The subject of intention and action has come up few times, so I thought I’d start a thread.
From my point of view as a cognitive neuroscientist, decision-making (which action to take) is best conceived of as a kind of winner-take-all arm-wrestling competition, in which competing programs (represented as networks of active neurons) of action exert a mutually inhibitory effect on on the other, while each receives excitatory input from various other other networks, each of which in turn are engaged in a kind of subsidiary arm-wrestling match with some networks and a mutually cheer-leading match with others.
The more activation in any one network, the greater the inhibitory effect it has on competing networks, and so the system is, in a technical sense, “chaotic” – two competing programs can be finely balanced at one moment, but once one gets ahead by more than a critical amount, its inhibitory effect on the other increase, reducing its activation and releasing its reciprocal inhibitory control. At this point, activation in the winner rises rapidly towards “execution threshold” – the point at which outflow to the muscles involved in the action are activated.
Of course this is a continuously looping process, and the actions can be as slight as an eye movement, which then brings new input to the decision-making process, or a gross-motor action, which also provide new input, so the decision-making process is constantly informed by new data. However, it is also informed by endogenous processes – processes that trigger activations in networks involved in goal-setting and reward prediction, and established through life-long learning, in which neural firing patterns that result in success become more probable and those that result in failure, or penalty, become less likely.
As the brain’s owner, of course, we call these processes “pondering”, “hesitating”, “deciding”, “exploring”, “testing”, “changing my mind”, “exercising will power”, “considering the long term effects of my actions”, “considering the effect of my actions on someone else”, etc.
Which is exactly what they are. But at a neural level they operate very like evolutionary processes, in which what replicates most successfully (neurally) is most likely to be repeated, and what replicates least successfully is least likely to be repeated. The interesting part is that this “neural Darwinism” takes place prior to actions actually being performed – and often the”winning” program does not actually reach execution threshold, but instead is fed back as input, so that we are able to imagine the results of our actions before we actually execute them, and use that information before actually allowing an action to take place.
That means that we, unlike evolutionary processes, are capable of intentional action. We can simulate the results of potential courses of action, and use those simulated results to inform the decision-making process. This allows us to take shortcuts, and pursue, in actuality, only those courses of action we deem likely to be successful. In contrast, evolution is stuck with trying anything that presents itself as an option, learning by actual, not simulated, errors. It cannot be said, therefore, to exhibit intentional behaviour, and is much slower and less efficient that we are. However, by the same token, it will often explore possibilities that a simulating – intentional – agent would reject, on the grounds that the simulations looked unpromising. As a result, some spectacular solutions are missed.
Which is why evolutionary algorithms are used by intentional designers – us – so that we can, intentionally, use the power of unintentional design to find solutions we ourselves would reject as not sufficiently promising to explore.
Thank you for the civil and substantive response, but real biological evolution (as in observed directly versus imagned by Darwinists) entails destruction of design. The only place evolutionary algorithms build and solve problems via finding some level of complexity are the ones humans design.
Anti-biotic resistance, blind cave fish, gammarus minus, the growing number of extinct species evidence loss of function moreso than increase in function. The rate of bird species extinction evidences how real-real world biology implements the genetic algorithm.
Dawkins weasel would miror reality more if the algorithm died midstream, because that is what is happening in the real world. Either natural selection doesn’t work at all (complete extinction), or it selects for broken function. It rarely works to build function.
What you didn’t address is that for every GA that can be demonstrated to create something, many more can be constructed with far more ease that don’t create anything or destroy things. By cherry picking GAs that create things to represent biological evolution and forgetting that in principle many more GAs exist which can destroy things, one is making faulty generalizations.
Biological GAs (at the population level) don’t work like intelligently design GA’s. That’s why things like sickle cell anemia and tay-sach’s disease get selected for instead of against. As one Darwinist put it, it’s Survival of the Sickest.
See:
The one place where biological GAs work well is in B-Cell maturation as part of the intelligently designed human immune system.
