NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 12 2015,08:23) | Thinking in terms of a theory of operation made it easy to combine the best of what I had. I now have this to work from:
| Quote | The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, which cases us to contain a three level reciprocal causation pathway of systematically identical (in each other's image, likeness) intelligence levels being powered by the behavior of matter including our muscles.
Reciprocal cause goes in both the forward and reverse direction. This behavioral pathway causes all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not need to be intelligent to be source of consciousness. For sake of theory consciousness is considered to be in addition to intelligence, but not required for intelligence to exist. Otherwise the most rudimentary forms of intelligence even simple algorithm generated computer models of intelligent processes might be expected to be conscious of their existing inside of a personal computer. It is not possible to rule-out electronic or algorithmic consciousness existing, therefore even though consciousness is not expected to exist in a computer model it is still possible that any functioning intelligence system is somehow conscious of their existence. In either case, consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence.
In biology we contain the trinity of intelligent behavior levels as follows:
(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).
(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, called a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells called an embryo. Later during fetal development we became a functional multicellular intelligence with self-learning brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).
(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life, where not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to need all. We are part of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, for our children. The resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.
A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.
In all cases sensory input addresses a Random Access Memory (RAM). It is possible to put the contents of a RAM into a Read Only Memory (ROM) but using a ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, it cannot form new memories that are needed to adapt to new environments. The result is more of a zombie that may at first appear to be a fully functional intelligence but they are missing something necessary, a RAM in the circuit, not a ROM. Behavior of matter does not need to be intelligent, a fully trained (all knowing) ROM could be used to produce atomic/molecular behavior. But a ROM would not work where intelligent behavior is needed. Unless the ROM contains all-knowing knowledge of the future and all the humans it will ever meet in its lifetime it can never recall memories of meeting them, or their name and what they look like.
In machine intelligence the IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true and whether confident enough in its best answer to push a button/buzzer. The Watson platform had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.
For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all-knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses. A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in memory and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence. Memory contents then never changes. Only a GUESS can write new data to memory and GUESS must here be taken out of the algorithm. But it is possible to leave the CONFIDENCE in the algorithm, it will still work the exact same way. Where this in time proves to be true for real matter it would be a valuable clue as to how consciousness works and possibly how to model it, which may in turn help answer the “big questions” including those pertaining to afterlife.
The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
|
|
This has already been shown to be false, with evidence.
Is this why you are so dismissive of evidence? The brute fact that you have none and all the evidence that has been mustered up with respect [sic] to your "theory" shows it to be irremediably false.
You're making things worse for your "theory" by inserting phrases such as "in all cases". Among other things, it puts you firmly in the wrong. It also puts you firmly in the camp of those who mistake the map for the territory. Or, in your case, the printing of the map with the physical and chemical and geophysical processes that generated the territory.
|
