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.
LoL! Scientists will listen to that Stanford article over any dictionary.
Your problem, not mine.
LoL! Natural selection is all about survival and reproduction. You might want to read about it.
Nope…it’s called a definition via dictionary. It’s that thing called reading comprehension. You might want to go back and double check what Dr. Who noted.
Your response certainly looks like a joke.
Sorry Joe, we aren’t the ones changing the subject. Dr. Who asked you too look up the definition of “artifact”. I provided the definition. It isn’t our problem you don’t like the definition.
Umm the Stanford article carries more weight than any dictionary definition. That you cannot understand that is a reflection of your ignorance, not mine.
Artifact– read it- it says that animals other than humans produce artifacts. And any artifact is artificial.
Yeah? I certainly don’t know of any. Let’s see if your claim holds any water. Let’s take a poll of scientists on this board then and I’ll go post over at AtBC as well. You know…places where actual scientists post comments and things. Let’s just see what these folks and those folks say. There’s a fair amount of overlap, but it should be good for an indication.
Any of the scientists here ever use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for their definitions? I don’t. Lizzie? Dr. Who? Elzinga? Bueller? Anyone?
Uh huh…
Oddly, even your SEP cites the dictionary definitions to…you know…actually provide the definition. Funny how you don’t seem to understand that Joe.
Sorry Joe, but I don’t trust your opinion. I’ve posted the question here and at AtBC. We’ll actually get some data on the subject and see how that goes.
This could be an interesting discussion if it were removed from the context of which dictionary to use.
An evilutionist would possibly argue that the ability to invent and make things exists on a continuum, so that termites and bees build things, and birds an beavers build things.
The same sort of language applies to tool use. Same for agriculture. An evilutionist is not surprised to see bits and pieces of human behavior appear in other animals.
Nor is it surprising that evolution itself invents.
I’m just making it up as I go along per designers intentions, just like you do. Even if there are other observers (and we’re not privileged) they don’t get to see the whole kaboodle either. My evidence for this is ..Physics.
I often do, actually. I find it quite a useful way of establishing shared ground.
But I’m not especially bothered about what definitions people use, as long as they make it clear what they mean.
Thanks Elizabeth- my point is, which Robin cannot grasp, is that the Stanford article on “artifact” is more detailed and a much better reference than any ole dictionary definition. And as Robin pointed out, it includes dictionary definitions as a reference. And it sure does not stray very far from them as it just includes other types of agencies, that is other than humans.
That is all I am saying- artifacts are not just the realm of humans.
Sorry Robin. I don’t care what you say. And I definitely don’t care what anyone at AtBC sez- even if they agree with me.
Ya see it is obvious that given the choice between the two- the dictionary definition of “artifact” or the Stanford article on “artifact”, any knowledgeable person would say the Stanford article is more complete and a better reference.
Thanks Lizzie! Well put!
Funny that…
Hey Robin- what about the word “information”? It appears evos have a big issue with the dictionary definitions of “information”. 🙂
I made it clear what I mean. Funny that…
This is true. To extend the idea, we’d only need one star, one planet and one moon via special creation and we could still discover loads. So have you worked out which side of your mouth you’d like to argue for the ‘privileged planet’ from?
Prove it. Start by demonstrating such a system can exist.
Keep making it up as you go along. You sound like you have yourself convinced.
LoL! YOU are talking out of your arse….
Actually any ‘knowledgeable’ person would have looked up the definition and description of “artificial”, not artifact, for a complete and better reference. You know…because that was what Dr. Who asked.
Of course, you note quite up front you don’t care what I or anyone else says or thinks, which would explain why you don’t respond in context or knowledgeably.
I made it clear what I mean. Funny that…
Uhh…but you don’t respond in context to what Dr. Who asked…funny that…
LoL! drwho tried to change the subject. But I understand that following along isn’t an evo strong suit.
But anyway, any artifact is artificial, Robin. And there still isn’t any evidence that nature can produce an insect.
You can’t even follow the discussion.
The context was “artifact” and any artifact would be artficial, meaning nature didn’t produce it.
No, dr.who wasn’t trying to change the subject. He was trying to find out what you meant by natural, because there’s more than one way in which you can use the word. So, all you needed to do was clarify what you meant by your question about the origin of insects. I’ve given you a suggestion for words you can use for the questions you persistently ask on the “Sandbox” thread.
Remember, intelligence is a natural phenomenon.
Are you claiming an intelligent intenty could make the smaller system but could design the real universe?
I don’t have such an objection (to randomness in evolution).
Joe G,
Surely you object to randomness being the source of new information in the evolution of life. That’s why I provided a counter example – the evolution of the material universe up until to the appearance of the first life form/single cell on Earth. Random interactions of matter begat increasingly complex and diverse forms of new matter. Hence, natural processes can – and did – gain information. How is this any different from a living evolutionary process in which random mutations lead to new species?
