Computational Intelligence and Darwinism
| August 5, 2010 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
This UD post got me to thinking. I do that from time to time.
On the subject of computational intelligence I have some minor credentials, including a Silver Medal at the first Computer Olympiad in London, sponsored by David Levy of chess fame. You can access the final results of my research and efforts in computational artificial intelligence (AI) here:
If you have a computer with sufficient memory and disk space you can explore the only perfect-play endgame algorithm ever invented for the game of checkers (known as draughts in the UK).
It was my exploration into computational AI that initially caused me to have doubts about the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism, which I now consider to be a transparent absurdity as an explanation for almost anything of any significance, and certainly not as an explanation for human intelligence.
Here’s why.
Computer programs that play games like checkers and chess involve two primary algorithms, a brute-force tree search and a leaf-node static evaluator. The tree search says, “If I move here, and the opponent moves there, and I move thus…” Unfortunately, the exponential explosion of possibilities means that the search must eventually be terminated. At that point a static positional evaluator must be invoked. This requires designing heuristics that can evaluate the position with no further search.
The problem is that these heuristics are difficult to devise and encode, and they are often wrong, because of tactical considerations that lurk beyond the horizon of the search and the fact that the heuristics can have unanticipated side-effects.
A human player might say, “Hmmm, if I move here, this will create a positional weakness from which the opponent cannot possibly recover.” There is no way to encode such knowledge, which comes from human experience and positional recognition.
The other problem is that computer programs like mine do not play against the opponent; they play against themselves. The tree search assumes that the opponent sees everything it does, which in a human-versus-human game is not the case. In one game my program played against a grandmaster human, the human was in deep trouble, and he told me so. The computer was considering the move the human feared, which would lead to a very difficult, razor-thin draw. But the program searched so far ahead that it found the draw, assumed the human would see it as well, and played a move that gave the program a few more meaningless points, letting the human off the hook.
All attempts at computational language interpretation have been dismal failures for similar reasons. Even the best spell- and grammar-checkers are astronomically stupid:
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
The point is: With all our human intelligence, technology, and inventiveness, how can anyone who is still in contact with reality believe that random accidents engineered our brains and minds?
163 Responses to Computational Intelligence and Darwinism
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
avo @ 151 “I feel like you didn’t read my post. I’m not sure how to state it better but I’ll try. The term nonmaterial has been around a long time. I don’t know if people have really considered what it might mean. I don’t know what it might mean.”
I like the term material because I think it can be described in such a way that is generous when it comes to “scientific” entities and what “science” may further discover yet specific enough to allow for real distinctions in ontology. I agree that this term usually needs to be defined up front else confusion reigns.
I like to think of “material” like this. If something meets one of the following five criteria then I call it material.
1. extended or precisely located in space/time
2. has mass
3. obeys physical laws
4. converts to energy
5. heats or moves matter (is energy)
So a photon, while not having mass, still meets other criteria and would be considered (in my ontology) material.
Things that are immaterial, or abstract, do not meet ANY of the criteria above.
For example, mathematics is not extended in space/time nor specifically located in space/time. Math has no mass. Math doesn’t obey the laws of physics. Math isn’t convertible to energy and Math certainly cannot heat or move matter.
Yet math is real. It exists. It has ontological status. This example should help you see what I am saying.
“In what way does your soul exist? What manner is its existence? Has it any energy? How does it interact with and impact matter? How does it exist nonmaterially in a way that is different than nothingness?”
It exists like mathematics or the laws of physics or logic exist. It’s “real” but abstract. And given that it is abstract, it is also indestructible. That has serious implications.
Given my description of material/immaterial I would say that the soul does not have energy. If the soul “had energy” it would no longer be abstract to my way of thinking.
As far as how it interacts with or impacts matter, as GP said, that is the big question. Naturalists (physicalists in philosophy of mind) say that nature is causally closed. That is, even if mind actually exists, it cannot have causal impact in “nature” or the physical world. Yet these philosophers seem to take for granted that the laws of physics (which are immaterial) impact the material world without batting an eye. Therefore, I am not sympathetic to the “we don’t see how it could happen so it doesn’t happen” school of philosophy when there is clear evidence that it does happen all the time. We clearly exercise free will since we do that every time we communicate. I hope this helps. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
gpuccio,
Absolutely, and with most everything else you wrote as well.
