Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:00:37 -0400, "mel turner"
<mturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:63esb3pm7rrq64ftl6ucddei3p2knqjaql@xxxxxxxxxx

Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
context of macroevolution.

I suggested that that's the wrong context, that natural selection
generally operates on a microevolutionary scale.

You seemed to give up on that discussion too early.
For example, I got no replies to:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fdbb43501690c116?
or
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbaa151a3bda6243?

I'm sorry, Mel, that I didn't follow up on your replies. The real
world keeps getting in the way.

One poster's response summed up the issue.

Who? Google didn't find the post. Did you paraphrase it?

no, it was Robert Maas, if I remember correctly.

He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?

End quote.

But natural selection can easily be demonstrated at a somewhat more
modest scale. So can evidence for adaptive evolutionary changes over
the macroevolutionary history of major lineages.

then evolutinary claims should also be made at a more modest scale,
don't you think?

You don't need millions of years or an asteroid or an army to study
it.

In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
cannot be tested.

No one admitted any such thing. Nor should they.

I took silence to be admission. For those reading that thread, if
they had seen Maas' statement and disagreed, I imagine they would have
spoken up?

Is natural selection even supposed to operate during macroevolution
[speciation, and the formation of groups of species from a common
ancestral species], as opposed to during microevolution [within-species
change]? Where did you get the impression that it was supposed to be
macroevolutionary?

hmmm, here we go again. Now it is the divorce of natural selection
from macroevolution. First it was that abiogenesis is not part of
evolutuion. Then the fossil record is not necessary to establishing
evolution. Next, the geological column is not necessary to
establishing evolution. And now natural selection is being divorced
from the concept of macroevolution.

More and more, the tattered theory lies in bits and unconnected
pieces.

This means that the concept of macroevolution
through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
not a scientific theory.

Non sequitur, especially the "(or any other mechanism)". It means no
such thing.

We in fact can and do observe and study "macroevolution" occurring
in both the laboratory and in the wild, and we can also study in
great detail the abundant evidence for the long-term macroevolutionary
history of major groups of organisms. We can also observe and study
natural selection, which is rather a separate topic.

yeah, I gather that natural selection is now becoming a separate
topic, similar to abiogenesis is a separate topic. But in any event,
would you please give me an example of macroevolution occurring in the
laboratory and in the world?

So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
a theory that is admitted to be not scientific,

"Admitted" by no one who discussed it here with you.
I don't think you're summarizing that discussion accurately or fairly.

<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f49dfcf2ddf2352e/>

if you'd like to review the thread.

are you saying that a theory that cannot be tested because it needs
millions of years and a lab the size of the universe is scientific?

I would like to return
my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
of intelligence.

What are "laws of intelligence"? Why think there need be any such
"laws"?

like the muon, when Rabi addressed it with a "who ordered this," the
laws of intelligence exist, regardless of if we ordered them or not.
So we might as well learn to recognize and live with them.

The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
level of applied intelligence/mental activity.

So then a salt crystal involves enormous amounts of intelligence/mental
activity, and a chaotic bustling human city perhaps doesn't require
much or any?

why do you think the infrastructure of a city is chaotic? Bustling,
yes. Chaotic? No.

How exactly do we quantify the level of organization or order in a
system? How do we measure the level of applied intelligence/mental
activity in such a system so as to test your claimed "law"?

the level of organization or order in a system can be quantified by
start-stop commands. Start-stop commands give evidence of mental
activity, of decision-making. The level of applied
intelligence/mental activity can be measured by the number of
start-stop commands -- not start-stop activity, mind you, but
commands. A command is recognized by its ability to supersede the
normal course of nature.

In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
that system or systems.

Then crystals must take enormous amounts of mental activity to form
as they precipitate out of a saturated solution.

I don't know how much mental activity it took to set up a consistent
pathway for crystallization. That is yet to be explored.

But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?

Sure.

One, show that highly ordered things can form without any [or much]
"applied intelligence/mental activity" being involved. Crystals,
perhaps, or the military.

crystals, as I said in my original post, should not be brought to the
table as evidence since it is one of the test items....UNLESS you can
demonstrate that crystal formation is not the result of intelligent
planning.

As to the military, I'm sure you are joking since no military has ever
been organized without intelligent input.

Two, show that we can apply lots and lots of "applied
intelligence/mental activity" to things without any very high level
of organization resulting. Congress, perhaps, or this newsgroup.

funny, but not an answer.

Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
a situation will disqualify FLOI.

Take a saturated solution of sodium chloride, and let it dry down.

if there was no way originally for salt to form in a chaotic
environment, and you wanted to produce salt, you could apply your
intelligence to creating a mechanism and a pathway for this to occur
consistently. And this mechanism would be considered a law by those
who follow you in years to come.

Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
definitely not of intelligent origin.

No. All we need do is point to a lack of any known, demonstrable
"intelligent origin" for these things, and more to the point, a lack
of any detectable "applied intelligence/mental activity" being
involved as the process proceeds. We can very easily watch extremely
highly ordered crystals form from disordered solutions without any
observable intelligent input at all.

and we can watch computer programs run on our computers without any
observable intelligent input at all. That is not a good answer.

Are you really going to argue that Jack Frost intelligently carves
each individual snowflake?

no, I am not going to argue that.

So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
intelligence?

Why would any such "law" ever be proposed in the first place? It's
evidently not a generalization based on observations of the real
world, since there often seems little positive correlation
between intelligent activity and order/organization.

I submit that there is 100 % correlation between intelligent activity
and order/organization. The task is to find ways of identifying this
correlation.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence
    ... But natural selection can easily be demonstrated at a somewhat more ... admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution ... We in fact can and do observe and study "macroevolution" occurring ... level of applied intelligence/mental activity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Testing the Laws of Intelligence
    ... I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the ... admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution ... But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges ... So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Biochemistry of Genetic Mechanisms
    ... > Macroevolution, as well as microevolution is well covered in Jeffrey ... > Levinton's Genetics, ... Do you believe that natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution? ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Dawkins latest
    ... > microevolution and macroevolution. ... > microevolution, but is in principle impotent to explain ... >Do you agree with Dawkins that natural selection alone explains ... > fingers of an Arthur Rackham witch. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading