Entropy and Intelligence
After several posts in a row in philosophy on intelligent design and similar subjects, I wanted to propose something I've been thinking about in this regard. As I see it, the critical problem in the debate over ID (and almost all theological questions) is one of sloppy definitions. In this case the prime culprit is "intelligence
( Read more... )
;)
To answer your questions first:
1. In my work and through my experiences I continually run into instances where institutional, personal, and other bias gets in the way of true understanding of the problem at hand. Perhaps, being an engineer, I am biased in that I think I am more in touch with the 'real world' than non-engineering scientists and mathematicians, and people in academia like yourself. I belong to the IEEE, an organization for electrical engineers, and every month there are a half-dozen academic articles on things supposedly to do with high-voltage transmission systems. It is so obvious when someone who has never set foot on a substation writes a paper on electric power engineering. I lost my train of thought... My point is that, in my experience, bias is strong and cannot be discounted. Instead of ignoring it like the idealist, or emphasizing it like the subjective solipcist/hard-core-skeptic, I choose to embrace this very human trait and try to learn something from it. I don't know if I am, but that is the reason for my own bias in this respect.
2. I agree that it is by no means clear. I was offering this as an alternate theory, to show how entropic forces, which naturally lead from less complex to more complex, could give rise to intelligent life.
You may be focusing a bit too much on where you perceive our disagreements to be. Try to look at it this way--in terms of your radio/signal analogy: Let us say there is something like this signal you posit present in the universe. Let us also say the universe yearns to understand itself, or at least get connected to this signal. If the "tuning" of this radio is a matter of increasing the complexity of your radio receiver, then entropy could be regarded as this tuning device. Not sure if that made any sense, but I see it as a potential bridge between what the two of us are saying.
Reply
What am I ignoring? Do you really think that the success of something like relativity theory, or quantum electrodynamics owes itself entirely to the bias' of the observers?
Entropic forces alone cannot give rise to intelligent life-- there must also be forces at work that produce order instead of eliminating it.
You may be focusing a bit too much on where you perceive our disagreements to be.
That's because our disagreements appear to be fundamental. You seem to think that the universe is rooted in chaos and that any order we perceive owes itself more to the biases of our own perception than the nature of the universe itself. I, on the other hand, believe precisely the opposite to be true-- ie, that the universe is rooted in order and any inability on our part to perceive it owes itself to our insufficient data and understanding.
Reply
"Entropic forces alone cannot give rise to intelligent life-- there must also be forces at work that produce order instead of eliminating it."
"Entropic forces," to be truthful, is a first step. It is a label to shift the topic of discussion from one poorly defined term, "intelligence," to another, "entropy". Claiming that entropy causes complexity and therefore intelligence sets the stage. Next comes an attempt to better define things like "order", "entropy", and "intelligence".
Entropy does not eliminate order. That was one of the two main thrusts of the post. It takes something that has one order and turns it into something with a different order. In general, through the forward flow of time, it appears (from observation, though I would be hard-pressed to give an exact cause, sort of like gravity) that this pattern goes from more parsimonious to less parsimonious, from more intuitive to less intuitive, from easy to define with simple (even linear) mathematics to difficult to define even with high-order (and sometimes higly nonlinear) mathematics.
"You seem to think that the universe is rooted in chaos and that any order we perceive owes itself more to the biases of our own perception than the nature of the universe itself."
Again, while I can agree with this characterization of how I think, I do not think you fully appreciate what I mean by it. If I have a linear equation that describes a phenomenon, then later find out that, after improving the accuracy of my instruments, that I need a 2nd order equation to better describe it, the mathematics are going from more parsimonious to less parsimonious--this is the same thing as saying that our perception of the event is going from more order to less order as we gain accuracy. Eventually what was predicted by a linear equation with initial accuracy may require a 6th or 7th or 242nd order equation to predict the same phenomenon when we have greater accuracy in our instruments. Linear equations are intuitive and give us the feeling of order. 242nd order equations are not intuitive at all and give us a feeling of disorder.
As we progress through time, do you not see the equations that describe our universe as getting more and more complex? Should this not tell you something about parsimony?
Reply
And you are failing to realize that our two approaches start from two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Our ideas will remain incompatible until one of us abandons some of our fundamental tenets. That's all there is to it. You would have me believe that it's some inability or failure on my part-- no, it's just that we appear to see the world in two different ways. I have conversed with many and know full well when someone is putting forward something that coincides with what I think. That is not happening here.