Oh that’s another thing. In Weasel simulations, if the organism has a flaw the simulation can keep chugging along, whereas in the biological world, intermediate forms which would be functionally fatal would stop the Genetic Algorithm. Many interemediate forms would in principle be lethal to continued persistence of the Genetic Algorithm. The cases in point would be too numerous to list, but the evolution of insulin or the Avian lung or the evolution of the mammalian heart from a reptilian heart are places to start.
Not quite. Even though birds preceded airplanes, there is no requirement that human brains would perceive principles of flight (like Bernouli’s principle, fluid dynamics, propulsion). Evolution could have evolved creatures that were oblvious to engineering, yet it didn’t.
The human brain is considered among the most complex systems in the universe. Evolution could have chosen to evolve us in a way that would ensure we would be oblivious to the mechanics of flight, instead, it seems we’ve been optimized to understand the physical principles of engineered and intelligently designed systems like birds and airplanes.
So the fact that
1. birds exist
2. that we can appreciate the engineering principles that allow birds to fly
requires that evolution be sufficiently front-loaded to make this possible. But sufficient front-loading of evolution to accomplish this would make it indistinguishable from a miracle. That is a moot point since empirical observation in real-time is evidence against this sort of front loading. Real world evolution entails have extinction, permanent loss of function, meuller rachets, and survival of the sickest — not increasing innovation.
“requires that evolution be sufficiently front-loaded to make this possible” – Sal, this is simply your unsupported opinion. Incredulity in all its glory.
stcordova,
That makes as much sense as saying that children born in 1954 were “optimized” to accept the sound of the Beatles in 1964 instead of being optimized to understand the music of Frank Sinatra.
Secondly, the F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the F-18 and the F-22 do not fly like birds at all.
Since all but the last microsecond of evolution year did not produce conditions necessary for “artificial” flight, you have produce a prime example of painting the bulls eye after the arrow has landed.
stcordova,
How is the “designer” compatible with human “free will”?
If we change the present, doe he need to change his future designs?
If we have free will, how does he know what to do for a “design” in a future he has no control over?
I don’t see any point in discussion if it’s not civil and substantive.
Your reply doesn’t really address my point, which had nothing to do with GA’s, nor was it even a defense of evolution, per se. It was simply an argument for why your argument from analogy cannot be sustained as an argument against evolution. Whether you have other arguments against evolution (such as, evolution only entails destruction) is irrelevant.
But, since you changed the subject, I do find your evolution only entails destruction argument curious. You say real biological evolution (as in observed directly versus imagned by Darwinists) entails destruction. Then you list examples of “destruction” such as blind cave fish. By “destruction,” I assume you mean loss of eyesight. (Please correct me if you meant something else.) But if your criterion for accepting a posited change in an organism over time is to have observed directly that change, otherwise it is only imagined, then you cannot logically invoke the blind cave fish to support your claim of “destructive” change since no one observed the fish losing eyesight. You would have to “imagine” that the fish’s ancestors had working eyes. To have any semblance of credibility, your criterion for accepting evidence has to be consistent.
Your first paragraph is true but irrelevant. Of course we could have evolved in a way as to be oblivious to engineering, as did, for example, lobsters (or pretty much every other creature in existence). Your second paragraph is as complete a non sequitur as I’ve ever seen. You’ve provided no basis for the claim that human brains were “optimized to understand” such things as Bernoulli’s principle, etc. Perhaps you choose to hold that belief, but you have given no evidence to support it. The fact that a human brain is very complex, and it (sometimes) is capable of understanding Bernoulli’s principle, is in no way proof that it has been intentionally optimized for any particular purpose, much less for doing fluid dynamics.
Are you presenting your views above in order to demonstrate that organisms do not appear to be intelligently designed to cope with an ever changing world? Surely the ability to adapt efficiently in such a world and to gain new functions would be something an intelligent designer would want. Or do you think the designs were intended for another planet that never changed?
Talk to Rich and the other evo minions who think otherwise.
NS is just a result Robin. And what, exactly does it “do”? Please be specific.