Yes…what I am wondering is more concrete than that. What is it made of?
Funny, I would say the opposite. As I first said, I can agree that the concept I have of the number four is completely nonmaterial but a soul is a something, a being, possibly one capable of influencing matter.
Yes, I think so and my theory is that planck length is the doorway to another, inner dimension.
Well, that sounds interesting, although I don’t quite understand what exactly that might entail.
I think so!
But no, this is not easy. I did not mean to imply that the soul does not exist, rather I ask what nonmaterial means if not nothingness? When we use that term for spiritual things, do we know what we are talking about? A concept in a mind may be nonmaterial, but a living being? (I use the word living here in the spiritual sense, not as aiguy uses it for biological organisms.)
tg,
So are you saying it is useful for communicating certain conventions, such as we commonly experience a kind of divide between sensory reality and spiritual reality, but that at bottom we don’t really know what it means?
I agree that math is nonmaterial. Yet it can only exist in relation to material things or the conceptual possibility of material things.
But now you say the soul exists like math, being real but abstract. This I cannot see at all. Math is not like a soul. A soul is a being. I do not think math can impact matter. Yet a soul inhabits the body.
How can a soul be an abstraction? Abstraction of what? Do you think God is abstract?
By the way, regarding your post to aiguy, are you saying that if your position is true, that a matter-only reality would mean that no real thinking is possible?
What do you see as the serious implications.
But isn’t that backwards? Aren’t the laws of physics descriptions of what actually happens in material reality?
But I agree that mind influences matter. That’s one reason I think it is more than an abstraction. I think if the ultimate reality – God – is an abstraction then there could be no existence.
avocationist:
I have the impressionform what you say that our views are nearer than it seems.
You see, I like concrete and pragmatic thinking, and I believe you do too.
The problem is: what is really concrete? What is really pragmatic?
Materialists are comforted by the conviction that matter is a reliable reality, because we can easily perceive it and because it has some consistency.
But what we perceive as material reality is constantly changing, and we probably understand its nature only scarcely (QM has already given us some “uncomfortable” cognitive experiences, and what about dark ebergy, if it exists?).
On the other hand, our consciousness is the fundamental, and most persistent, experience in our life. It is our being conscious, and the properties of our conscious experiences, which gives strength and meaning to our representations of our outer reality.
So, if I had to bet on one or the other as a fundamental “substance”, you can imagine what I would do.
But really, I don’t want to cut out of my map of reality anything which really exists. In my map, material things, strange material things (including possibly dark energy), conscious agents, thoughts, abstract representations, dreams, feelings, and so on, all share the same right to be reals, the same cognitive dignity. It is up to us to coordinate our map so that each of the things which are real may find a right place.
The reason why I give such a great importance to the concept (and to the intuitive experience) of a transcendental I, is because the only simple way we can descrine conscious experiences, IMO, is the following:
multiple representations referred to a same, unifying perceiver
The true difference between my representations and yours is that I perceive mine and you perceive yours: for the rest, the representations could well be similar.
So, the I is more and different form its representations: the representations constantly change, the perceiving I remains the same. I am obviously including the inner states of the mind in the representations, distinct from the perceiver).
So, I don’t like the word “substance”, but if you really want to use it, to what should we first apply it?
GP: Revisiting. I think we should all pause to read this from G K Chesterton, on the wind and the trees. G
Avo:
Regarding mind-brain/body interaction, you might want to look at the possibilities in the Derek Smith cybernetic loop model, especially the informational interaction and influences between the two tiers of controller.
Multiply that by the issues connected to the implications of the evidence that we inhabit a fine-tuned cosmos fitted out to support the possibility for and actual existence of c-chemistry cell based, intelligent life.
G
gpuccio,
You express yourself well. Thank you for your well thought out responses. Again, yes I agree with most all you say.
I am still not sure whether God or soul is nonmaterial or what that might mean or how that might work. Although the sense of your transcendent I as an unmoved perceiver does feel nonmaterial. Sigh…then again I don’t know if mind and soul are synonymous.
