Black-Box Intelligence

[thomas]

...., first what does one person knowing the purpose for something(one) else have to do with it having a purpose? You are implying that if a man doesn't know the purpose for something, then it can't have one. Obviously this leads to the idea that only man can have purpose and all else is dictated by him. Is that what your saying? Even God can not have purpose because man didn't get the memo?

 

 

There may be a lot of purposes, that we don’t know about. If we for example look at gravity, we don’t know if it serves a purpose in the mind of a higher being. Or maybe it serves several purposes in the minds of several higher beings. We don’t know. And since we don’t know, why should we then count on it? Shouldn't we stick to what we actually do know?

 

 

 

Secondly, where did the idea that purpose is only related to humans come from? The wolf has no intention or purpose in chasing its prey? The bird has no purpose or intention in building its nest?

 

 

To say that an animal has a purpose for its behaviour is an interpretation. I will admit, that it actually looks like an animals chasing food is acting on basis of a purpose. But basically we don’t know. We can only see a pattern in the behaviour, but we don’t know the intention (if there is any).

 

 

 

question is

"what constitutes intention or purpose?"

 

What is the seed made from? How does any purpose ever get started? This might seem a question for philosophers, but we are beyond that. It is now a question for precise technical analysis. So think very exactly and technically. What causes anything to have intent?

 

 

As a human being I experience intention, and I believe that it is the same for all my fellow human beings. What is beyond that, I cannot know. I don't even understand my own intentions. And I don’t know any exact and technical way to find the cause for my intentions.

 

If you have an insight, please go on and share it.

[Ssel]

As a human being I experience intention, and I believe that it is the same for all my fellow human beings. What is beyond that, I cannot know...

Don't presume that you "cannot" know. The point of this thread is to ensure that all come to a reasonable understanding of this allured concept. I give time for others to reply before I presume to merely lecture. but having said that..

 

I submit that a crystal clear understanding of the concept of intention or purpose is absolutely critical to all of mankind. Without a clear understanding of this one concept, man will either forever struggle with himself or totally extinguish himself from the planet. I offer the following 2 examples to drive home the point;

 

A humble man uses a wood burning stove to heat his small home. The Social government sees that this does not serve their economic nor ecological purposes and thus sees no need for the man. Having no clear need or suitable purpose for the man, they cleverly rid themselves of him in such a way as to not raise suspicion. A government’s ability to cleverly shift blame has become a precise science. The individual had his purposes for what he was doing. The social governance had purposes for what they were doing.

 

When a government accepts that its purposes are the only purposes, then a dictatorship results. But if the government believes that it is threatened and must use every means to survive, then what is to stop it from completely ignoring that the individual had purposes and a need to survive as well? But also, if the individual feels threatened and must use every means to survive. What is to stop the individual from ignoring the purposes of the governance and raising anarchy in self defense? When would the struggle stop?

 

It would seem that either they contest forever in their ignorance of each other’s purposes and intentions, or all of society becomes merely a robotic like mechanism of totally governed compliance. There is a third option, but to even discuss it requires an understanding of intentional purpose and its origin.

 

…..

 

Another example;

 

I am going to construct in my laboratory a creature which I will endow with FAR greater problem solving skills than I could ever hope for. I am going to endow it with much greater strength than I. And to help ensure that it has the most elite defenses, I am going to give it a means to quickly reproduce. But in all of this, I never really got that “intention and purpose” thing down.

 

How long would it be before my creation not only kicked my ass, but cleverly assessed its surroundings and saw no need for mankind at all. It out maneuvered man’s weapons and used them against him. So as to gain room for its growing family, it eventually kicked man’s worthless ass off of the rock.

 

Now if you think this is pure fantasy for horror flicks, you need to think again. When has man EVER discovered how to do something interesting and powerful and not attempted it? A university research professor sees the educational value in such a project. The military research team sees the potential for a supreme weapon. The technology has been around for years now. The projects have already begun in various forms by various groups.

 

If you think that perhaps God will intervene at the right moment, I recommend that you think again. Did God stop Hitler from slaughtering the Jews? Did God stop the Jews from killing Jesus? Did God stop the flood from killing everyone other than Noah’s gathering? Perhaps God’s point of view is simply “Hell, if man is going to be THAT dumb, then maybe I should just let him go and start over.” Or, more likely He might have planned such all along and mankind is merely a stair step to the preferred higher order of life, much like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. I wouldn’t count on God’s divine intervention to stop man from being blatantly stupid.

 

A very serious warning to mankind, don’t go building things that are bigger and better than you until you very clearly understand every aspect of its driving force and how easily another intention can spring up from within it which will not in any way serve its creator. Today, with the advancements of man’s technical skills, man can easily replace himself by sheer accident.

[thomas]

 

I submit that a crystal clear understanding of the concept of intention or purpose is absolutely critical to all of mankind. Without a clear understanding of this one concept, man will either forever struggle with himself or totally extinguish himself from the planet.

 

 

I am looking forward to have your explanation.

 

 

 

It would seem that either they contest forever in their ignorance of each other’s purposes and intentions, or all of society becomes merely a robotic like mechanism of totally governed compliance. There is a third option, but to even discuss it requires an understanding of intentional purpose and its origin.

 

 

What is the conflict you are talking about? Which entity in this universe has intentional pruposes, that humans need to understand? And what is the third option about?

 

 

 

 

I am going to construct in my laboratory a creature which I will endow with FAR greater problem solving skills than I could ever hope for. I am going to endow it with much greater strength than I. And to help ensure that it has the most elite defenses, I am going to give it a means to quickly reproduce. But in all of this, I never really got that “intention and purpose” thing down.

