I can’t formally defend it. Why?

    If sperm and ovum eggs implement approximate-Turing machines, then one can argue a Turing machine made a conscious human intelligence. I don’t buy that argument, but neither can I formally refute it.

    What you say, I agree with as a matter of faith, but actually demonstrating it formally might be beyond our reach.

    What I don’t feel comfortable with, I don’t use as a basis for defending ID. I defend ID with:

    1. irreducible complexity
    2. criticism of OOL
    3. population genetics
    4. refuting rhetorical tricks in evolutionary literature

    I don’t emphasize the importance of conscious intelligence in creating CSI since, imho, CSI can be made by non-conscious automatons. Furthermore, CSI does not have a stable definition among ID proponents. We can’t even agree how much CSI is in 2000 coins, much less more challenging questions.

  73. scordova

    If sperm and ovum eggs implement approximate-Turing machines, then one can argue a Turing machine made a conscious human intelligence. I don’t buy that argument, but neither can I formally refute it.

    As I said in #68, human intelligence is more/higher than a TM. If human intelligence were the output of a TM, we would have that a TM produces something more/higher than a TM. This is absurd, like 2+2=5.

    You are afraid to defend such argument simply because you know that evolutionism & co. rules the world and can easily ruin your career, and for it, no problem, 0 + 0 = infinite.

  74. scordova, you appear to have rejected free will as an axiom upon which to reason. Why? What are the axioms you use instead?

  75. I think it rather obvious that when ID theorists use the word “intelligence”, what they mean is not simply the colloquial meaning, but rather something which reduces to free will.

  76. scordova:

    The real question is whether human intelligence is like an automaton.

    I would not say that human intelligence is like an automaton. There is no question in my mind that human intelligence, or any other kind of intelligence for that matter, is an automaton, period. Let me explain.

    Learning in the human brain is completely automated. Even something as essential as the discovery and recognition of analogies and metaphors happens automatically. Motor behavior, too, is automatic. The motor cortex is a magnificently tuned machine that orchestrates the precise timing of the activation/relaxation of a myriad muscles. Automatically. The brain is a wonderful mechanism, a masterpiece of engineering and wisdom, the work of powerful Gods.

    What makes humans different than robots is not the nature of their intelligence but the fact that, unlike the robot with its fixed pre-programmed motivations, the human brain is controlled by another entity. This entity essentially sits there and watches the brain go about its business automatically. Most of the time, that is all it does. But, every so often, it takes over and changes the brain’s focus or attention. It may even initiate a behavioral sequence. But it does not do the brain’s job for it. It is just the director, the captain of the ship, so to speak. But the ship is still an automaton.

  77. You are afraid to defend such argument simply because you know that evolutionism & co. rules the world and can easily ruin your career,

    That’s an inappropriate accusation, especially since I’m not in academia, but in finance. It also accuses me of cowardice, and that is inappropriate in civil discourse. You are saying things now that you have no proof of regarding my motivations.

    By the way, Robert Marks invited me to work with him at Baylor, and then the evolutionists there shut down the lab a week before the school year began. They ruined the potential for my advancement through Baylor, but that was moot since I went to Johns Hopkins. As a matter of public record, the evolutionists plotted to get me thrown out of Johns Hopkins, but that didn’t stop me from arguing publicly with them.

    The fact that the evolutionists have caused trouble for me hasn’t stopped me from criticizing them. You have no evidence that my current line of argument is based on worries about them liking me and helping me along in academia or in my present line of work in private finance. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    Now that you’re slinging these sort of accusations about my person, I so no reason to continue in this thread.

  78. as to:

    “I don’t emphasize the importance of conscious intelligence in creating CSI since, imho, CSI can be made (created?) by non-conscious automatons.”

    I strongly disagree with Mr. Cordova for, as far as I know, Dr. Dembski has not backed off one iota from this following statement, he made a few years ago, but has in fact gone over and beyond the it with his subsequent work on conservation of information:

    LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW – William Dembski – Robert Marks – Pg. 13
    Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case.
    http://evoinfo.org/publication.....ation-law/

    “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486
    “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051-1061

    Chaitin put the problem like this:

    At last, a Darwinist mathematician tells the truth about evolution – VJT – November 2011
    Excerpt: In Chaitin’s own words, “You’re allowed to ask God or someone to give you the answer to some question where you can’t compute the answer, and the oracle will immediately give you the answer, and you go on ahead.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    i.e. Information can be ‘fished out’ of a algorithm in a computer program but information cannot magically materialize (be created) without that preexistent information guiding the program along in its search to find a solution (in the search space) to the problem. i.e. Information is not being ‘created’! No Free Lunch!

    Here is the video where, at the 30:00 minute mark, you can hear the preceding “God” quote from Chaitin’s own mouth in full context:

    Life as Evolving Software, Greg Chaitin at PPGC UFRGS
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlYS_GiAnK8

    Moreover, at the 40:00 minute mark of the video Chaitin readily admits that Intelligent Design is the best possible way to get evolution to take place, and at the 43:30 minute mark Chaitin even tells of a friend pointing out that the idea Evolutionary computer model that Chaitin has devised does not have enough time to work. And Chaitin even agreed that his friend had a point, although Chaitin still ends up just ‘wanting’, and not ever proving, his idea Darwinian mathematical model to be true! (How many times have we seen that?!?)

    Related quotes from Chaitin and Dembski:

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.,,,
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    Dennett on Competence without Comprehension – William A. Dembski – June 2012
    Excerpt: As it turns out, there are problems in mathematics that can be proved to be beyond resolution by any algorithm (e.g., the halting problem).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....PWiRP.dpuf

    Notes:

  79. bornagain77 quoting Dembski:

    It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information.

    Yeah but what does Dr. Dembski mean by intelligence? Does his definition exclude artificial intelligence?

  80. scordova

    It wasn’t my intention to offend you. Likely I used improper words. I apologize.

    What I meant is that – as I already said to kairosfocus – the ID enterprise is a defence of the obvious. And it was unbelievable to me that an intelligent person as you cannot see such obvious and don’t defend it. Unfortunately I expressed very badly my thought.

    Again I apologize. Please reconsider your decision to abandon the discussion. Thank you.

  81. Now that you’re slinging these sort of accusations about my person, I so no reason to continue in this thread.

    I, for one, appreciate your comments in this thread. niwrad is out of line and should apologize.

  82. Mr. Cordova, I suggest since you are contradicting what Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks both hold with this statement:

    “I don’t emphasize the importance of conscious intelligence in creating CSI since, imho, CSI can be made (created?) by non-conscious automatons.”

    ,,that you e-mail one, or both, of them so as to iron out either your, or their, confusion on the conservation of information matter. It will not be the first time you disagreed with a prominent ID figure, such as the time you disagreed with Dr. Sewell, in a very public way, on the second law.

