iDesign @ UCI

Welcome Message To New Students

Interested in Origins?
Join the club.


Mission Statement

FAQ

Organization


MISSION STATEMENT:

iDesign Club at UCI seeks to foster scientific discussions regarding the origins of life and the universe. Theories such as Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and creationism will be critically analyzed.


FAQ:

Q: WHAT IS THIS CLUB ABOUT?

Origins! We are interested in discussing alternative theories to the origins of biological structures. While the current mainstream theory in academia is Darwinian evolution, we would also like to discuss other viable ideas, such as intelligent design.

Q: WHO CAN BE A MEMBER OF THIS CLUB?

Anybody! Students of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering, Anthropology, and Philosophy may especially find this club intriguing. However, you do not need to have a science background to be an effective member of this club.

Q: WHEN AND WHERE ARE CLUB MEETINGS?

Please check blog entries for time and place.

Q: WHAT IS THE MEMBERSHIP FEE?

Nothing! There are no membership dues.

Q: IS THIS CLUB BIASED TOWARDS ONE SPECIFIC THEORY OF ORIGINS?

Perhaps. Ponder the name of this club. This club is ideologically the mirror of another club at UCI, the Students for Science and Skepticism. However, our main goal is to give a balanced view of the controversy regarding the origins of life so that students can come to an informed conclusion themselves.

Q: WHAT DOES THE LETTER "i" STAND FOR IN iDESIGN?

Good question -- the answer is intelligent.

Q: WHERE IS THE CLUB CONSTITUTION?

We adhere to the minimum constitution that was provided by the Dean of Students. In the future, we plan to draft a comprehensive constitution and bylaws.

Q: IS iDESIGN AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION?

No. However, we are friends with the IDEA Center


ORGANIZATION:

PRESIDENT:
Arthur
Information and Computer Science

VICE PRESIDENT:
Brian
Biology / English

DIRECTOR:
Andrew
English / Economics



Tuesday, December 19, 2006

A Solid Definition For Intelligence

Can someone give me a good formal definition for intelligence? John McCarthy, a founding father of AI (artificial intelligence) thinks that there does not yet exist a solid definition for intelligence that does not depend on relating it to human intelligence. Here is my proposed informal definition: intelligence is the ability to achieve goals by constraining natural chance processes.

Consider the example of a scantron multiple choice test. Jack totally forgot to study for the test, and so his only recourse was to fill in the blanks at random. Jill, however, studied hard and was able to select the correct answers. We can say that Jill is more intelligent than Jack. While Jack relied totally on chance, Jill was able to curb chance and select the right answers, in order to achieve the goal of getting an A on the test.

So in order to detect artifacts of intelligence, we have to find places in nature where chance was purposefully constrained. This is perhaps where Dembski's explanatory filter comes to play (i.e. if not regularity, then chance; if not chance, then design). We might have to modify the filter a little: if not regularity, then unconstrained chance; if not unconstrained chance, then constrained chance (= design).

Note that intelligence does not need to be the antithesis of chance; rather, intelligence can be the constraining of chance. An intelligent agent can sometimes use constrained chance as a useful tool (e.g. the sorting algorithm known as Quicksort).

Posted by Art at 11:55 PM

6 Comments:

Blogger Wedge said...
Art,
Thanks for rescuing our blog from the neglect imposed by a long quarter. I fear we've already lost both our readers, however :-)

With regard to intelligence: I think I like your definition. Goal-directedness is definitely a part of intelligence. But maybe you could add something about goal formulation? A computer (once programmed) can achieve goals by constraining chance processes as well. But that goal and how to achieve it had to be intelligently formulated.

Also, how does this relate to Dembski's specified complexity? I think you seem to be focusing more on the process, while Dembski is focussed on the end-product. Are there any ways this perspective might aid a design inference?
12/20/2006 8:54 AM
Blogger CJYman said...
I am currently in the process of gathering my thoughts re: ID into a small essay. In this essay I have provided a definition of intelligence which is quite similar to yours.

Here it is:

intelligence = the quality which is able to harness natural laws to plan or engineer a specific route to a pre-meditated or programmed end goal.

According to this definition a computer program, a cell, and even an office environment are considered as intelligent. HOwever, intelligence does not equate to consciousness. The "plan" and "pre-meditated" part of the definition refer to specifically conscious intelligence, of which I am working on a defintion and description of consciousness and its different levels. However, my definition also includes "engineer" and "programmed" to indicate non-conscious intelligence.

Re: specified complexity ...

CSI relates directly to the sequence of pieces or units that are put together by an intelligence. CSI is not defined by natural laws of attraction and therefore CSI is independant of the laws of physics. Furthermore, specified complexity is alway seen at the base of a program (intelligence). Additionaly, intelligence is the only thing that can create specified complexity (this is basically included in the comparison of the definitions of specified complexity and intelligence).
12/21/2006 1:23 PM
Blogger Art said...
Hi Wedge,

I fear we've already lost both our readers, however :-)

They'll come back.