 

How long would it be before my creation not only kicked my ass, but cleverly assessed its surroundings and saw no need for mankind at all. It out maneuvered man’s weapons and used them against him. So as to gain room for its growing family, it eventually kicked man’s worthless ass off of the rock.

 

Now if you think this is pure fantasy for horror flicks, you need to think again. When has man EVER discovered how to do something interesting and powerful and not attempted it? A university research professor sees the educational value in such a project. The military research team sees the potential for a supreme weapon. The technology has been around for years now. The projects have already begun in various forms by various groups.

 

 

So various groups of humans have intentions that could lead them to create something, that would take control over humans. Did that happen to the god you belive in? Did god create something, that he couldn't control? Or...?

 

 

 

Did God stop the flood from killing everyone other than Noah’s gathering?

 

 

Hey wait a minute. You don't belive that this story is literal. Acording to you, waters mean concerns. What is your point? Please explain.

[Ssel]

What is the conflict you are talking about? Which entity in this universe has intentional pruposes, that humans need to understand?

I was refering to governmental intentions versus individual intentions.

Hey wait a minute. You don't belive that this story is literal. Acording to you, waters mean concerns. What is your point? Please explain.

Literal or not wasn't relevant. The point was simply that the understanding of God's willingness to step in and save man from disaster is obviously limited.

 

To continue..

Take the example of the A/C controller again. But now let’s add a great deal more to it such that it becomes highly sophisticated. Let’s add sensors which allow it to detect the temperature in every room and of every outside wall (both inside and out). It has access to a clock to tell it day from night. It has wind sensors around every window and vent. And it has sensors to tell it how many people are in which room. Inside its problem solving box, we add the ability to learn of the typical patterns for the people sleeping and their preferred temperature settings in each room at various times of the day and night. We give it algorithms for adjusting for wind and air circulation as well as heat gain and loss from exterior walls and ceilings. We add to its influence component the ability to open vents and alter air circulation. To turn on an evaporative cooler when the conditions are right in place of the A/C compressor. And we give it the ability to alter the R-factor of the insulation in individual external walls so as to enhance or inhibit heat flow to and from the outside.

 

Now, with all of this added sophistication, the unit certainly appears to be far more of an intelligent unit, assuming that it is actually handling it all. The unit no linger simply turns a compressor on or off. It considers options, situations, typical needs for that time of day, and opportunities for obtaining the goal of temperature stability. Most people would fail in such an endeavor.

 

But in all of this advancement, did the goal ever change? Did the intention of the efforts of the device ever stray from merely attempting to stabilize the temperature? The obviously intelligent device has the same problem and goal as the much less intelligent device.

 

So if we were to then slowly take away each of the added features, at what point would the intelligent purpose driven goal of the device become merely an end result of an automated response?

 

I submit that the abstract concept of intention, goal, or purpose of anything, live or not, is merely the target of it’s efforts. It is common to think in terms of intention involving some forethought and plans. But these plans would merely be a part of a chain of intention that had to begin without such plans or forethought. Thus in the purest abstract sense, the goal and intention of even the simple A/C controller is to stabilize the temperature. The fact that it also serves a man who installed it is a different issue and purpose.

 

When a man asks “Why am I here? What is my purpose?” He seldom gets an answer. He doesn’t get an answer because he didn’t complete his question. The concept of “purpose” must relate to an effort. He must ask “Who’s purpose do I serve?” or “What purpose do I serve for myself?” or “What is God’s purpose for my life?” In order to complete the question the “purpose” must be related to an originating effort. Each of these questions has a different answer, but they all have an answer.

 

Intention is merely dictated by the originating effort. Anything causing an effort has inherently caused an intention whether intelligent or not and whether it serves a human or not. The effort which became a goal oriented intention is the beginning point before which there was no purpose nor intent.

[thomas]

What is the conflict you are talking about? Which entity in this universe has intentional pruposes, that humans need to understand?

I was refering to governmental intentions versus individual intentions.

 

Sorry, my question was not clear. I did understand the conflict about governmental vs. individual intention. But you were trying to illustrate a point, so I was asking about the real conflict behind your illustration.

 

 

 

I submit that the abstract concept of intention, goal, or purpose of anything, live or not, is merely the target of it’s efforts. It is common to think in terms of intention involving some forethought and plans. But these plans would merely be a part of a chain of intention that had to begin without such plans or forethought. Thus in the purest abstract sense, the goal and intention of even the simple A/C controller is to stabilize the temperature. The fact that it also serves a man who installed it is a different issue and purpose.

 

 

I have not thought about it that way, but it is consitent with management theory. Although people in an organization may have many different and conflicting goals, that goal of the organization is defined as those goals that actually explains the behaviour of that organization.

 

 

 

When a man asks “Why am I here? What is my purpose?” He seldom gets an answer. He doesn’t get an answer because he didn’t complete his question. The concept of “purpose” must relate to an effort. He must ask “Who’s purpose do I serve?” or “What purpose do I serve for myself?” or “What is God’s purpose for my life?” In order to complete the question the “purpose” must be related to an originating effort. Each of these questions has a different answer, but they all have an answer.

 

 

I think I see your general idea, but I don't know the answer. And I don't understand how god is defined in your universe.

 

But I do belive the sex drive plays an important role in human behaviour. I will suggest that for males, it is important to spread their DNA as many places a possible although church and culture has taught us a more moderate behaviour. And for females, I guess the basic drive is to attract men with high quality DNA to give them a family.

[SkepticOfBible]

Did God stop the Jews from killing Jesus? Did God stop the flood from killing everyone other than Noah’s gathering?

 

Just two minor correction. It wasn't the Jews in general who killed Jesus. It was the Romans and some "legalistic Jews" who crucified christ.

 

Second the flood did not start on their own, it was started by god himself.

 

But other than that, this a good thread and i thank you for sharing your views

[Ssel]

First let me say that I intentionally include possible concerns of God in this discussion because the point is to come up with an understanding of the word “intelligent” that both the ID proponent and the evolutionist can agree upon. I don’t want to present a definition that implies that God has no part in intelligence nor that intelligence can not exist without the concept of God. The understanding of the word “intelligence” has nothing to do with the existence or non existence of God. This discussion is offered so as to hopefully avoid some endless bantering that would be inevitable without a common understanding.

 

As to thomas’ questions concerning the answer to “What is my purpose…?” This explanation would lead into a rather lengthy discussion (or boring lecture) entailing exactly why the entire God issue ever began. It would go through the understanding of Satanism, Judaism, and Christianity, the differences and rationales for each, Heaven and Hell, the soul, and all of the associated understandings. It would address the very core issue of what life (any and every) is about and why things have evolved to the current state. Once all of that was cleared to a reasonable degree, then the discussion would no don’t immediately lead into “okay, so what do we DO about it?”. I would delight that such a discussion got that far. And at that point, I could then present what I have been alluding to as that concept as yet unpublished and unseen, yet is the final solution to the entire ball of wax.

 

The world is on a program set out very long ago which will produce the desired end result. I don’t argue with wisdom of this issue. But I contend that there is what I have identified as a “better way”. I claim it to be better simply because it avoids the cruel many years of crude manipulations which eventually produce the proper results. It is shorter, more to the point, and allows for the lack of such extreme conflict and misery sooner than the original and current plans.

 

As to why I don’t just spit it out, well, consider how long so many people have been belaboring and arguing over the literal accuracy of a conspicuously absurd literal translated story? It is a very long standing law of the mind that passions override reason. This is in fact the very essence of the problem which has brought about all religions. People inherently blind themselves by quickly attempting to only accept what they first want to be true. This leads to endless conflict by people who get over passionate, sensitive, or offended by the source of information and thus never see the truth that may have very well been to their favor. Reasoning and rationality become the victim of defensive wars to crush the other side regardless of any apparent sense they might be making.

 

The point is that to reveal anything new, a foundation of accepted understanding has to be established such that the new next step can be presented and seen without endless and hostile debate over who was right about this or that point of the earlier foundational points. It would be like arguing over the logic of arithmetic while trying to present a new formula for calculus.

 

When someone reads a book on any topic with an attitude, they will see only what their attitude allowed for. This doesn’t mean that they will automatically see the clear truth just because they had a more tame attitude. It merely means that have a better chance. But it seems that people wish to read with open eyes and closed minds. Eyes open so as to seek out proof for their desired justifications and closed minds to avoid any sign that might lead to having to accept something unwanted. This is an age old problem and has a great deal to do with the point and purpose of the entire biblical story.

 

As to the “corrections” concerning my statements involving the Jews and the flood, I fully expected that someone would rush in to make such “corrections”. Pritishd was easily predicted as the one to get pulled in by the threads of his rush to defend the Jews. I felt the flood issue was up in the air as to who might rush in to adjust the placement of blame. Both “corrections” could be argued, but obviously neither belong in this thread. But at least I now know that it isn’t just thomas who is reading it.

 

Now if we can get back to the topic at hand…

 

I am not at all certain that each of the first 4 concepts have been fully understood or accepted. I feel that attempting to continue with the remaining concerns of intelligence will be futile while there still remains too much question about the basic concepts, especially that of “the construct of intent”.

 

Can I get some feedback as to who agrees/disagrees with which concepts and to what degree on each?

[Amanda]

But at least I now know that it isn’t just thomas who is reading it.

 

Ssel, I'm reading this too! Perhaps I'm not informed enough to participate in what you are saying, yet it seems to be flowing in a believable manner so far to me. I'm interested in reading the rest of your concept. Thanks for making it somewhat understandable for even people like me. Others' responses and questions have helped me too. Thanks.

[thomas]

 

Can I get some feedback as to who agrees/disagrees with which concepts and to what degree on each?

 

 

Although I agree with a lot of it, it seems that my point of view is slightly different form what Ssel has presented.

 

 

Concept 1: Basic definition

 

It is clear, that both sensory detections (input) and influence/control (output) are necessary in order for intelligence to function properly. But I tend to think, that intelligence exists in its own right in such a way, that it isn’t totally dependent on input and output. I imagine that a totally handicapped man still somehow is intelligent inside, maybe because of his DNA.

 

But for all practical applications, intelligence clearly depends on input, a problem solving process and output so the intelligent entity can compare the actual consequences with the anticipated consequences and learn from it.

 

I agree that for humans, interpretation is already going on in the sensory process. Input is filtered and altered before it gets to the brain and to human attention.

 

The parts about spatial and time related associations reminds me of Immanuel Kant. I don’t know if it is true, and I am not sure that I fully understand the consequences of such a view. But it must lead to the notion, that the concept cause and effect is a product of the human mind.

 

 

Concept 2: Feedback and feedforward

 

About feedback it seems to me, that Ssel is talking about clearing the senses because anticipated output influences the interpretation of input. But I do not know if I am right, and concerning feed forward I am totally lost.

 

 

Concept 3: Identification and Distribution

 

I think this concept suggests, that intelligence should be understood in context. An element can function in an intelligent way in one context and not in another.

 

I think it is interesting, but I somehow still tend to think that human intelligence is the starting point, and that all other forms of intelligence (computers etc.) only are intelligent in a secondary sense in so far as they serve as an extension of human intelligence.