  83. Before I leave the thread, out of gratitude to Tragic Mishap, I’d like to answer his question.

    At UD I have offered both defense and criticisms of ID theories. It’s not that I’m trying to articulate a middle ground, I describe what I think are correct and incorrect statements. I choose sides in as much as I side with the arguments that I think are most correct. For example, I took a lot of heat, and still take a lot of heat because I sided with the Darwinists on the 2nd law.

    What I believe:
    1. free will
    2. moral responsibility
    3. ID
    4. special creation
    5. young universe
    6. the Bible as the inspired word of God in the original texts
    7. God exists
    8. human consciousness

    I confess the Nicene creed, and most of the Westminster Confession, except their views on the Sabbath. I’m a member of the Potomac Presbytery or the Presbyterian Church of America.

    The things I list above, I accept on reasonable faith. I will not presume to prove them as true, like I would prove a theorem of math.

    scordova, you appear to have rejected free will as an axiom upon which to reason. Why? What are the axioms you use instead?

    You don’t need the axiom of free will to argue against OOL and Darwinism. It is un-necessary.

    What axioms do I use? Whatever works. One can even start with wrong axioms for the sake of argument in order to prove those axioms are wrong. That is reductio ad absurdum.

    We don’t need the assumption of free-will to argue mindless OOL and Darwinian evolution will fail. I don’t emphasize CSI and NFL very much to argue ID. Probably the central argument I’d use is irreducible complexity.

    I’ve stated my faith axioms, and like faith axioms go, they are ultimately unprovable, even though they might be reasonably believable.

  84. Mapou, “niwrad is out of line and should apologize.”

    and where is my apology from you for your many insults towards me in this thread? :) Morals work both ways you know (lest thou be accused of hypocricy! :)

  85. bornagain77,

    You apologize to me first since you started it. And then I’ll apologize to you. How’s that? :)

  86. niwrad, I don’t think Sal is fearful of defending arguments on behalf of human intelligence. The real difficulty is that, sadly, he doesn’t believe that human reason can apprehend truth in the absence of faith (fideism). His philosophical orientation is dubious, but his moral courage is in tact. His intramural challenges prove that.

    By the way, I think you are doing a splendid job of dramatizing the unbridgeable gap between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. Keep up the good work.

  87. Mapou as to:

    “Does his definition exclude artificial intelligence?”

    Yes!

  88. bornagain77 @87,

    I’m surprised you don’t have a quote for that resounding yes.

  89. Mapou #76

    Sorry Mapou but your argument is incoherent.

    You say:
    (1) human intelligence is an automaton

    (2) the human brain is controlled by another entity [inside man]

    (3) analogy: the brain is a “ship”, the entity is “the captain of the ship”

    Obviously the “another entity” (“the captain of the ship”) is not an automaton, otherwise why should you state #2 + #3? You could simply maintain #1 and stop so. Therefore human intelligence (the ship + the captain) is not an automaton (because the captain is not an automaton). In other words, (#2 + #3) contradicts #1.

  90. Mapou, only in your imagination did I insult you. You in fact stated an unsubstantiated personal opinion and I thanked you for stating it and asked you for peer-reviewed mathematical evidence to back it up. You took umbrage that someone should dare doubt the integrity of your unsubstantiated personal opinion and started hurling personal insults thereafter. Moreover, as shocking as it may be to you, I have even less repect for your personal opinion now as I had before you started hurling personal insults. Go figure! Reap what you sow and all that!

  91. Sorry Mapou but your argument is incoherent.

    You say:
    (1) human intelligence is an automaton

    (2) the human brain is controlled by another entity [inside man]

    (3) analogy: the brain is a “ship”, the entity is “the captain of the ship”

    Obviously the “another entity” (“the captain of the ship”) is not an automaton, otherwise why should you state #2 + #3? You could simply maintain #1 and stop so. Therefore human intelligence (the ship + the captain) is not an automaton (because the captain is not an automaton). In other words, (#2 + #3) contradicts #1.

    Well, since I believe intelligence is in the brain, I see no contradiction. The other entity simply changes the course of the brain’s behavior every once in a while for whatever reason. It lets the brain do its intelligent work. It does not provide the intelligence, just the motivational push.

  92. Well, I notice that niwrad beat me to the punch, so all is well (I hope). By the way, niwrad, I love the phrase “evolution & co.”

  93. StephenB

    Thanks for your words. Yes, you are right about scordova, and I offended him. I apologized and hope he comes back (he could be my son…).

    scordova

    Have you seen as soon I apologized? I am married, so I am trained about :)
    Please come back to discuss!

  94. Again I apologize. Please reconsider your decision to abandon the discussion. Thank you.

    Thank you, and I will continue then since you have invited me to stay.

    I don’t expect we’ll resolve the issues, but maybe to clarify. Lines of argument defending ID I feel comfortable with:

    1. Irreducible Complexity
    2. Population Genetics
    3. OOL
    4. analysis of rhetorical tricks in Darwinism
    5. probably a few others

    Lines of argument defending ID I don’t feel comfortable with (even if I accept some of the axioms as true)

    1. consciousness
    2. free will
    3. some parts of CSI
    4. the 2nd law
    5. maybe a few others
    6. the Bible
    7. the Christian faith

    I accept the Christian faith, but I don’t use it to defend ID. I accept the Christian faith because I accept ID, not the other way around.

    My concerns about CSI I’ve stated at UD in various threads like:
    Siding with Mathgrrl on a Point

    The question of consciousness and intelligence is an interesting one, but Bill in some of his earlier works (ID the bridge between science and theology) argued to leave “intelligence” as an undefined primitive. He later changed his mind, when I think leaving “intelligence” as an undefined primitive was the way to go.

    Thus I think it doesn’t help to argue the ID case by insisting intelligence is necessarily conscious. The effective line of argument basic probability arguments. The basic explanatory filter (EF) by Dembski was good enough to explain what objects have the appearance of Design. No where in the EF was there an assumption that intelligence was conscious, in fact the EF didn’t even assume intelligence existed in the first place — it merely describes what looks designed according to human convention.

    I include AI as intelligence, because to me, it looks like AI makes designed artifacts that would pass the EF. I can’t run away from the fact AI systems (or even simple automatons) make artifacts that pass the EF.

  95. bornagain77,

    Mapou, only in your imagination did I insult you.

    It does not matter whether or not it’s in my imagination. I felt insulted and I demand an apology. You do that and I will likewise apologise to you for insulting you.

  96. ‘It does not matter whether or not it’s in my imagination’

    Now you have insulted my intelligence! :)

  97. A little note on my invitation to work with Robert Marks and Bill Dembski. Bill in May 2007 encouraged me to study under Dr. Marks and the main project was initially to deconstruct the Avida program.

    I actually found bugs in earlier versions of Avida like the fact I could crank up the cosmic radiation parameter to insane numbers, and the creatures kept reproducing. So I knew something was up.