But maybe you could add something about goal formulation

You are right, I neglected goal formulation. I would think that sub-goal formulation could also be a part of this definition of intelligence. A boss might tell his worker to achieve a certain goal (so the goal is formulated already). But the worker needs intelligence to perhaps break that goal up into sub-goals. Almost like partial order planning...


Also, how does this relate to Dembski's specified complexity?

It ties in pretty closely. "Purposeful constraining of chance" is similar to "specified complexity". The level of purpose can be measured by the specificity of the pattern (maybe), and complexity can be viewed in terms of how chance was curbed.
12/22/2006 6:42 PM
Blogger Art said...
Hi Cjyman,

Thanks for stopping by our blog. I hope you put up your essay online when it is complete.

I'm uncertain whether an office environment qualifies as an intelligence though (it's perhaps a collective agglomeration of multiple intelligent agents).
12/22/2006 6:49 PM
Blogger CJYman said...
Hello Art, and thanks for the welcome.

I decided to attempt a definition of both intelligence and information when I had seen accusations that ID is not science since it can not even define these two qualities. Of course, upon looking into Dr. Dembski's articles, information seems to be quite scientifically defined indeed.

However, at the time I was also somewhat interested in finding how others had defined consciousness. I then ran across the "chinese room experiment," where someone had described the room itself as similar to and possibly even a conscious system itself. Yet, there is no evidence that the room is anywhere near self aware. It seemed that the attribute that was more suitable for the room was "intelligence."

Furthermore, if we extrapolate the "main action points" of the room in the "chinese room experiment," to the "main action points" or machinery of any other system which has no conscious or intelligent agents within it but yet processes information, such as the cell, then this new system again provides the same definition of intelligence.

The reason that I add the office environment to the list is because a system need not be conscious or alive in order to process information or manipulate natural laws to create a pre-programmed end goal. If the office setting can provide the definition of intelligence, much the same as the "chinese room experiment" and the cell can, then it follows that it is intelligent, no?

I do hope I have been able to somewhat explain this effectively.

And as to the essay ... I enjoy writing down thoughts; it's putting them together that's the difficult part. Hey, my blog just got accused of complete incoherence by an anti-IDist recently.

While, even though none of the points I attempted to outline were even remotely attacked, the person may have a point. I could probably order my argument better. Oh well ... there is always much to learn ...
12/22/2006 10:36 PM
Blogger William Bradford said...
Here is my proposed informal definition: intelligence is the ability to achieve goals by constraining natural chance processes.

Hi Wedge and Art. It's good to have you back. I like the above definition in that it provides a practical framework within which to evalaute natural systems for effects of intelligence. However I would include forces whose effects are deterministic rather than simply a result of chance. An intelligently directed outcome can counteract both chance and determinsitic effects.

An example of the latter would include natural forces that corrupt genomic integrity. They include ultraviolet light and other forms of radiation, free radicals induced by metabolic functions and simple copying errors. They would have impacted initial life forms and rendered their genomes non-functional in the absence of some sophisticated error detection and repair mechanisms that were needed at the outset of life. Darwinian thinking describes adaptive processes as having a chance element. In this case the causes requiring an adaptive response are determinstic in nature. Radiation will disrupt functional nucleotide sequence patterns. Without existing countermeasures already programmed into the genome, there is no hope of repair. Just a steady and deadly accumulation of damage. The implications of this are severe for standard theories which rely on incremental steps and time to effect the types of adaptive responses needed.
12/23/2006 12:00 AM

Post a Comment

<< Return To Main Blog


iDESIGN BLOGROLL:

The Design Paradigm
Design Watch
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Telic Thoughts
Uncommon Descent
ID the Future
ID Plus
CreationEvolutionDesign
Evolution News
Dualistic Dissension
ID in the UK
ID Update
Intelligently Sequenced


PRO-DESIGN SITES:

Access Research Network
IDEA Center
UCSD IDEA Club
ISCID


PRO-EVOLUTION SITES:

Panda's Thumb
Talk Origins
Students for Science and Skepticism at UCI
NAS: Science and Creationism


PRO-CREATION SITES:

Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
A.E. Wilder Smith
Reasons to Believe
Baraminology News
CreationWiki


OTHER INTERESTING SITES:

American Scientific Affiliation
Richard Sternberg


ANTEATER LINKS:

University of California, Irvine
New University
Irvine Review
School of Biological Sciences
School of Medicine
School of Physical Sciences
Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science
Henry Samueli School of Engineering
UCI Athletics
UCI Alumni Association


BLOG ARCHIVES:

June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007

Copyright © iDesign at UCI 2005. The views presented in this web site are our own. By using this site, you signify that iDesign at UCI is not liable for anything. Site maintained by Arthur Asuncion. Template last modified June 15, 2005.

Powered by Blogger