KF,
If you would like to refer to what we see in biological systems as FSCI instead of “designs”, that’s fine. I don’t care what words we use as long as we agree on definitions.
If you would like to refer the cause you propose for FSCI as “directed contingency”, that’s OK, but I don’t know what you mean by that. Do you mean, as Stephen Meyer does, a conscious entity? If so, then we disagree about the warrant for that conclusion. If that is not what you mean, then the term doesn’t mean anything at all to me, but I’m not interested in pursuing it.
StephenB,
First of all, I am not the one alluding to this mysterious something that guides nature, directs contingencies, and enables processes to “see”. These are the words used with great frequency by ID advocates themselves. It is quite right for me to ask what it is ID is proposing as the explanation of complex form and function. Saying that “blind processes” and “unguided nature” can’t produce FSCI is one thing; saying what sort of process is not “blind”, and saying what sort of nature is “guided”, is quite another.
So you finally provide an answer, which is “designed program”. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean! ID proposes that FSCI in biology is the result of “directed contingency”, and when I ask what is supposed to be directing these contingencies the answer is a “designed program”. What does the “designed program” mean here? Does it have anything to do with conscious thought or not?
All – Sorry, I posted these in the wrong thread
avo @ 155
“So are you saying it is useful for communicating certain conventions, such as we commonly experience a kind of divide between sensory reality and spiritual reality, but that at bottom we don’t really know what it means?”
No. I’m saying that there is a difference. The distinction between material and immaterial seems pretty clear to me. I think if you gave me a list of things I could immediately, using that list of questions, tell you whether or not something was immaterial or material. Don’t you think so?
“I agree that math is nonmaterial. Yet it can only exist in relation to material things or the conceptual possibility of material things.”
Why do you say that? What does the material world have to do with the existence of math? We manipulate mathematical symbols to understand the material world but I don’t see that what you say is true. The Pythagorean theorem doesn’t depend upon matter for its existence or meaning.
“But now you say the soul exists like math, being real but abstract. This I cannot see at all. Math is not like a soul. A soul is a being. I do not think math can impact matter. Yet a soul inhabits the body.”
I’m merely saying the soul, or mind, is abstract. Math is also abstract but I don’t think I tried to imply that math is like the soul. Mathematics is a universal language. It is a tool that is used by our minds to understand and interpret the material world, and other things, of course.
“How can a soul be an abstraction? Abstraction of what? Do you think God is abstract?”
I suspect a terminology problem here. I am not referring to “abstract” as in the sense that we abstract qualities from material things. Perhaps abstract is not the right word. It can have that meaning and it was obviously confusing here. Maybe I should stick with immaterial.
“By the way, regarding your post to aiguy, are you saying that if your position is true, that a matter-only reality would mean that no real thinking is possible?”
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Thinking requires the use of language, or to put it more broadly, the manipulation of symbols according to certain rules, including the first principles of reason, Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle. No thought or communication of thought is possible without symbols and rules. Matter in itself cannot possibly account for either the symbols or the rules. The naturalist or materialist account of the world is utter nonsense.
“And given that it is abstract, it is also indestructible. That has serious implications.
What do you see as the serious implications.”
That our minds or souls outlast our bodies. That we have a long, long way to go here.
“Yet these philosophers seem to take for granted that the laws of physics (which are immaterial) impact the material world without batting an eye.
But isn’t that backwards? Aren’t the laws of physics descriptions of what actually happens in material reality?”
If you look at physics as only descriptive and not causal then I can see that you would think it’s backwards. I don’t think physics is merely descriptive. If physics is only descriptive then we still don’t know what “causes” anything. Hell, I guess that could be true but it seems very unlikely to me. Something to think about, maybe.
“But I agree that mind influences matter. That’s one reason I think it is more than an abstraction. I think if the ultimate reality – God – is an abstraction then there could be no existence.”
I think God MUST be immaterial. I don’t want to repeat it all here but if you look at any of the “first cause” arguments based on the impossibility of an infinite regress then you come to the necessary conclusion that the first cause is infinite, that is, uncaused, immaterial, and so forth. And I do agree that mind influences matter. Who can explain that? Beats me but the immaterial laws of physics, at worst, describe the force(s) that are behind the scenes telling electrons what to do.