    Avida has been held up as an illustration that new information can be made. There are a number ways to criticize it, because clearly its claims are over-inflated.

    I’m cautious about saying “information never increases” because the metrics for information are subjective. It was good to compare blind search versus Darwinian search that had no specialized information. That is the proper line of argument against Avida ….

    although I kind of liked my simpler proof against its earlier versions. Crank up the radiation parameter and show that Avida bogusly lets the creatures keep living. It was so bad, Evan Dorn (Adami’s grad assistant on the Avida project) showed up at ARN in my debate with Richard Hoppe (of Pandas Thumb) to say the bug will be fixed.

    There was some debate whether it was that bug-filled version of Avida was used to give results in the paper the Avida group published in Nature. If so, it only highlights the misleading clams of Avida.

    I think the better way to frame criticism of evolutionary algorithms (which are an instance of AI), is to state that they have limits as to what they can evolve into. Those limits are rarely obvious, but sometimes we can make credible arguments on a case by case basis. For example:

    1. simple chess playing machines will not solve Fermat’s last theorem

    2. single cell creatures will not evolve into multi-celled creatures

    The NFL arguments are good at criticizing protein evolution because that is a blind search problem. Avida does not in any prove that protein evolution will happen.

    However, I use NFL arguments cautiously otherwise. I also am cautious about CSI, partly because of the definition problems, and difficulty in agreeing on exactly how much CSI is in a given system (like 2000 coins).

  98. blockquote>Now you have insulted my intelligence! :)
    Well in that case, we’re just one big happy family of offenders and offendees. :)

    PS. I’m still waiting for that quote where Dr. Dembski excludes AI from his definition of intelligence.

  99. After thinking about it for a while, I now find myself fully agreeing with scordova’s claim that AI can create CSI. However, CSI requires intelligence or an act of creation and since AI is itself full of CSI, we cannot have an infinite regress of AIs creating AIs. At one point there was a beginning and that beginning was triggered or created by entities in the unchanging spiritual realm.

  100. Welcome back scordova, thank you!

    Now I have to say this to Mapou:

    Well, since I believe intelligence is in the brain, I see no contradiction. The other entity simply changes the course of the brain’s behavior every once in a while for whatever reason. It lets the brain do its intelligent work. It does not provide the intelligence, just the motivational push.

    The other entity simply changes the course of the brain’s behavior? and just provide the motivational push?

    Your defence somehow reinforces my objection… :)

  101. “I’m still waiting for that quote where Dr. Dembski excludes AI from his definition of intelligence.”

    Dennett on Competence without Comprehension – William A. Dembski – June 2012
    Excerpt: In 1936 Turing proposed a universal mechanism for performing any and all computations, since dubbed a Turing machine. In the last seventy-plus years, many other formal systems have been proposed for performing any and all computations (cellular automata, neural nets, unlimited register machines, etc.), and they’ve all been shown to perform the same — no less and no more — computations as Turing’s originally proposed machine.,,,
    ,,,, it’s obvious that a Turing machine can do nothing unless it is properly programmed to do so.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....PWiRP.dpuf

    As to solving engineering problems:

    Applied Darwinism: A New Paper from Bob Marks (W. Dembski) and His Team, in BIO-Complexity – Doug Axe – 2012
    Excerpt: Furthermore, if you dig a bit beyond these papers and look at what kinds of problems this technique (Steiner Tree) is being used for in the engineering world, you quickly find that it is of extremely limited applicability. It works for tasks that are easily accomplished in a huge number of specific ways, but where someone would have to do a lot of mindless fiddling to decide which of these ways is best.,, That’s helpful in the sense that we commonly find computers helpful — they do what we tell them to do very efficiently, without complaining. But in biology we see something altogether different. We see elegant solutions to millions of engineering problems that human ingenuity cannot even begin to solve.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....58591.html

  102. niwrad @100,

    Here’s your original objection:

    Obviously the “another entity” (“the captain of the ship”) is not an automaton, otherwise why should you state #2 + #3? You could simply maintain #1 and stop so. Therefore human intelligence (the ship + the captain) is not an automaton (because the captain is not an automaton). In other words, (#2 + #3) contradicts #1.

    I am simply saying that your claim of a contradiction depends on how you define intelligence. Notice how you are defining human intelligence. You say it’s “the ship + the captain” and I say it’s just the ship.

    Having said that, how do you know that the captain of the ship is not an automaton? You don’t know that. Spirits are unchanging, in my opinion. Spirits are either good or evil. Christianity teaches us, for example, that all humans are evil/bad but that only 1/3 of the angels are bad. We are what we are and that is that.

  103. 103

    Mapou

    What makes humans different than robots is not the nature of their intelligence but the fact that, unlike the robot with its fixed pre-programmed motivations, the human brain is controlled by another entity. This entity essentially sits there and watches the brain go about its business automatically. Most of the time, that is all it does. But, every so often, it takes over and changes the brain’s focus or attention. It may even initiate a behavioral sequence.

    The definition usually used in debates like this is Turing’s implicit definition, that is that human intelligence is the definition of intelligence.

    Robots do not have the “watcher”, as you call it, that humans do. Therefore they will never be “like” humans in that way.

    What you are essentially arguing is that this “watcher” has nothing to do with human intelligence, but you’re wrong. The “watcher” is the programmer. It has everything to do with human intelligence. It writes human intelligence into the brain. Just because the brain is an automaton doesn’t mean it’s intelligent beyond its programming, which is what you’re claiming for artificial intelligence.

  104. scordova #94

    I include AI as intelligence, because to me, it looks like AI makes designed artifacts that would pass the EF.

    My criticism basically was that real intelligence is not a mere producer of CSI. Therefore, also if AI makes CSI, one cannot state that AI is real intelligence. I know that ID theory per se doesn’t need to investigate what real intelligence is, beyond to be a CSI producer. But, it seems to me that if the ID movement accepts such reductive conception of intelligence, it de facto passively embraces the same materialist atheist scientistic worldview of evolutionists.

    At the very end our disagreement is this: you seem favourable to this embracement and I am not.

    My OP wanted “only” to underline this possible “little” strategic difference among folks of the ID big tent.

  105. boranagain77 @101, quoting Dr. Dembski:

    Dennett on Competence without Comprehension – William A. Dembski – June 2012
    Excerpt: In 1936 Turing proposed a universal mechanism for performing any and all computations, since dubbed a Turing machine. In the last seventy-plus years, many other formal systems have been proposed for performing any and all computations (cellular automata, neural nets, unlimited register machines, etc.), and they’ve all been shown to perform the same — no less and no more — computations as Turing’s originally proposed machine.,,,
    ,,,, it’s obvious that a Turing machine can do nothing unless it is properly programmed to do so.

