Re: Intelligence - one of degree?


Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
....

> Actually, that's the main difference between natural
> selection and design. We select the components BECAUSE
> they do things (achieve sub goals) that we believe will
> achieve a main goal when combined. Natural selection
> lets all the components be tossed together haphazardly
> and then if the results are useful it lets them be kept.
> But it's really, really hard to talk like this because
> natural selection is in no way a guiding force in the
> process -- it's just basically a name for a grouping
> of natural processes -- whereas a designer clearly is.


When you say "we believe will achieve a main goal" do
you have a consciousness as part of that believing?


....

> How can evolution learn anything? There is no
> component to attach the knowledge or learning to.


DNA?


> There is no evidence that the process of evolution
> has ever changed, or can even change, except in
> terms of changes to the entities that cause them
> to select reproductively differently.


Ever read about the idea of the evolution of evolution?


> > > Again, actual breeds of dogs would be "designed"
> > > by someone who thinks that such a combination will
> > > produce the desired traits. Natural selection does
> > > not do that.
> >
> > Evolution doesn't "think" in the conscious sense
> > that certain combinations will do such and such.
> > But the effect is the same. We are just part of
> > the natural selection process of dog breeds.
>
> Except it isn't. Evolution leaves useless but not
> harmful traits.


Are you sure it never leaves harmful traits?


> Evolution does not select for the maximally beneficial
> traits. It simply lets things happen and if they work
> keeps them. But again, it does no such thing itself.

....

> You claimed that evolution was obviously intelligent
> and fit your definition, so that your definition best
> fit that fact. But the only reason to consider
> evolution intelligent is that it meets your definition.
> Therefore, you end up with a circular argument: if I
> consider your definition true, then evolution is
> intelligent, and if I consider evolution intelligent,
> then your definition works.


So, humans obviously fit your definition of intelligence?
You only reason to consider humans intelligent is that they
meet your definition. Therefore ...

That evolution is an intelligent process is based on
a generalization over behaviors that have something
in common when we say they are "intelligent".
It is most likely not "conscious" or "aware" and
thus if that is a requirement of intelligence then
evolution is not an intelligent process.


> > Try and generalize over all those "intelligent"
> > behaviors for some common denominator and see if
> > any other behaviors under question fit the criteria.
>
> That's the definition that we are discussing.
> But to me the definition is more of "how" than
> of "what", and so it isn't the behaviours we want,
> but how those behaviours are produced. I know
> you disagree, but without more justification I
> cannot see how this impasse can be resolved.


The behaviors are produced by some neural mechanism.


> > I think your criteria is always a conscious sentient
> > goal seeking entity, not a mechanism or some kind,
> > as a requirement for "intelligence"
>
> I don't understand this interpretation of my criteria.
> Again, it is HOW it is done, not WHAT it does.


A fast car is a description of WHAT it does, a V8 turbo
charged engine might be HOW it does it. They are not
mutually exclusive issues.


> A machine can indeed be intelligent as long as
> it is itself actively seeking goals. Random stumbling
> about and having others interpret that as achieving
> a goal is not intelligent.


If you are thinking of evolution when you write
"random stumbling" then you have a misconception
about how things evolve.

--
JC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Evolutionary Theory
    ... controlled random mutations and contingent selection ... Evolution and Natural Selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Trying to salvage something from this Re: The Theory of Evolution
    ... examples of mutation and selection. ... Defending the theory of evolution from a ... mathematics or the interpretation of data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligence - one of degree?
    ... > (selection) for a specific goal. ... what natural selection does). ... >> generally aim at very general goals. ... In the case of evolution the goal ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5
    ... He has foisted evolution ... point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology. ... misconstrued as the fittest surviving? ...
    (talk.origins)