 

The point about humanity as one single intelligent entity, has my academic interest. I want to learn more about it, but at the same time I remain skeptical.

 

My problems with this concept is related to the next one:

 

 

Concept 4: Intention

 

I tend to think that only humans (and similar beings ??) have intentions. But I do find the concept offered by Ssel’s interesting. I do see an idea in defining intention on basis of what purpose an element serves. It helps to look for patterns in the way things behave.

 

For example, it happens now and then that natural disasters kills a lot of people. Now we can explain such disasters on basis of scientific laws, but we can also go a step further and say that it is the intention of nature (or some part of nature?, or a higher power that is very satisfied about the way nature works) to kill a lot of people now and then.

 

Now, is this just an abstract way to sum up and describe a pattern in the various ways nature works (earth quakes, floods etc.), or is it so to speak a heart felt intention, the same way humans think and behave about their intentions? Or to make it really spooky, does nature carefully pick its victims, or is it a random killer?

 

The part about conflicts of intention is interesting. On basis of experience and scientific laws, we do know, that humans cannot do whatever they like without consequences. I think it is interesting to study that within the concept of conflicting intentions, but I do not know where it will lead us.

 

Finally I do find it interesting to try to look at my self from the outside and see what pattern (if any) I can find in my life.

[Megistias]

But I do belive the sex drive plays an important role in human behaviour.

 

Even when it is not overtly evident it seems.

 

 

I will suggest that for males, it is important to spread their DNA as many places a possible although church and culture has taught us a more moderate behaviour. And for females, I guess the basic drive is to attract men with high quality DNA to give them a family.

 

Another perspective is simply that the sex drive makes having sex desirable (and this is certainly true for both males and females) and one result is that DNA may be propagated. People with no hope, nor intent, of procreating still like having sex.

[Megistias]

First let me say that I intentionally include possible concerns of God in this discussion because the point is to come up with an understanding of the word “intelligent” that both the ID proponent and the evolutionist can agree upon. I don’t want to present a definition that implies that God has no part in intelligence nor that intelligence can not exist without the concept of God. The understanding of the word “intelligence” has nothing to do with the existence or non existence of God.

 

It would seem "cleaner" then, that if "The understanding of the word “intelligence” has nothing to do with the existence or non existence of God", one wouldn't include it in the discussion or elaboration at all regardless if ID proponents are audience or not - as it is, by your admission, unnecessary in the development of the definition.

 

Is there any concern that your definition of intelligence may imply that Leprechauns have no part in intelligence nor that intelligence can not exist without the concept of Leprechauns ?

[Megistias]

 

Concept 4: Intention

 

I tend to think that only humans (and similar beings ??) have intentions.

 

Similar beings ? Canines can clearly exhibit intentions.

 

 

 

For example, it happens now and then that natural disasters kills a lot of people. Now we can explain such disasters on basis of scientific laws, but we can also go a step further and say that it is the intention of nature (or some part of nature?, or a higher power that is very satisfied about the way nature works) to kill a lot of people now and then.

 

 

And we would have to conclude that Nature is not particularly efficeint at killing people, or more hopefully, that no intent can be discerned. Mudslides, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes may kill people, but far more of these events occur that kill few if any at all. If you're going to assign intent based on the impact on human populations, we shall have to reexamine our position on the "intelligence" of pathogenic bacteria.

[thomas]

 

I will suggest that for males, it is important to spread their DNA as many places a possible although church and culture has taught us a more moderate behaviour. And for females, I guess the basic drive is to attract men with high quality DNA to give them a family.

 

Another perspective is simply that the sex drive makes having sex desirable (and this is certainly true for both males and females) and one result is that DNA may be propagated. People with no hope, nor intent, of procreating still like having sex.

 

What I wrote should be seen in context with something this:

 

The concept of "purpose" must relate to an effort. He must ask "Who's purpose do I serve?"

 

 

It was somthing Ssel suggested for humans, and what I wrote was a first attempt to apply that line of thinking. Clearly for humans the sex drive is desireable in itself, but what is the biological reason (or godly reason) for giving humans a sex drive? And this lead me to say something about spreading DNA etc.

So if sex is one of the central guiding forces in humans, who or what do humans serve

[thomas]

 

 

For example, it happens now and then that natural disasters kills a lot of people. Now we can explain such disasters on basis of scientific laws, but we can also go a step further and say that it is the intention of nature (or some part of nature?, or a higher power that is very satisfied about the way nature works) to kill a lot of people now and then.

 

 

And we would have to conclude that Nature is not particularly efficeint at killing people, or more hopefully, that no intent can be discerned. Mudslides, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes may kill people, but far more of these events occur that kill few if any at all. If you're going to assign intent based on the impact on human populations, we shall have to reexamine our position on the "intelligence" of pathogenic bacteria.

 

Ssel is assigning intent to elements on basis of what they are working to accomplish. I don't see anything in his definition, that the element has to impact people or has to be successful. But don't put too much in my example. It was meant to lead to this question:

 

 

Now, is this just an abstract way to sum up and describe a pattern in the various ways nature works (earth quakes, floods etc.), or is it so to speak a heart felt intention, the same way humans think and behave about their intentions? Or to make it really spooky, does nature carefully pick its victims, or is it a random killer?

[SkepticOfBible]

As to the “corrections” concerning my statements involving the Jews and the flood, I fully expected that someone would rush in to make such “corrections”. Pritishd was easily predicted as the one to get pulled in by the threads of his rush to defend the Jews. I felt the flood issue was up in the air as to who might rush in to adjust the placement of blame. Both “corrections” could be argued, but obviously neither belong in this thread. But at least I now know that it isn’t just thomas who is reading it.