    Ha! I was waiting for this. An intelligent robot’s brain consists of one or more neural networks. A neural network is not a Turing machine for the following reasons:

    1. It does not have a single long or infinite tape.
    2. Unlike a Turing machine, it is not a single algorithm (sequences of instructions) with a single input and output. It has a huge number of inputs and outputs that can be active at any time during its operation.
    3. It consists of multiple independent (parallel) devices each of which performs a single operation on an operand in response to an external signal.
    4. Unlike a Turing machine, a neural network is not subject to the halting problem precisely because it is not a single algorithmic computer.
    5. Unlike a Turing machine, a neural network is not designed to halt.
    6. Unlike a Turing machine, a neural network will not fail catastrophically if one of its operations fails. A network fails gracefully and it takes many component failures in order to completely halt its functioning.
    7. Last but not least, a Turing machine is atemporal, i.e., there is no way to determine whether two of its operations are concurrent or sequential. A neural network could not work without this capability. It is imperative for an intelligent program to be able to determine when events occur and in what order: sequential or concurrent. If two events or operations are sequential, the program must have a way of knowing the temporal interval between the two. A Turing machine has no such capability.

    There are other reasons but the above will suffice. In addition, I disagree with the idea that a neural network, or any modern computer for that matter, can do only what they are program to do. Computers can be programmed to use multiple sensors to respond to and learn from their environment. The programmer has no way of knowing what will be learned or when and therefore no way of knowing how the computer will behave. In addition, modern computers can be be programmed to use true random number generators for decision making. All of these things render such computers non-deterministic, whereas a Turing machine is fully deterministic.

  106. tragic mishap:

    What you are essentially arguing is that this “watcher” has nothing to do with human intelligence, but you’re wrong. The “watcher” is the programmer. It has everything to do with human intelligence. It writes human intelligence into the brain. Just because the brain is an automaton doesn’t mean it’s intelligent beyond its programming, which is what you’re claiming for artificial intelligence.

    I disagree that the watcher is the programmer. The brain programs or wires itself automatically based on known temporal principles. It automatically learns from its sensory stream and creates its own intelligent behavioral sequences automatically. The watcher simply decides which one it likes and selects them for activation. The watcher also has the ability to influence the attention mechanism of the brain so that it will pay attention to the things that gives it pleasure, such as music and beauty. Some people who suffer from certain forms of autisms have defective attentional mechanisms and the watcher is largely helpless in guiding attention.

  107. 107

    I would like to learn about these temporal principles. Could you refer me to some literature or resources on the topic?

  108. niwrad wrote:

    one cannot state that AI is real intelligence.

    There is a slight nuance. First, here are the viewpoints:

    A. AI is not real intelligence, AI is not intelligence

    B. There are varieties of intelligence: real and artificial, but both forms are forms of intelligence

    C. Real Intelligence is the same as AI

    D. Something else

    I accept B. I do no call AI real, it is intelligence, but I do not call it real intelligence, I call it Artificial Intelligence. Someone has artificial body parts. To me they are still body parts, even though they aren’t “real”.

    I arrived at this not because I’m a materialist, but primarily because the EF (a central thesis of ID, and one I support) cannot distinguish between the two forms. Also, front-loaded ID has some unwitting sympathy to this view.

    Most of what needs to be said, has been said, but I do think there is a difference between real and artificial intelligence. At issue is whether we can, for the purposes of ID, treat them as forms of intelligence capable of making CSI that will pass the EF.

  109. Mapou, I sure that Dembski does not make this following statement lightly:

    “and they’ve all (all AI) been shown to perform the same — no less and no more — computations as Turing’s originally proposed machine.”

    The reason why I say that Dr. Demski does not make that statement lightly is because the articles and books on his and Dr. Marks publication page, that are ID friendly, include such titles as,,,

    Time series prediction with recurrent neural networks trained by a hybrid PSO-EA algorithm Xindi Cai, Nian Zhang, Ganesh K. Venayagamoorthy, and Donald C. Wunsch, II. Xindi Cai, Nian Zhang, Ganesh K. Venayagamoorthy, and Donald C. Wunsch, II. Time series prediction with recurrent neural networks trained by a hybrid PSO-EA algorithm. Neurocomput., 70:2342–2353, 2007.

    Training Winner-Take-All Simultaneous Recurrent Neural Networks Xindi Cai, D.V. Prokhorov, and D.C. Wunsch. Xindi Cai, D.V. Prokhorov, and D.C. Wunsch. Training Winner-Take-All Simultaneous Recurrent Neural Networks. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on, 18:674 –684, may. 2007.

    Real-Time Neural Network Inversion on the SRC-6e Reconfigurable Computer Russell W. Duren, Robert J. Marks II, Paul D. Reynolds and Matthew L. Trumbo Russell W. Duren, Robert J. Marks II, Paul D. Reynolds and Matthew L. Trumbo, “Real-Time Neural Network Inversion on the SRC-6e Reconfigurable Computer,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 18, no. 3, May 2007 pp. 889-901.

    Inversion of feedforward neural networks: algorithms and applications C.A. Jensen, R.D. Reed, R.J. Marks II, M.A. El-Sharkawi, Jae-Byung Jung, R.T. Miyamoto, G.M. Anderson, C.J. Eggen C.A. Jensen, R.D. Reed, R.J. Marks II, M.A. El-Sharkawi, Jae-Byung Jung, R.T. Miyamoto, G.M. Anderson, C.J. Eggen, “Inversion of feedforward neural networks: algorithms and applications”, Proceedings of the IEEE, Volume: 87 9, Sept. 1999 , Page(s): 1536 -1549

    Neural Smithing: Supervised Learning in Feedforward Artificial Neural Networks Russell D. Reed and Robert J. Marks MIT Press ISBN 978-0262181907
    March 26, 1999

    Neurosmithing: Techniques to improve network learning Russell Reed and Robert J. Marks I Russell Reed and Robert J. Marks II,”Neurosmithing: Techniques to improve network learning”, in The Handbook of Neural Networks, M. Arbib, Editor, (MIT Press, 1995).

    Neural network explanation using inversion Emad W. Saad and Donald C. Wunsch, II. Emad W. Saad and Donald C. Wunsch, II. Neural network explanation using inversion. Neural Netw., 20:78–93, 2007.

    Computational Intelligence : Imitating Life Jacek Zurada and Robert J. Marks II and Charles J. Robinson IEEE Press ISBN 978-0780311046
    July 1994

    http://www.evoinfo.org/publications/

    and I remind you that Dr. Marks is Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University

    Dr. Robert J Marks II
    http://www.ecs.baylor.edu/ece/index.php?id=52632

    Perhaps if you want to argue with someone that neural networks are intelligent, in that they can do more than they were originally programmed to do, (i.e. generate more information than is inherent in the programming of the computerr and thus falsifying all the conservation of information theorems elucidated thus far), then you can write to him at Baylor at hash it out with him. If you can convince him that your position is correct, then I will take your position more seriously than I currently do. but Until you can convince him that computers can do more than they are programmed to do, then I will take his and Dr. Dembski’s side over your and Mr. Cordova’s (personal opinion) side. It is a no brainer for me. On the one hand I have a blogger who has insulted me over and over, and on the other I have a Distinguished professor who actually builds these things, and teaches others how to build them.