No, artificial refers to more than man-made. You lose.
“Natural Selection” is both a process and a result.
If you can’t grasp that, then there’s really no point in you being here. Endless iteration and reiteration of slogans never was a good way of making a point, even if the sloganiser HAS a point.
Citation please. As I said YOU can always step-up and refute the design inference by demonstrating matter, energy, necessity and chance are all that are required. But you can’t even put that in a testable hypothesis.
And switch to father time, mother nature and some unknown processes?
If only YOU could step-up and produce positive evidence for your position.
No, the processes of natural selection are heritablity, reproduction and random variation.
It’s razzles- a candy AND a gum!
I don’t care what you call it, what does it do and what is the evidence for that?
Look it up. The design efforts of other creatures (beaver dams, for example) are invariably described as natural in both uses of the word.
It’s pointless asking people for evidence to support the view that natural physical processes create natural physical creatures like insects, as the view is supported 100%. If you want to suggest otherwise, find an example of a single non-physical process that is known to have taken place in the biosphere.
No, artificial refers to more than man-made. You lose.
I have- artifact:
drwho:
It is pointless asking you to support anything you say. But thanks for proving that you don’t have any evidence that nature produced insects- nor do you have any way to test that claim.
I know that some animals make tools. It’s in their nature. Now look up the adjective you used: artificial. You’ll find “man-made” in the definitions, not animal made.
Are you now suggesting that insects are artifacts made by other animals? Do you agree that there’s no known example of anything other than nature (in the broad sense) causing things in this biosphere? If you do, then you know that nature (in the broad sense) producing insects is the only thing we have evidence for.
If you want evidence relating to some different definition of nature, then give the definition precisely. Are you, for some reason, asking me to give evidence that insects aren’t artifacts made by other animals?
The “problem” is imagined.
Why not?
What future plans? And how do you know we can change them? And what if our free will is the plan, meaning we make the future?
Umm, man is an animal and I will go with Stanford over a standard dictionary when it comes to science.
Nope. I am still suggesting there isn’t any evidence that nature produced insects, nor any animal.
I have no idea what that means.
I do understand that nature doesn’t create nature. And I also understand that you will never produce any evidence and your rhetoric isn’t evidence.
So either produce some evidence or just admit you have nothing and move on.
Got any evidence of what produces nature, Joey 2 chins?
You not understanding the evidence does not mean that I haven’t presented it.
Your intelligent design theory seems to involve animals designing other animals as artifacts, so far as I can gather. Is that correct? Certainly, intelligent design and intent are exclusively animal characteristics, so far as the evidence goes.
You haven’t presented any.
No, but do keep fishing. It is very entertaining.
What evidence?
Certainly natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.
Richie Needledick, do you have any evidence for your existence?
No, you haven’t understood it.
No, you haven’t presented any- again your rhetoric is not evidence.
But by your actions I can see that your intention is just to obfuscate. Good job, just a tad too obvious though.
The evidence:
natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.
Joe G, I don’t understand your objection to randomness as it relates to complexity.
At one time, early in the history of the universe, matter condensed from energy in the form of individual quarks. As the universe cooled, and as matter randomly collided, quarks combined to form more complex structures, like protons and neutrons, then atoms, simple molecules, etc. With the eventual formation of planetary bodies, geology and chemistry greatly expanded the possible arrangements of matter — meaning that as the universe evolved, nature continuously created new Information. And all of this happened before the first appearance of life.
It does not seem that an Intelligent Designer needed to intervene for any of these events to occur once the Universe was started. Furthermore, I am not aware of any scientists in favor of ID theory who would make such a claim. Thus it seems that front-loading was sufficient to carry out the Designer’s plan up until the first appearance of life.
If so, then is the particular arrangement of stars and planets that we observe random, planned, both or neither?
I’ve not seen any statements from those folks insisting otherwise. Methinks you might reread their statements and reconsider yours.
It (the selection pressure) establishes the sets of available genetic material and establishes the relative advantages/disadvantages of the entire spectrum of biological traits..