"Entropic forces," to be truthful, is a first step.
I disagree. Creative forces are the first step. Everything else is secondary, entropy included.
Claiming that entropy causes complexity and therefore intelligence sets the stage.
And if you were paying attention you would see that this is precisely what I am objecting to. Entropy causes disorder, not complexity. Intelligence is not something that was caused by something else-- it had to have been there at the beginning. This is my belief and why I feel that, as it currently stands, our ways of seeing the world are incompatible.
Entropy does not eliminate order. That was one of the two main thrusts of the post.
And consequently it is the main reason why I rejected much of what it said. Entropy is a measure of disorder in a system-- increased entropy implies increased disorder. You have somhow linked an entropy with complexity and complexity with intelligence. I thoroughly reject this move.
It takes something that has one order and turns it into something with a different order.
If by "different order" you mean "lack of order" then I'll agree. The fact of the matter is that entropic forces are only one of a variety of different kinds of forces that are at work in the universe-- it takes much more than entropy to produce order and life sustaining organisms.
If I have a linear equation that describes a phenomenon, then later find out that, after improving the accuracy of my instruments, that I need a 2nd order equation to better describe it
Then you have gone from a crude and simplistic model, to one of greater accuracy...
242nd order equations are not intuitive at all and give us a feeling of disorder.
That depends what you mean by "intuitive".
Not at all. The fact that we can use equations at all to model these things sugggests a very high degree of order.
As we progress through time, do you not see the equations that describe our universe as getting more and more complex?
Actually they become more and more beautiful. Are you familiar with complex analysis?
Should this not tell you something about parsimony?
I don't know what you're getting at.
Reply
Please define "order" and "disorder" for me. I do not see what you mean by these terms. aiprofessional gave me a good description, and I would like you to comment on it:
"Entropy is a measure of disorder, but what is disorder? When we say that something is ordered, what we are really saying is that we can describe it with more parsimony than something that is disordered."
The fundamental difference between us is that I am engaging in an epistemological argument and you insist on turning it into one of ontology and metaphysics. Don't make me slap the Bohr quote on you yet again! ;)
Reply
Here's an attempt. In some system you have a collection of "things". Order is a measure of how much these things function/exist in tandem. For example, the parts of a glass are "ordered" in the sense that they each contribute, in their own way, to the whole structure that is the glass. Smash it on the floor and all the parts go flying apart-- the glass falls into a state of "disorder".
Here we go: Things are ordered if they function together in some systematic fashion.
The fundamental difference between us is that I am engaging in an epistemological argument and you insist on turning it into one of ontology and metaphysics.
You are trying to use entropy to account for intelligence-- that is a metaphysical/ontological stance if ever ther was one.
Don't make me slap the Bohr quote on you yet again!
That Bohr quote is cute, but empty. (He wasn't a philosopher.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Entropy is an epistemological phenomenon, not one of metaphysics. Entropy is a metaphor we can use to frame our discussion of the nature of intelligence, and such conversation is another metaphor that explains our experience of the phenomena of intelligence and should not be confused with intelligence itself. (As if we could separate "intelligence" ontologically from the rest of the universe in the first place.)
Reply
Gah. You are using it to explain/understand intelligence-- which is very much a metaphysical phenomenon.
Entropy is a metaphor we can use to frame our discussion of the nature of intelligence, and such conversation is another metaphor that explains our experience of the phenomena of intelligence and should not be confused with intelligence itself.
Why must one rely on metaphor to discuss these things?
experience of the phenomena of intelligence and should not be confused with intelligence itself.
Why? I would like it if you would take the time to explain to me why my experience of intelligence should not be confused with actual intelligence.
Reply
Perhaps you missed it in my post when I said, "Parsimony is fine if tempered and not made into a slave driver. It is when we confuse our descriptions of things for those things in and of themselves when parsimony stops working and becomes an impediment to knowledge. It is when we forget our language is but a metaphor (a useful metaphor at that, but only a metaphor) that we start to think our descriptions have meaning beyond ourselves (as if that is not enough meaning)."
I have been fairly consistent here. None of what I posted should be taken as a metaphysical argument.
If you are going to dismiss the quote from Bohr as "cute" and "empty", then perhaps we truly are diametrically opposed. I do not understand why you of all people think human language is capable of anything more than metaphors. If you are talking about some sort of "preintellectual awareness" or knowledge that transcends language, then we should probably just stop, since with LJ we are pretty much stuck with words.