    Of note: Here is a lecture video on information that I enjoyed immensely from Dr. Marks:

    Information. What is it? Robert Marks PhD. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7seCcS_gPk

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-3
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    Sara Groves – The Word – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ofE-GZ8zTU

  110. bornagain77,

    I, too, could argue from authority and I could refer you to the work of computer scientists to support my stance on this issue but I refuse to do so. My arguments @105 stand on their own merit. If you or anyone else think you can refute them, by all means, have a go at it. I will not run away and cower in fear, I assure you. It is my firm opinion that Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks are mistaken.

    On a side but relevant note, consider that there is a personality cult surrounding Alan Turing that is as powerful as the ones surrounding Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein. Nobody can criticise those demigods without being branded a homophobe, an anti-science creationist or an anti-semite. It’s sickening. Luckily for me, the scientific community does not put food on my table and even if they did, I would still tell them to kiss my asteroid orifice, if you know what I mean. :-D

  111. tragic mishap:

    I would like to learn about these temporal principles. Could you refer me to some literature or resources on the topic?

    The only book I would recommend on this topic is On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. The basic principles are simple, though. Intelligence is said to be a signal processing mechanism. Essentially, perceptual learning is based on the observation that discrete sensory signals can have only two types of temporal relationships: they are either concurrent or sequential. Learning consists of discovering patterns of concurrent signals and sequences of said patterns. Both patterns and sequences are stored in hierarchies (trees) that some are calling deep neural networks.

  112. I agree with Mapou that computers can learn based on environmental inputs. The programmer inputs algorithm without knowing the type (you could have many sensors) and amount of input which may be needed to carry out a process.
    I also agree with niwrad that no amount of AI cannot create consciousness.

  113. Mapou, I never called you a coward (or any name at all). But I do find your arguments very unconvincing. And frankly, I am pretty sure if I refuted your points one by one with peer review, you would tell me I was arguing from authority or some such as that. So why should I waste the time when you have not bothered to reference your claims in the first place? Do you want me to do you work as well as mine? Moreover you have flipped flopped on your claim for information generation right here on this very thread. therefore your definition of Intelligence is not even firmly established. i.e. If I were to muster the capacity to care to respond to you, exactly which position would I be refuting? your claim where artificial intelligence can violate conservation of information theorems or your claim where they cannot? Such details matter!

  114. I now stand firmly on the side that an intelligent machine can create CSI. Refute that.

    I changed my mind from my previous stance when it became clear to me that such a machine is not a natural object but an artifact, i.e., a sophisticated tool created by another intelligent entity. As such, it is an extension of the original creator/designer.

    [I am sure the Gods used many of their own powerful engineering and design tools when they formed life on earth. It was not a "POOF and it was done" thing. Everything was created through wisdom and understanding.]

    My position re Dr. Dembski’s apparent belief that the modern computer or AI system is a type of Turing machine is this: he is mistaken. I provided my arguments for this @105 above. Refute those too.

    But then again, you don’t have to do anything. I’ll be happy with that as well. :)

  115. bornagain77,
    IMHO, The context of ‘Law of conservation of information’ is blind search space vs directed search space. In that context the Lloyd’s constant of 10^120 may apply, but it cannot be generalized to mean information is finite.
    Of course that doesn’t mean AI can create consciousness – which is not what Mapou is claiming.

  116. Computers (intelligent machines in your parlance) are not “creating” CSI. They are solving for a problem by searching a well defined search space. The solution to the problem is known to exist within a particular search space and the computer uses an algorithm that is designed to search that particular space for the solution to the problem. The solution may very well contain CSI. But the CSI was not ‘created’ de novo by the computer, it was solved for by the computer using the algorithm! Dembski and Marks use what they term ‘active’ information to track the information that is ‘smuggled into the solution’ by the algorithm to show that conservation of information is never violated. i.e. The information in the solution is not greater than the information that was contained in the initial algorithm to find the solution. In fact, algorithms used to find a particular solution can be quite lengthy in their coding whereas the solution found by that algorithm will be fairly simple. The main point is that the search for the solution in the space was guided, every step of the way, along its path to the solution by the algorithm. To say a computer created new information in finding the solution is equivalent to you saying that the computer created new information when it added 2 + 2 and found 4 for an answer. i.e. 4 is not new information! 4 existed all along within 2 + 2.
    As to AI being a type of Turing machine, I’ve already provided the reason why I find your argument very unconvincing and have invited you to take the matter up with Dr. Marks if you disagree with him and Dembski, since he seems well equipped (understatement) to answer any specific questions you may ask of him in that regards (p.s. I recommend not calling him belligerent names as he is a very busy man and will not afford you the patience I have)

  117. bornagain77 @116:

    Computers (intelligent machines in your parlance) are not “creating” CSI. They are solving for a problem by searching a well defined search space. The solution to the problem is known to exist within a particular search space and the computer uses an algorithm that is designed to search that particular space for the solution to the problem. The solution may very well contain CSI. But the CSI was not ‘created’ de novo by the computer, it was solved for by the computer using the algorithm!

    This would be true in a program that is emulating a Turing machine. That is to say, the input data is first given to the program and then the program is started, allowed to run until it stops and finally, the generated output is examined.

    This is not what happens in an intelligent program or robot that is outfitted with sensors that can detect various phenomena in a real world environment. The search data is not known prior to running the program. And it is certainly not well defined.

    For example, I am working on a speech recognition program called Rebel Speech. The program code (written in C#) is only about 50 K. However, during learning, Rebel Speech creates two data hierarchies, one for patterns and one for sequences. This hierarchical brain starts with a number of sensory neurons (less than 5 K) but it can grow into tens of megabytes.

    I can put a microphone in front of a TV and the program will create representations for all sorts of sounds, not just speech. It can learn to recognize the barking of a dog or the honk of a car horn, for examples. I never wrote a single line of code having to do with either horns or barking dogs. I conclude that the created hierarchies (one for patterns and one for sequences) consist of both complex and specified information that were not originally part of the program’s input data.

  118. The only book I would recommend on this topic is On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins.

    Funny you mention that book. I read it years ago and it’s excellent.

    What I took away from it appears to be very different from what you did. In fact, Hawkins entire thesis is that in order to create artificial intelligence (a term he refuses to use because of its academic meaning, which he doesn’t like), we must look at the model: human brains. He spends most of the book talking about the human brain as a model for an artificial brain. He doesn’t spend a whole lot of time talking about how that has worked out.