Joe G,
A privileged planet, ( for observation of the universe ), would be one that could see “most” of the universe, i.e. not part of it.
We would sit on “top” of the universe so we could see more star systems than having to look “through” a mass of stars.
This position would also cut down on the effects of gravitational lensing.
We would also have a unique orbit both within our solar system, and as part of it.
Our solar system’s orbit would take us close to other star systems so we could investigate them without having to build spaceships that take more than a scientist’s lifetime to get anywhere.
Our atmosphere would shield us from almost any deadly radiation but not impede any signal we require for observing the universe.
Sadly , none of these things are true.
In reality, like any other planet, our positions are relatively fixed for much longer than our lifetime and radiation from the stars would kill us if we got close enough to observe them, provided the gravitational forces or asteroid impacts don’t kill us first.
You’ll just say anything. You have no idea what “The Privileged Planet” is about.
How do we get there?
Nope. Thanks for playin’
ID is OK with speciation- so is baraminology.
Joe G,
Just to be clear, you accept that natural random mutations can generate new, additional information (a position many in the ID community reject).
Joe G,
????
That is the point, that we’re NOT in a “privileged planet” position.
IF….. we were a “privileged planet” as far as observation of the universe is concerned, we would be in a better position to observe the universe.
SINCE we are not….., we THEREFORE are NOT a “privileged planet”, when it comes to investigating the universe.
I’m examining your privileged planet thesis that you want to argue both ways. not my fault you painted yourself into a corner.
You just keep making stuff up as if it means something- strange.
No, Rich, I am not arguing both ways, whatever that means and I sure as heck didn’t paint myself into a corner.
Your false accusations are a sure sign that you are a child.
The evidence says we are in a privileged position. I will go with the evidence over an anonymous evo.
You you claimed that our planet with ‘privileged’ with regard to discovery, and lots of folks pointed out it really isn’t. You believe the universe is designed. I pointed out that the bulk of scientific discovery is possible in a far more efficient system of just one star, one earth and one moon. You then doubted this system was possible. Why could a designer who makes universes like ours not make the far simpler system described? If you thought things through to their logical conclusion rather than knee-jerking and giving one line drive-by answers all the time, you’d fare better.
Poor Joey two chins in driveby pissy mode! Have some more icecream, that will cheer you up!
Joe G,
You don’t have to go with someone else’s evidence when you have your own.
When you go to a crowded area and lose track of whoever you’re with, how do you go about finding them?
Do you stay on the ground at the same level as the crowd, or do you stand on something so you can see over people’s heads?
Our planet is at the level of the crowd where it is difficult to make observations, when it should be at a higher plane so that it could look “over the heads” of other objects.
I will accept from you that standing in a crowd on the the ground is “better” when you’re looking for someone that it is to stand on steps.
All you have to do is tell me that and you can win a point in this debate.
I can and have supported my claim. OTOH all you have done is talk out of your arses.
That is what the evidence says.
No, you just made some bald declaration- ie totally unsupported.
Nope, I just asked you to support your tripe. You refused, as usual.
For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.
Obviously you don’t have much of a physics background. And obviously all you have are “why” questions that 5 year olds ask.
LoL! All YOU can do make stuff up as if it means something. And at least I provide answers. YOU can’t even do that.
What?! 🙂
Huh?!!!11!!! 😛
Poor Richie Needledick is in full false accusation and spewage mode.
Life is good…
Joe G,
I have to admit, what you lack in “sciencey”, you make up for in “funny”!
Thanks for being that sole island of “functionally specified humour” amongst all these serious people.
This will be the term we can use when IDists can’t answer a question.
As an example: “That answer has FSH. No one can calulate how much, but with that amount of laughter, it must have been a lot.”
I’m not sure where to start. You don’t grasp the most basic parts of physics. Perhaps if you ask Oleg nicely he will help you?
YOU could start by getting an education. And oleg couldn’t design a one sun one planet with moon system, so what does he have to say about it?
its always ongoing, Joe.
He might put you straight with regard to your complete miscomprehension of basic physics. I wouldn’t even trust you with my toaster now.
OMG it gets better!
Sorry Joe, you said “design”, not “make”. Try again.
Well Newton once wrote a letter to a clergyman suggesting that angels or some equivalent demiurges kept the planets from wandering astray. I think it was Laplace who responded to that.
But seriously, this thread has suddenly become fun.
It won’t play out- you cannot design a one sun earth moon system- oleg did not design this one.
You cannot support anything you say and you think that your belligerence means something. Let me know if you ever plan on supporting anything you say.
Does the universe exist because of some a bigger system to ” supprt and allow it”, Joe? Or are you fine with ex nihilo creation at some point? But let’s not get distracted by this red herring. Design is not fabrication, and you are badly conflating the two.
Except LaPlace did not have a way to test his hypothesis- no one does- “it just happened” isn’t science…