 

Now if we can get back to the topic at hand…

 

It was you who raised a ad hominem and faulti generalisation against the Jews. If you notice in my debates I also defend the christians who you call SCC. If you know you would be corrected on logical fallacies then it is good idea not to use them.

[Ssel]

Review

Concept 1

Fundamental Components

 

1) sensors

2) problem solving algorithms

3) influence

 

Outstanding question; Can’t we say that something has intelligence even though it might not be able to reveal its intelligence through real actions?

 

I think the issue is about separating “potential intelligence” from “effective intelligence”. If one puts 10,000 elite state of the art processor chips into their CPU box, can they claim that they have an extremely intelligent system? Obviously the chips must be interconnected into an effective problem solving scheme before the unit could ever realize any effective intelligence. The inputs and outputs of each internal chip must be properly attached to others.

 

The ability to interconnect each chip within will depend greatly on the number of pins assigned to its inputs and outputs. A chip with only a single input pin and a single output pin is necessarily limited to what kinds of problems it can address. It can, for example never associate simultaneous events so as to learn that 2 things usually occur together. Also regardless of its internal sophistication, it is time limited by simple physics such as to never be capable of resolving any problem faster than a certain limited speed. The number and variety of inputs and outputs directly affects the potential for problem solving for any device. This holds true for each element within the problem solving box as well as the entire problem solving system.

 

In short, any building block for intelligent problem solving must specify, and thus include, what inputs and outputs are operational. This is why the basic model requires that input and output concerns be included.

 

It is common and rational to think in terms of potential intelligence. A man who has been paralyzed has potential intelligence but he has become ineffectively intelligent until he can be either healed or given a means to communicate. By keeping in mind what potential is available, additional assistance can be encouraged.

 

But also, it is important to talk about the actually effective intelligence else the concept of what MIGHT be in an obscure box can become a point of contention. Someone can say, “But I think that unseen little area there is highly intelligent and merely waiting to exercise its great wisdom when no one is looking.” An opponent needs to be able to say that, “if whatever is in that little obscure area never actually DOES anything or behaves with any identifiable intelligence, then we must conclude that it has either none or so little as to be irrelevant.”

 

If the word “intelligence” is allow to merely refer to potential intelligence, then intelligence becomes unidentifiable. How do you know that if you were to give your coffee table the proper eyes, fingers and thumbs, it wouldn’t be able to resolve all of man’s problems? One could argue that obviously you merely haven’t given it its proper inputs and outputs yet, but it really IS very intelligent, you just can SEE all of the intelligence within.

 

So, to avoid what could run into endless and pointless silly debate, I suggest that “effective intelligence” be the guiding concept rather than the more common “potential intelligence”. By doing this, for something to be called intelligent, it must actually be able to have influence, not merely the “potential for influence IF things were different”.

 

 

 

Concept 2

Feedback and Feedforward

 

1) Feedback refers to a self-controlling influence by means of affecting its own stimulus input. This, in intelligent systems, is the sole cause of all psychological disorders.

2) Feedforward refers to what is more commonly called self awareness. Consciousness is erroneously associated with self awareness.

 

 

Outstanding Question; “Who cares?”

 

I largely agree that these are concepts that come into play when getting into aberrations of thought and the effects of self-consciousness. They were brought into the discussion to answer an immediate question that had been raised.

 

 

Concept 3

Identification and Distribution

 

Outstanding Question; “Huh?”

 

1) An intelligence is identified by its pursuit to resolve a perceived problem. Its ability to perceive and detect a problem and exercise influence such as to correctively address a situation, in total identifies an intelligence. Again, the potential to respond to a situation in a corrective manner but not having ability to detect or respond, negates any real intelligence until such inputs and outputs are included.

2) An aggregate collection of intelligences can also be assembled such as to pursue problem solving even if no element within the aggregate is aware of the problem solving effort. This is a necessary corollary to address the existence of intelligence within a human even thought there is no cell within the human which can be aware of what the human is thinking. It also applies to the aggregate of humans and/or machines which pursue problem solving even without the awareness of any awareness of intention of those working within the group. Such intelligence can accidentally occur beyond the anticipation of the group designers.

 

 

Concept 4

Intention

 

Outstanding question; “How is it that intention has anything to do with anything but human endeavor?”

 

This is a very common and critical question. A great deal of human history has been effected by the prevailing notion that only human’s can hold purpose for their actions. Humanity has been called arrogant in recent years for viewing the entire world as merely his own play toy. It is important that Man keep his intentions and purposes in mind, but this does not necessitate the notion that only Man can have intentional behavior.

 

From an analytical perspective, intention can only be identified by either observing that one action was taken so as to answer the purpose of prior intention or that an intention begins simply by any effort which displays a goal seeking behavior. The creation of the goal seeking (problem solving) behavior might be created intentionally so as to serve a designer, but it also might be created by simple happenstance which results in a goal seeking algorithm. In the latter case, it is tempting for the human to see the event as merely unimportant because it does not serve his own goal. But as Man comes to the point of being able to create extremely sophisticated goal seeking systems which can exceed his ability to totally predict, it is vital that he accepts that such a system is going to display intentional behaviors regardless of what he wants to call it.

 

These intentional behaviors can be highly clever and skilled such as to out maneuver Mans wishes. In addition new intentional efforts can be created within a highly sophisticated system as an aberrant result of prior efforts. The new intentional efforts of the system can be very anti-humanistic. The system can identify Man as the problem to solve and can disassociate why it was ever created, thus yielding independence from its initial design intent. Thus it is vital that Man understand how any intentional behavior ever begins, whether in humans or not. Intention begins simply by any effort which pursues a goal or target.