    The hierarchy model he proposes obviously implies a top-down learning architecture, not the bottom-up style you are implying. The brain he describes in the book does not create options from which the top of the hierarchy chooses. Rather, learned “programs” are pushed down the hierarchy from the top until they become more and more automatic, but initially they are programmed from the top down.

    Again, what I took away from that book appears to be very different from what you did.

  119. 119

    Also, it is not surprising that computers can do things that human beings cannot do. If they could not, there would be no reason for using them, nor would there be a reason for using cars, refridgerators or a hammer.

  120. scordova #108

    There is a slight nuance. … B. There are varieties of intelligence: real and artificial, but both forms are forms of intelligence. … I arrived at this not because I’m a materialist, but primarily because the EF (a central thesis of ID, and one I support) cannot distinguish between the two forms.

    This discussion is not about “slight nuances”, rather about principles.
    I don’t accept to call “intelligent” the AI systems. It is a modern perversion. AI systems are machines designed and constructed by humans. Whatever AI systems do is merit of their creators. Between the creator and the created there is an ontological difference. This different hierarchical rank is what allows humans to grasp meanings, while machines grasp zero meanings.

    Moreover, as I already said, the “ratio” in potential knowledge between humans and robots is like infinite vs. zero. Therefore zero intelligence is no intelligence, like 0 X N = 0, for whatever N. Why to call “intelligent” what has no intelligence? If you don’t believe and don’t defend this “infinite vs. zero” sorry but you are a materialist/atheist, because de facto you deny the infinite information source and its connection to man. If your God is a finite God it is not God at all.

    The fact the EF cannot distinguish between the two forms (real intelligence and faked intelligence) is a defect of the EF, which doesn’t change an iota of the above question of principle. After all, the EF is a tool, with all the limits of tools. We cannot build a worldview on a single tool. The ID movement would be weak if it would base all its arguments on the EF only. In fact evolutionists don’t care much about the EF and the evo/ID war is not yet won by us. Your Darwinian “dead horse” is yet alive and well.

    The ID movement will win scientism and all its sub-products (Darwinism included) when we will use more principles beyond statistics in our arguments.

  121. Mapou, to repeat:

    As to AI being a type of Turing machine, I’ve already provided the reason why I find your argument very unconvincing as to why it is not and have invited you to take the matter up with Dr. Marks if you disagree with him and Dembski on the matter, since he seems well equipped (understatement) to answer any specific questions you may ask of him in that regards as to AI not being a type of Turing machine (p.s. I recommend not calling him belligerent names as you have done to me as he is a very busy man and will not afford you the patience I have)

  122. Of related note: Are computers conscious/intelligent?

    In contrast to the classical information in DNA (and in computers), no one has ever located exactly where a person’s information/memories are stored in the brain.

    A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel
    Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness.
    http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel.....sponse.htm

    In fact, it appears to be a physical requirement that memories/information be stored ‘non-physically’, on a ‘spiritual’ basis, rather than a physical basis because of the following principle of physics,,,

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. (and even level of complexity for the brain this is a severe underestimation according to Dr. VJ Torley)
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    Smart Neurons: Single Neuronal Dendrites Can Perform Computations – Oct. 27, 2013
    Excerpt: The results challenge the widely held view that this kind of computation is achieved only by large numbers of neurons working together, and demonstrate how the basic components of the brain are exceptionally powerful computing devices in their own right.
    Senior author Professor Michael Hausser commented: “This work shows that dendrites, long thought to simply ‘funnel’ incoming signals towards the soma, instead play a key role in sorting and interpreting the enormous barrage of inputs received by the neuron. Dendrites thus act as miniature computing devices for detecting and amplifying specific types of input.
    “This new property of dendrites adds an important new element to the “toolkit” for computation in the brain. This kind of dendritic processing is likely to be widespread across many brain areas and indeed many different animal species, including humans.”,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....140632.htm

    And please note, this newly found computational complexity that was found last month is on top of what was already considered to be the ‘beyond belief’ computational complexity of the brain that was found in 2010:

    But computers with many switches have a huge problem with heat,,,

    Supercomputer architecture
    Excerpt: Throughout the decades, the management of heat density has remained a key issue for most centralized supercomputers.[4][5][6] The large amount of heat generated by a system may also have other effects, such as reducing the lifetime of other system components.[7] There have been diverse approaches to heat management, from pumping Fluorinert through the system, to a hybrid liquid-air cooling system or air cooling with normal air conditioning temperatures.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....chitecture

    Yet the brain, though shown to have at least as many switches as all the computers, routers, and internet connections, on earth does not have such a problem with heat,,,

    Appraising the brain’s energy budget:
    Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full

    THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISM
    Excerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as “mental work”, it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....4-0127.pdf

    Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories? – By Ferris Jabr – July 2012
    Excerpt: So a typical adult human brain runs on around 12 watts—a fifth of the power required by a standard 60 watt lightbulb. Compared with most other organs, the brain is greedy; pitted against man-made electronics, it is astoundingly efficient.
    http://www.scientificamerican......d-calories

    What is interesting in all this is that a certain percentage of the heat generated by computers is because of something known as Landauer’s principle.

    Landauer’s principle
    Of Note: “any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase ,,, Specifically, each bit of lost information will lead to the release of an (specific) amount (at least kT ln 2) of heat.,,,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....._principle

    Moreover, Landauer’s principle implies that when a certain number of arithmetical operations per second have been exceeded, the computer will produce so much heat that the heat is impossible to dissipate.

    Quantum knowledge cools computers – Published: 01.06.11
    Excerpt: The fact that computers produce heat when they process data is a logistical challenge for computer manufacturers and supercomputer operators. In addition, this heat production also imposes a fundamental limit on their maximum possible performance. According to the so-called Landauer Principle formulated by the physicist Rolf Landauer in 1961, energy is always released as heat when data is deleted. Renner says, “According to Landauer’s Principle, if a certain number of computing operations per second is exceeded, the heat generated can no longer be dissipated.” Assuming that supercomputers develop at the same rate as in the past, this critical limit will probably be reached in the next 10 to 20 years.
    http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/arc.....u/index_EN

  123. Thus, the brain is either operating on reversible computation principles that no computer (or more properly, no computer engineer) can come close to emulating (Charles Bennett; IBM), or, as is much more likely, the brain is not erasing information from its memory, as the material computer is required to do during arithmetical operations, because our memories are in fact stored on the ‘spiritual’ level rather than on a material level,,,

    To support this view that ‘memory/information’ is not being stored in the brain, but must somehow be stored on the ‘spiritual’ level, one of the most common features of extremely deep near death experiences is the ‘life review’ where every minute detail of a person’s life, every word, every deed, is reviewed in the presence of God:

    Near Death Experience (NDE) – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/

    As to someone who would object that NDE’s are not admissible as ‘scientific’ evidence, I respond that then Darwinism itself must be considered not ‘scientific’:

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

    “A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007).”
    Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

  124. Verse and Music:

    Matthew 12:36
    I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

    Third Day – Trust In Jesus
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtaCeJYqZA

  125. bornagain77,

    when it added 2 + 2 and found 4 for an answer. i.e. 4 is not new information! 4 existed all along within 2 + 2.