Man…you really need to work on your research skills there Joe:
Even looking up artifact veers away from your oddity: Next, you might look up what a “definition” actually is…
Because the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy is used extensively by actual scientists as a basis for defining concepts. LOL!
Thanks Joe! That’s one of your better jokes!
Joe G,
Yes, yes, yes!!!!!
That’s the point, that WE make the future with our “free will”!!
That means the designer has to change his plans in response to our deciding what the future is!!!!
The question is, how does he do it?
If he’s half-way through a design and we exercise our “free will” to make the future as “we “see fit, how does he accommodate that change?
We lead and he follows, but how?
Citation for what?
That ID is impossible? If it is possible, tell me how the designer poofs 500 bit sequences into existence. Why is it possible for designers when it supposedly exceeds the computational resources of the universe?
Joe, for the sake of Elizabeth’s O.P., which is interesting, I suggest we take the discussion to the “Sandbox” thread. There, you can ask me for evidence that insects aren’t artifacts made by other animals, if that’s what you want to ask me. If not, then you can easily explain what you mean by the cause of insects being natural or non-natural. You also need to clarify whether you’re talking about the proximate cause of insects, or the ultimate cause of insects.
I’ll post this on the Sandbox.
I didn’t say they flew exactly like birds, but if you will insist on giving the least charitable interpretation to what I say, then there is little point in dialogue.
You might have instead have tried to understand what I said since I used the term “Beroulli”. From a respectable institution:
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/
And if you look at this university website it shows a picture of an F-15 or F-14 along with birds.
http://www.lcse.umn.edu/~bruff/bernoulli.html
You did understand what I meant by Bernoulli’s principle and how it relates birds and airplanes didn’t you? 🙂
Any way, I feel bad taking this tangent to correct something you said, but I didn’t want to let it go and give the impression I said something that wasn’t supportable.
This is an important enough topic in its own right that it would be better left for another thread. We clearly disagree, but it is a good discussion, and I hope I gave at least some contribution to the original discussion of INTENT.
I don’t have much more to add regarding INTENT, but I do have lots to say about other topics.
Try the “sandbox” thread. If you’re going down the road of attacking indirect evidence, I’ll be happy to explain to you why people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Intelligent Design is entirely dependent on trying to make the case by very indirect evidence.
Perhaps it’s time for a thread on aerodynamics 🙂
As I understand it, bird flight is very different in principle from fixed-wing flight, and the shape of the wing is not the crucial factor, but rather the angle-of-attack.
Even completely flat kites work fine, as long as you get the bridle angle right. Although I did once design a kite with a curved surface 🙂
Maybe we should try to entice Gil back….
And your position is entirely dependent on making the case by very indirect obfuscation.
Exactly! Do you think scientists rely on dictionary definitions?
In this thread Rich talked about NS selecting.
LoL! Whatever is good enough survives to reproduce. Also behaviour can trump genetics.
LoL! Science via dictionary!
Are you kidding me? Or are you just a joke?
Next thing we will be defining all anim as as “human”- look animals other than humans can and do produce artifacts. Artifacts are artificial, duh.
I don’t have such an objection.
Thanks for playin’
Back to intention and action:
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
Yes if the intention was to have a universe designed for scientific discovery those actions would be required.
Nice strawman- I see you are deeply connected to it but that dioesn’t mean anything to the rest of the world.
Liz- Kites are modelled after sails, not planes. There weren’t any planes in Ben Franklin’s days…
And if it wasn’t designed for discovery we’d expect to see a dispersed universe, unreachable by man and perhaps even a vast ‘unobservable universe’ that will forever remain inscrutable to man.
We would? Do you have any evidence for that?
Do you have any evidence that we are the only observers?
The answerr is “no” to all of those- go figure…
Yes Joe, we do.
‘Fraid I don’t see it. Why don’t you post the specific sentence of his.
LOL! Sorry Joe, I didn’t note anything about anything surviving. You might want to try actually reading what I wrote.