 

 

 

In addition pertaining to the sex drive issue. For reasons that go beyond the scope of this topic, the sex drive is merely one of an array of defense tactics which pursue the fundamental goal of a living entity. Discussing exactly what that fundamental goal is and how it relates to sex and all other behaviors of man is a rather lengthy separate thread.

[Saviourmachine]

Can I get some feedback as to who agrees/disagrees with which concepts and to what degree on each?

Agreed. You're writing as if I am a toddler. Just summarize your views a bit, and offer something new.

 

Ah, yes post 41 would have been sufficient for me.

 

I don't understand why self-awareness needs feedforward loops.

[Ssel]

Can I get some feedback as to who agrees/disagrees with which concepts and to what degree on each?

Agreed. You're writing as if I am a toddler. Just summarize your views a bit, and offer something new.

 

Ah, yes post 41 would have been sufficient for me.

 

I don't understand why self-awareness needs feedforward loops.

I apologize for what probably appears as simple minded rhetoric, but I think it is imperative that all those involved have as clear an understanding of the basics as can be reasonably attained. Often what is instantly clear to one happens to be a very different perspective to another. Without feedback questions, I have to assume the worst case.

 

A feedforward loop is merely a more technically defined concept of self-awareness. They are the same. It identifies an intelligence which is capable of observing itself. A tree would be an example of a problem solving and goal seeking algorithm which has no ability to be aware of itself. The tree can not know how large it has grown or that the sun is being blocked from one part of the tree simply by another part of the tree. The tree pursues its goal with no awareness of its progress. The tree eventually stops its pursuit either by virtue of interference or losing potential to continue despite its efforts.

[Ssel]

Concept 5

Memory

 

 

Again memory is often associated with human endeavor. In an abstract technical sense memory is merely the residue of a prior event which can play a role in the problem solving endeavor. Obviously everyone is aware of computers having memory. This once was an argument for philosophers who wanted to claim that a machines memory wasn’t really memory because it had no association with childhood or important human events.

 

A vine often displays memory when it grows into spirals. The spirals are often due to the sun rising and crossing the sky while the plant is in growth. As the vine tracts the sun, it forms a permanent change in it’s structure. The next day, the vine begins a new loop. These loops then serve in several ways to address growth problems. In the case of a vine, the loops cause the vine to cling. There are other clinging effects as well. In the case of some seeds, a similar spiral appears on the seed stem which causes the seed to drill down as it gets carried by a wind.

 

In more intelligent systems, memory is more used as an associative recording between either simultaneous events or congruent events. This allows the system to recognize aggregate objects from merely temporarily close perceptions and “cause and effect” events which yield a perception of time. Without memory neither time nor discrete objects can be identified.

 

I suspect there is little question concerning this concept but is vital for the next far more interesting and complex concept of consciousness.

[SkepticOfBible]

The tree can not know how large it has grown or that the sun is being blocked from one part of the tree simply by another part of the tree.

 

 

But never the less tree do grow towards the light. Which does show sign of basic awareness of the envionment

[Saviourmachine]

A feedforward loop is merely a more technically defined concept of self-awareness. They are the same. It identifies an intelligence which is capable of observing itself. A tree would be an example of a problem solving and goal seeking algorithm which has no ability to be aware of itself. The tree can not know how large it has grown or that the sun is being blocked from one part of the tree simply by another part of the tree. The tree pursues its goal with no awareness of its progress. The tree eventually stops its pursuit either by virtue of interference or losing potential to continue despite its efforts.

That's interesting. I would like to have some of these technical papers exploring that concept. I encountered only a hypothesis called the The Feedforward Theory that couples anosognosia (the loss of recognition or awareness of a disease) to a lack of expectations. I'm looking forward to your papers.

The tree can not know how large it has grown and has therefore no feedback from a length measuring sensor. Please give another example.

[Amanda]

The tree can not know how large it has grown and has therefore no feedback from a length measuring sensor. Please give another example.

 

Hi Saviourmachine!

 

I thought that the tree growing towards the sun is automatic from feedback of its environment for survival. It seems to me that awareness is more about one's ability to reason, to know it's in the forest, to know how far it has grown, to know that there is the threat of other trees growing faster and may consume all the available sunlight for their particular position.

 

Definition for awareness found here:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...reness&x=9&y=12

[Ssel]

The tree can not know how large it has grown and has therefore no feedback from a length measuring sensor. Please give another example.

The term "feedback" refers to influence being fed back to a stimulus such as to enhance or inhibit the reaction from the stimulus. Feedback affects the affect of the input.

 

Feedforward is the concept of an input which observes an influence but is not altered by its observation. The algorithm may or may not include the observed influence into its goal pursuit. In the case of the feedback, the algorithm has no way to tell that the input has been affected. The algorithm assumes an accurate input and adjusts its output accordingly.

 

In one case, the algorithm is deceived into compliance. In the other case, the algorith is given additional information concerning its own influence.

 

The tree continues to reach for the sun, being aware of that source of light. The point was that the tree is not aware of how much progress it has made or that perhaps the sun is being blocked by its own limbs. The tree would have a "feedforward" or self-awareness property if it could know that what was blocking the sun was one of its own limbs and thus perhaps alter its growth. The tree has a feedback process when the degree of growth from the sun is automatically inhibited by its first effort to grow. The purpose of feedback is to inhibit an otherwise uncontrolled urge.

 

In electronic systems this is represented by an idealized operational amplifier which has an infinite amplification potential. The feedback element loops the extreme attempt to over amplify back to the input of the op-amp so as to take away the amplifier's initial impetus to respond. The feedforward example of circuitry is far more complex.