    Mapou has shown how ordinary computer can create CSI. Let’s look into quantum computing, since Lloyd’s constant is about Quantum computing.
    Quantum computing involves storing, retrieving and processing information based on Quantum states of particles.

    1. I can ‘program’ the Quarks to have a spin of 45 degree. What happens when I try to read it back? I will get either a up or a down spin- never 45 degree spin.(refer Quantum spins) I or my algorithm didn’t program that the spin be turned up or down yet I got new CSI which was generated by system of Quantum particles.

    2. Let’s ‘program’ a streams of parallel photons. I will read the state of photons from the pattern made on detectors passing through slit. When I detect the photons, I will get wave interference pattern – not the expected ‘non interference pattern’. However if I don’t try to detect, I will have the non-interference pattern – again new CSI.The photons ‘know’ I detected it and they change the interference pattern – not only are they creating CSI, they are defying the instructions programmed!(refer to double slit experiment)

    3. If I program quantum entangled particles, I will never get what I put into the second particle, I will get what ever I put into the first particle – Again new CSI which was not programmed at all. (refer quantum entanglement)

    We are just talking Quarks here, I can go on with other Fermions, Gluons and Bosons.

    However I agree that no amount of AI can develop conscience.
    niward,

    The ID movement will win scientism and all its sub-products (Darwinism included) when we will use more principles beyond statistics in our arguments.

    IMHO ID concept has a long way to go before being accepted into main stream – doesn’t matter what principles you use.

  126. as to: “Mapou has shown how ordinary computer can create CSI.”

    No he has not! As I pointed out earlier, Dembski and Marks, in their previous work, have shown that there is a regress of information to the algorithm. Moreover, in subsequent work, if one tries to account for a successful search for information, the inference to design only intensifies. i.e. There must be an ultimate source for information.

    Before They’ve Even Seen Stephen Meyer’s New Book, Darwinists Waste No Time in Criticizing Darwin’s Doubt – William A. Dembski – April 4, 2013
    Excerpt: In the newer approach to conservation of information, the focus is not on drawing design inferences but on understanding search in general and how information facilitates successful search. The focus is therefore not so much on individual probabilities as on probability distributions and how they change as searches incorporate information. My universal probability bound of 1 in 10^150 (a perennial sticking point for Shallit and Felsenstein) therefore becomes irrelevant in the new form of conservation of information whereas in the earlier it was essential because there a certain probability threshold had to be attained before conservation of information could be said to apply. The new form is more powerful and conceptually elegant. Rather than lead to a design inference, it shows that accounting for the information required for successful search leads to a regress that only intensifies as one backtracks. It therefore suggests an ultimate source of information, which it can reasonably be argued is a designer. I explain all this in a nontechnical way in an article I posted at ENV a few months back titled “Conservation of Information Made Simple” (go here). ,,,

    ,,, Here are the two seminal papers on conservation of information that I’ve written with Robert Marks:
    “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486
    “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051-1061
    For other papers that Marks, his students, and I have done to extend the results in these papers, visit the publications page at http://www.evoinfo.org
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....70821.html

    As to your insistence that quantum computation ‘creates’ new information, all I have to do show you to be wrong in your presupposition is to point out the fact that Quantum Information is, in fact, conserved:

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    Perhaps next you will be claiming that you can create new matter-energy and thus also violate the conservation of matter-energy as well as the conservation of information?

    Of somewhat related note, information is its own entity, completely separate from and even primary to, matter and energy;

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”
    Norbert Weiner – MIT Mathematician -(Cybernetics, 2nd edition, p.132) Norbert Wiener created the modern field of control and communication systems, utilizing concepts like negative feedback. His seminal 1948 book Cybernetics both defined and named the new field.

    also of note classical information is shown to be a subset of ‘conserved’ quantum information by the following method:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    Verse:

    John 1:1-3
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    Todd Agnew – This Fragile Breath
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoGPG4JOcXs

  127. selvaRajan #125

    I don’t see how the quantum phenomena you describe can create CSI. Eventually a system based on them can work as a pseudo-random generator. We are even distant from AI based on traditional computers.

  128. bornagain77:

    as to: “Mapou has shown how ordinary computer can create CSI.”

    No he has not! As I pointed out earlier, Dembski and Marks, in their previous work, have shown that there is a regress of information to the algorithm.

    I think I now see where the problem is. bornagain77 refuses to accept that a machine can be intelligent because he has already convinced himself that only spirits or souls can be intelligent. No matter how intelligent the machine behaves, it’s never the machine that is intelligent but the programmer/creator that did it. It’s a question of dogma. But the same can be said of humans. It’s not humans that are intelligent, it’s God who created humans. Intelligence by proxy. LOL.

  129. Mapou #128

    No matter how intelligent the machine behaves, it’s never the machine that is intelligent but the programmer/creator that did it. It’s a question of dogma. But the same can be said of humans. It’s not humans that are intelligent, it’s God who created humans. Intelligence by proxy. Lol.

    It is not the same thing. Because the relation between God and man is not the same relation existent between man and machine. The former relation is much more direct, essential and integrated than the latter. Man is not simply a machine made by God and external to Him, rather a true image/manifestation of Him on earth.

  130. niwrad, all I know is that God created a fabulously sophisticated organ called the brain. He did not create it to be a dumb input/output device. We know exactly where memory resides, in the cortical columns. We know exactly where visual inputs are processed to allow us to recognize patterns, such as cats, cows, grandma and Angelina Jolie. None of that stuff would be needed if intelligence was entirely in the spirit.

    BTW, all that stuff about relationships between God and man is a bunch of useless words that mean absolutely nothing to me. I told you before, I’m a logical thinker.

    BTW, God only creates matter, the brain, etc. Our spirits just are. They can be neither created nor destroyed. He gives the spirit a brain to think with, a tool for interacting with the physical. Without brains, our spirits are unconscious. As a Christian, this is what I believe because this what the scriptures teach us. All those stories about disembodied spirits (ghosts?) traveling around is just hocus pocus and superstition.

  131. Mapou

    Ok. You say “all that stuff about relationships between God and man is a bunch of useless words that mean absolutely nothing to me”.

    Don’t you think that the relationships between God and you are something worth investigation?

    Here I don’t speak as a debater. I have nothing to sell and no one to convince. Here I speak as a friend and colleague (after all we are both IDers and UDers no?).

    I think that for a man the investigation on the relationships between God and himself is the most important thing to do in his life. This has a lot to do with the goal of life: to know.