Reply
The thing is though-- it is our intelligence that is responsible for any comprehending we do. Thus, if you say that our intelligence is barred from a true understanding of "how things really are" then you are indeed making a metaphysical claim (about how intelligence "really is").
I do not understand why you of all people think human language is capable of anything more than metaphors.
It's not that. Where we part ways is in that you think the language we use to convey an understanding or perception of something represents the sum total of our conscious experience of that something (while I think that our conscious perceptions run much deeper than what we are able to put into words). In short-- yes the language we use is akin to nothing more than "shadows on the wall" or metaphors of concepts-- simply a reflection of the "true reality" is are being reflected. My point is just that this represents a limitation with our language, not our understanding. Our consciousness (and thus our intelligence) is fully capable of discerning and perceiving "how things really are"-- it's just that this by no means suggests that we should be able to encapsulate this understanding in words.
with LJ we are pretty much stuck with words.
Yes but words can evoke internal perceptions.
Reply
Um, no. Stating an opinion regarding a fundamental limitation of intelligence is an epistemological discussion, not one of metaphysics. You seem to be saying that there are no epistemological discussions and they are all ontological/metaphysical. In which case I can see that we really are fairly diametrically opposed (unless we just happen to be using a very unfortunate set of working definitions of every single key word and phrase that differs in just the right way to make agreement seem like opposition).
Yes, I basically equate conscious thought to that which can be put to language. The rest is subconscious. That we draw the line of distinction between conscious and subconscious differently seems to be one fairly minor disagreement (and interestingly one of language).
I am not sure how you draw that line. I think I've asked you before and didn't really understand the answer.
"words can evoke internal perceptions"
Change "evoke" with "emote" and I'll agree with you, but emotion is another place we disagree.
Words, words, words. Too many words. Wittgenstein always seems to get me in the end...
Reply
No. I'm saying that it's possible for something to be both a statement about epistemology and about metaphysics.
I am not sure how you draw that line.
The line is drawn because there are many many things I perceive that cannot be expressed in language. I know what an orange tastes like and what the color blue looks like-- but I will never be able to convey these perceptions in language. I am conscious of what it feels like to be me-- but I will never be able to fully express this in words. I know that for any two integers a and b, a + b will be equal to b + a and yet I will never be able to express this conviction in words-- the most I will ever be able to do is state it. I have an unshakable conviction that God exists-- and yet I will never be able to fully cloak this conviction in the clumsy outward garb of language.
I think I've asked you before and didn't really understand the answer.
I don't think you've ever really responded to me after i've given it.
Change "evoke" with "emote" and I'll agree with you, but emotion is another place we disagree.
If you use words to aid in convincing someone that a mathematical theorem is true (the person is able to "percieve" it for themselves) I don't see why their emotions must be included in the picture at all.
Reply
"If you use words to aid in convincing someone that a mathematical theorem is true (the person is able to 'percieve' it for themselves) I don't see why their emotions must be included in the picture at all."
I know you're going to disagree with this, but I'll try anyway. Gödel showed through the incompleteness theorem that no consistent system (logic and math included) of sufficient power can validate itself. Logic and math are justified either pragmatically in that they have been shown to work through the process of induction. Pragmatism, induction, and all other systems that validate logic and mathematics are based in emotion/aesthetics. (That, I know you will disagree with.)
Why are emotions included in the picture? Because we are talking about humans, and humans are emotional. Not all emotions are trite and wrong. Some are honorable and very good--and I would say indispensable from the pursuit of knowledge.
Reply
That comment was out of line on my part. Anyway, yes I was the one who abandoned the conversation last time-- however as far as I can tell the point I am making (that there aspects of our conscious (not subconscious) awareness that cannot be captured by language) still stands.
Gödel showed through the incompleteness theorem that no consistent system (logic and math included) of sufficient power can validate itself. Logic and math are justified either pragmatically in that they have been shown to work through the process of induction.
He showed that mathematics cannot be captured by formal systems. This does not mean that it isn't consistent or complete or that we lack the ability to perceive its consistency (through our intuition).
Pragmatism, induction, and all other systems that validate logic and mathematics are based in emotion/aesthetics
Emotion and aesthetics have nothing to do with me believing that 1+1=2 or that x=x.
Because we are talking about humans, and humans are emotional.
Humans can be emotional yes-- but they can also be logical and structured. Emotion does not have a role in every human activity.
Reply
Leave a comment