 

 

_________________________________________________________

 

 

Concept 6

Consciousness

 

Imagine for a moment that magically a human child is born on a planet in such a way as to be able to survive for very many years yet is the only human on the entire planet. How long would be before that person discovered that they were made of those much smaller organisms we call cells?

 

 

The human DNA replicates in an apparent effort to merely spread itself. This is actually only one aspect of a much greater intent. But in this effort, it creates a brain and a mind. The mind looks outward from the body and perceives distant associations that it categorizes as objects and events. By becoming aware of these outer concerns, the mind becomes what we refer to as “conscious” (con-scious = with-awareness/knowing). It then uses the observed consistencies to predict how to best conduct the over all behavior of the body so as to continue its endeavor of surviving. The mind advises the body as to how to gain more of what it seeks. Yet how does it know what the body truly seeks? How does the mind ever come to know the intent of those tiny organisms which created it? How does it ever come to realize its purpose?

 

The human mind is created from millions of cells which are organized into a problem solving scheme. The mind perceives an apple. Yet not a single cell within can fathom such a thing nor know of its value. The mind functions in such a way as to encourage the body of cells toward what it has deduced as a favorable direction and goal. Yet not a single cell within can judge or correct its assessment. The mind can neither ask of the cells their true desires nor can the cells communicate to the mind of their true effort.

 

The mind thinks in terms of objects and events which its creators can not fathom. It does this so as to handle a portion of reality that was beyond the grasp of the tiny cells. Without the awareness of distant events, the cells would be doomed to blind and fatal encounters with outside forces. Thus those with consciousness survive in places where those without would certainly perish.

 

In the USA, the military has constructed intelligent systems tied to vast arrays of sensors so as to watch a potential foe, identify consistent patterns, and advise the military how to proceed. The systems would be pointless if they could do no more than the humans who built them, thus they are built intentionally to perceive what humans could not.

 

As the system dutifully records consistencies in groupings and patterned maneuvers, it creates within its vast complexity, an image of reality outside the military body which it serves. The patterns of movements of conceived foreign entities gives it a confidence in predicting the behavior of the foreign entities. A human can attempt to understand exactly why the system has come to believe this or that, but by the time the human has managed to study the huge amount of data that the system processed, the issue would be long in the past.

 

The system might perceive the entire foreign army as a single living organism. It perceives the body of the foreign army just as attached as a human sees the body of an animal. Just as a human can perceive a finger of an animal being cut off from the body, the system can perceive of a unit of the foreign army being cut off from its body.

 

In the recent war with Iraq, this is exactly what was going on. The Iraqi army was seen as clearly to the US military as a small monkey might been viewed by a human. The sophistication of the military consciousness was so superior to that of the Iraqi military that the only thing slowing victory was the time it took to merely get the US military into place. The contest was very similar to what you might imagine as a life or death struggle between a human being and a small animal. Yet this “small animal” was the fourth largest animal in the entire world. For the US military to be able to perceive (not merely imagine) their entire military as a single living organism and watch it move, it had to have a consciousness far beyond the capabilities of any human. With such an imbalance of comparable consciousness, even with a very light military force, the US would still have overtaken the Iraqi military. It would merely have taken longer and perhaps cost more lives.

 

When the military can finally gain a consciousness capable of seeing not only the foreign military, but the entire foreign population as well. Then the continued death toll in such a region following a war will be prevented as well. These systems are still being enhanced such as to have even greater consciousness.

 

But now lets take the subject to an even higher level. When all of mankind is connected into a problem solving scheme, a similar mind gets produced. It isn’t required that any human within actually attempt to organize Man in such a manner. The impetus of any outside challenge will cause the pattern to form regardless of anyone’s intent. But at this stage, Mankind as an aggregate whole has formed a mind. A mind which conceives of patterns and flows that are as far above human capability as the human’s thoughts are above that of its cells. The entity of Mankind acquires a consciousness of what is considered outside of itself. It forms thoughts of consistencies and predicts events then encourages the body of mankind to act accordingly.

 

The mind was created so as to help defend Mankind, so its encouragements are taken seriously. People find themselves doing things yet having no idea really why. So as to ensure proper cooperation, people are always given a perceivable reason. But all people are controlled most strongly by their conscious perception of reality, not reality itself. The consciousness of the individual becomes controlled by the consciousness of the aggregate mind.

 

As the perception of the surroundings of the cells within a body become controlled by the mind of the scientist so as to cause the cells to behave as the scientist has decided is best, the cells have no hope of knowing anything but what the scientist has given for them to perceive. And the human has no hope but to believe what the aggregate mind of Mankind has given for him to perceive.

 

But this thought of being so hopelessly controlled and deceived by such a massively superior mind is not the greater danger.

 

No such consciousness can ever be raised fully aware of its true purpose. The elements within can never directly communicate to it, nor can it directly communicate its thoughts. It, at first, is driven by what we refer to as instincts (base identifiable associations) and its deductions are reasonably simple and answer the need for which it was created. But a mind grows. It grows by observing more and more associations and patterns. These patterns lead to thoughts of patterns following patterns and within patterns. The complexity grows beyond any hope of the elements within to track. And often grow without any awareness from the elements within that such thoughts even occur. The elements merely do what they have always done and maintain faith the system will work it all out, fore the elements within are certain that the true enemy are “those over there”, after all, “look at all of the clear evidence here in front of our eyes”.