    By the way, I appreciate your appreciation of the human brain complexity. You seem to have a deep knowledge of the brain and its functions. That’s fine. Anyway never set limits to what you can know. Maybe it is larger than thought.

  132. as to “We know exactly where memory resides (in the brain),”

    That is simply a false statement:

    A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel
    Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness.
    http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel.....sponse.htm

    In much the same fashion as information, self awareness cannot be ‘localized’ within the brain:

    Self-awareness in humans is more complex, diffuse than previously thought – August 22, 2012
    Excerpt: Self-awareness is defined as being aware of oneself, including one’s traits, feelings, and behaviors. Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex. However, a research team led by the University of Iowa has challenged this theory by showing that self-awareness is more a product of a diffuse patchwork of pathways in the brain – including other regions – rather than confined to specific areas. The conclusions came from a rare opportunity to study a person with extensive brain damage to the three regions believed critical for self-awareness. The person, a 57-year-old, college-educated man known as “Patient R,” passed all standard tests of self-awareness. He also displayed repeated self-recognition, both when looking in the mirror and when identifying himself in unaltered photographs taken during all periods of his life. “What this research clearly shows is that self-awareness corresponds to a brain process that cannot be localized to a single region of the brain,”,,,
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....ously.html

    In fact memories are ‘richer’ from NDE’s when the consciousness is unencumbered by the material brain (as jaw droppingly sophisticated as the material brain is)

    ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real,’ researcher says – Wed April 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “If you use this questionnaire … if the memory is real, it’s richer, and if the memory is recent, it’s richer,” he said.
    The coma scientists weren’t expecting what the tests revealed.
    “To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors,” Laureys reported.
    The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. “The difference was so vast,” he said with a sense of astonishment.
    Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich “as though it was yesterday,” Laureys said.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/.....periences/

    In fact, I spent the entire post at 122 explaining exactly why it is impossible, from a physics perspective, for information/memory to be stored “in” the brain, but that it must somehow, because of limitations imposed by physics, reside on a spiritual level that is not dependent on the brain for its continued existence/subsistence:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-480841

    related notes:

    Materialism of the Gaps – Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) – January 29, 2009
    Excerpt: The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It’s notable that many of the leading neuroscientists — Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet — were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....15901.html

    “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.”
    Sir John Eccles – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963 – (as quoted in Cousins, 1985, pp. 61-62,85-86)

    as to non material acting on material

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    supplemental note;

    “I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact. I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!” –
    Vicki’s NDE – Blind since birth – quote taken from first part of the following video

    Near Death Experience Tunnel – Speed Of Light – Turin Shroud – video
    http://www.vimeo.com/18371644

  133. niwrad,

    The stuff that you write about does not add to my knowledge and understanding. They are just words.

    PS. to everyone. This is my last post in this thread. I refuse to contribute further to the dissemination of what I consider to be superstition and pseudoscience. Sorry for offending some of you but I always tell it like I see it.

  134. Mapou, (sorry you are leaving, if that is the case)

    It is not superstition or pseudoscience to recognize both the role of the mind and the role of the brain. You are overstating the case about the latter. In fact, it is the mind that leads the brain and not the other way around.

    I think your false theological notions of God having a body are influencing your scientific arguments. Thoughts originate in the mind, the spiritual element, not in the brain, which is a physical organ. Thoughts are immaterial; they have no size, shape, or extension. They may pass through or interact with the brain, but they do not originate there.

    If anyone is being superstitious it is you, assigning to the brain a spiritual power that is reserved for the mind. There you have it. You are not the only one who is willing to tell it like it is.

  135. Mapou

    BTW, God only creates matter, the brain, etc. Our spirits just are. They can be neither created nor destroyed. He gives the spirit a brain to think with, a tool for interacting with the physical. Without brains, our spirits are unconscious. As a Christian, this is what I believe because this what the scriptures teach us. All those stories about disembodied spirits (ghosts?) traveling around is just hocus pocus and superstition.

    This is incorrect and I am not going to let it stand unchallenged. The Scripture says explicitly that God is a pure spirit. It also indicates that God created our spiritual component–an immaterial mind and will–faculties for thinking, feeling, and willing. It is the soul that animates the body (and the brain), not the other way around. The idea that the soul “just is” doesn’t fly. Nothing comes into existence without a cause, and the cause of all things, spiritual and material, is God. Yes, because we have an immaterial soul, we will live forever. However, we certainly haven’t always existed.

  136. Hi niwrad @127,

    I don’t see how the quantum phenomena you describe can create CSI.

    500 bits make 1 hCSI. I am not only programming the spin states, I am reading back a spin state which doesn’t exist in my program!. I am, also by extension, creating and saving a new probabilistic state (For Eg, if my quarks are in electron – which according to Heisenberg uncertainty principle is in unknown
    probabilistic momentum and position, I create CSI for spin for two ‘down quarks’ and 1 ‘up quarks’ and for saving state of electron. If you consider just 2 quibits, I am aiming for a XOR of cos^2(pi/8) equivalent to 1/4(2+[square root(2)]) so I am not sure what you mean by no CSI is created.
    I took the quantum computer example because Llyod’s constant- which Dr.Dembski refers to is about quantum computing.

    Hi bornagain77 @126,
    Thank you for your references, but consider this:

    then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe

    no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.

    ‘Some where in universe’ would mean the quantum computer is a open system – unless I build a computer which is as big as the universe itself. So in essence you are referring to an infinite Quantum computer, where as we are discussing a closed system of Quantum computer.
    The nature of quantum particles is that it is in probabilistic state. If I take 6 quibits, it can exist in 2^6 = 64 superposition simultaneously, that’s the reason ‘it cannot be deleted’ or ‘it cannot be cloned’ in classic sense. In quantum computing the operations are called ‘approximate deletion’ and ‘approximate cloning’- not because it’s not possible but because of probabilistic nature of quantum computing.

    In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.

    I am stumped! Does it mean the Lloyd’s constant derived from Quantum computation of 10^120 operations on 10^90 bits and considered by Dr.Dembski in hCSI calculation has not created any information?

  137. Mapou #133

    The stuff that you write about does not add to my knowledge and understanding. They are just words… I refuse to contribute further to the dissemination of what I consider to be superstition and pseudoscience. Sorry for offending some of you but I always tell it like I see it.

    StephenB has just replied to you on the merit in an excellent manner, as he is used to do. So I have nothing to add to his clear words.

    I inform only that personally I am not offended by your words. And also if I were offended that has not the least importance. What matters are not the individualities, rather the Truth.

    So, more serious it would be if you have “offended” some truths, by calling them “superstition and pseudoscience”. More serious for you, I mean, not for the truths, obviously, because always “vincit omnia veritas“.

    Thanks to all for the contributions to this discussion and good weekend to all.

Leave a Reply