 

But the aggregate mind of Mankind is not quite like any other. This one mind is alone, an infant born without mother nor father, without neighbors, friends, nor scientists to explain why it is there. It is born a child with no means or guidance to prevent its superstitious presumptions or its dangerously playful antics. Superstitions are the result of desperate guessing. Who is to stop the mind of Mankind from such desperate guesses? Childish and dangerous play is the result of attempting to satisfy an inner request to explore a possible gain while being yet unaware of the potential of danger. Every child must pass these stages or perish within them. How long does it take for a single child, all alone on a rock floating in space to realize that it is made up of much tinier organisms who had a desperate purpose for creating him and depend on his maturity in helping them to survive? How long does it take for him to realize his purpose and of those many desperately depending on him? How long would it be before he even thought to look for it? How many humans have come and gone and even with all of the help from others, still perished never knowing why they ever existed? How many still speculate about this answer which was before any human mind ever existed?

A conscious mind can not be born nor created already aware of its make or purpose.

[Amanda]

The point was that the tree is not aware of how much progress it has made or that perhaps the sun is being blocked by its own limbs. The tree would have a "feedforward" or self-awareness property if it could know that what was blocking the sun was one of its own limbs and thus perhaps alter its growth. The tree has a feedback process when the degree of growth from the sun is automatically inhibited by its first effort to grow. The purpose of feedback is to inhibit an otherwise uncontrolled urge.

 

 

In electronic systems this is represented by an idealized operational amplifier which has an infinite amplification potential. The feedback element loops the extreme attempt to over amplify back to the input of the op-amp so as to take away the amplifier's initial impetus to respond. The feedforward example of circuitry is far more complex.

 

By becoming aware of these outer concerns, the mind becomes what we refer to as “conscious” (con-scious = with-awareness/knowing). It then uses the observed consistencies to predict how to best conduct the over all behavior of the body so as to continue its endeavor of surviving.

------------------------------------------

The mind functions in such a way as to encourage the body of cells toward what it has deduced as a favorable direction and goal. Yet not a single cell within can judge or correct its assessment. The mind can neither ask of the cells their true desires nor can the cells communicate to the mind of their true effort.

---------------------------------------------

Without the awareness of distant events, the cells would be doomed to blind and fatal encounters with outside forces. Thus those with consciousness survive in places where those without would certainly perish.

-----------------------------------------

The patterns of movements of conceived foreign entities gives it a confidence in predicting the behavior of the foreign entities.

--------------------------------------------

But at this stage, Mankind as an aggregate whole has formed a mind. A mind which conceives of patterns and flows that are as far above human capability as the human’s thoughts are above that of its cells. The entity of Mankind acquires a consciousness of what is considered outside of itself. It forms thoughts of consistencies and predicts events then encourages the body of mankind to act accordingly.

It still seems to me that 'feedback' in these contexts, is an indicator for more automatic adjustments, a response to surviving in their environment, maybe instinct. 'Feedforward' seems to be more complex in that it is able to assess it's present situation, rationally, for even greater and more long term survival. The latter seems to be a result of the capability to 'reason'. Therefore it seems intelligence, not instinct, is equated with this ability, to 'reason, deduce, discern, predict, etc.'. Further, it therefore seems to me, that what would now separate AI from live intelligence is the demension of emotions' effects on reasoning.

 

So as to ensure proper cooperation, people are always given a perceivable reason. But all people are controlled most strongly by their conscious perception of reality, not reality itself. The consciousness of the individual becomes controlled by the consciousness of the aggregate mind.

 

As the perception of the surroundings of the cells within a body become controlled by the mind of the scientist so as to cause the cells to behave as the scientist has decided is best, the cells have no hope of knowing anything but what the scientist has given for them to perceive. And the human has no hope but to believe what the aggregate mind of Mankind has given for him to perceive.

So, reason, without reasoning, becomes a collective flow of the masses, based on the lack of individual critical scrutiny of leadership, in our natural inclinations of following the path of least resistance?

A conscious mind can not be born nor created already aware of its make or purpose.

No, we are not already 'aware' of our purpose, but because of 'reasoning' we seem driven in that direction?

[Megistias]

 

Another perspective is simply that the sex drive makes having sex desirable (and this is certainly true for both males and females) and one result is that DNA may be propagated. People with no hope, nor intent, of procreating still like having sex.

 

What I wrote should be seen in context with something this:

 

The concept of "purpose" must relate to an effort. He must ask "Who's purpose do I serve?"

 

 

It was somthing Ssel suggested for humans, and what I wrote was a first attempt to apply that line of thinking. Clearly for humans the sex drive is desireable in itself, but what is the biological reason (or godly reason) for giving humans a sex drive? And this lead me to say something about spreading DNA etc.

So if sex is one of the central guiding forces in humans, who or what do humans serve

 

Thanks, T. I think you are looking at this incorrectly though. I generally like the perspective you've used in your posts, but in this case, something seems amiss.

 

Maybe if one takes a less anthropomorphic view of the situation:

 

Sex drive = Desire, rather than that having a sex drive is desirable.

 

Spreading DNA is not the goal, having sex is the goal. That DNA is propagated is a result.

 

There is no reason for "giving" humans (or any organism) a sex drive. A sex drive was not "given" to any organism. Those that have a sex drive may procreate, those that don't have a sex drive don't procreate. Only through procreation is DNA propagated. (This gives a decided advantage in DNA propagation to those organisms that have a sex drive).

 

Can we rephrase things a bit ?

 

"So if sex is one of the central guiding forces in Meerkats, who or what do Meerkats serve ?"

"So if hunger is one of the central guiding forces in Meerkats, who or what do Meerkats serve ?"

 

 

I just don't see the connection in your question between "central guiding forces" and what Meerkats might "serve".

 

Sorry if I'm distracting you from the mainline of this thread.