All Design is "Unintelligent"

[CuriousPete]

…Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature... – William Paley, "Natural Theology" (1802)

One thing on which both creationists and evolutionists agree is that a watch represents design with purpose and forethought. The disagreement comes when trying to apply purpose and forethought to the natural world. But what if the watch is really not an example of a designer’s purpose and forethought? What if all human invention is essentially the repetition of trial and error, of stimuli and response? Should the old saying “form follows function” really be “form follows failure”?

As the engineer Henry Petroski observed in his book The Evolution of Useful Things, inventions “do not spring fully formed from the mind of some maker but, rather, become shaped and reshaped through the (principally negative) experiences of their users”. When we see tool using behavior in animals we chalk it up to simple learned responses without forethought. Human invention is assumed to originate from a combination of creativity and insight, unique in the animal world. Perhaps the abilities we think of as uniquely ours are really just more complex versions of those abilities in other animals.

Edward Thorndike (1874 – 1949) developed a theory of learning he called “Connectionism”. As with all behavioral theory, connectionism’s main point is that all learning can be adequately explained without referring to any unobservable internal states. Thorndike described four principles of learning:

• Learning requires both practice and rewards
• A series of stimuli/response (S/R) connections can be chained together if they belong to the same action sequence
• Transfer of learning occurs because of previously encountered situations
• Intelligence is a function of the number of connections learned

Connectionism nicely dovetails with what we know about evolution – origins of species and origins of behavior are driven by selection processes. Humans have excelled not because of any uniquely human insight, but because of the sheer quantity and complexity of neural connections our highly evolved brains provide us. Our inventions, watches for example, are the result of complex interactions of trial and error, a natural selection process not unlike the process that evolved our brains in the first place.

[wilber]

Hi Pete
Interesting theory.
As I grew older, I learned that I was a conscious being. 'Cogito ergo sum' or whatever.
How would this fit into the theory?

[Philip]

Well, Pete - I'm going to have to call non sequitur on this one. At least the title of your thread. You see, by definition "design" involves intelligence. To design, means to plan something out. A plan requires intelligence. So in this case, it doesn't work.

Even if all human learning and activity were the result of trial and error, something designed, like a watch; requires applied planning, and intelligence. There's just no way around this. I love this one analogy that I heard someone say; I think it was maybe A.E. Wilder-Smith.

Evolution is like dropping a 500 pound bomb in the middle of a junkyard and expecting a functional watch to be the end result. Or something to that effect.

[joman]

There isn't any proof that any designed outcome is the result of stupidity.
Face the facts CuriousPete....evolutionism is faith based cartoonish storytelling that presents "chance did it" as a counterpoint to "God did it."
To hope that "chance did it" can't in any serious way compare to the rationale that "God did it."
Isn't it amazing how unbelief towards God forces intelligent people to propose stupid things? And forcing them to propose them in the absence of any objective evidence.

[CuriousPete]

Hi Pete
Interesting theory. As I grew older, I learned that I was a conscious being. 'Cogito ergo sum' or whatever. How would this fit into the theory?

Hi Wilber, thanks for your response. Connectionism, at least my interpretation of it, does not reject the concept of consciousness; instead it tries to explain the origins of consciousness, intelligence, and behavior. We are the most intelligent beings to have ever lived on Earth (conveniently we both judge and accept the trophy!). We have developed incredible technology and should be proud of our accomplishments. But is there something extra that makes us human, something we have that cannot ultimately be described by science? I don’t believe so. Our brains are neural networks that differ from those of other animals only in terms of structure and complexity. Connectionism argues that basic learning systems of stimuli and response and trial and error drive the formation of neural connections and it’s the complexity of the resulting neural network that governs an organism’s abilities. Evolution has resulted in humans having the most complex brains ever and the reason we have gone far beyond any other species. But we should realize that our superiority is only a matter of degree.

We used to think only humans were self-aware. We now know that not only apes, but also bottlenose dolphins, Asian elephants, and magpies have some self awareness. The ability to look in a mirror and understand that the image you see is yourself requires a relatively big brain with lots of neural connections, but it doesn’t require a human brain. The magic ingredient that makes us human is not really magic, it is the massively complex and interconnected network of neurons inside our skulls.

[wilber]

Thanks for the reply Pete.
I don't think I was very clear with my question. I understand that many animals display behaviour patterns indicative of self awareness. It is possible to imagine a machine (was it 'Data' in Star Trek?) that mimics all human behaviour and yet is not actually 'alive' in the sense of having that 'life-force' (or spirit/soul for want of better words) that I KNOW I have, but you can only assume that I have.
I am sure most teenagers have puzzled the possibility that all externals may just be illusions within a dream, and yet he (the dreamer) must be 'alive' ie experiencing.

And yet Thorndike's theory states:

As with all behavioral theory, connectionism’s main point is that all learning can be adequately explained without referring to any unobservable internal states.

So, I repeat:

As I grew older, I learned that I was a conscious being. 'Cogito ergo sum' or whatever.
How would this fit into the theory?

The animals you mention may just be figments of my imagination but I learned that I was 'conscious' in a way that they need not be.

Doesn't this little bit of learning require reference to an 'unobservable internal state'?

[CuriousPete]

Well, Pete -I'm going to have to call non sequitur on this one.* At least the title of your thread.

Philip, I deliberately chose a thread title that would catch people’s attention, but I used “Unintelligent” not to say humans are unintelligent (they’re not!), but to question our assumptions about the origins of design.

Even if all human learning and activity were the result of trial and error, something designed, like a watch; requires applied planning, and intelligence.

I agree. What I’m trying to get to is the ultimate source of that intelligence.

We are so accustomed to talking about creativity or insight or something else as unique qualities that make us human. I say what makes us human is the unique way our 11 billion brain neurons are networked, what makes a chimp is the unique way their 6.2 billion neurons are networked, and what makes a cat is the unique way their 300 million neurons are networked.

I love this one analogy that I heard someone say; I think it was maybe A.E. Wilder-Smith...Evolution is like dropping a 500 pound bomb in the middle of a junkyard and expecting a functional watch to be the end result.*Or something to that effect.

It was Fred Hoyle arguing not against evolution, but against abiogenesis (order arising out of disorder), who said a tornado blowing through a junkyard could never assemble a 747. The analogy doesn’t work for either: tornadoes are great examples of order arising spontaneously out of disorder, and evolution is not the assembly of individual parts, but the gradual modification of existing ones.

[CuriousPete]

Thanks for the reply Pete.
I don't think I was very clear with my question. I understand that many animals display behaviour patterns indicative of self awareness. It is possible to imagine a machine (was it 'Data' in Star Trek?) that mimics all human behaviour and yet is not actually 'alive' in the sense of having that 'life-force' (or spirit/soul for want of better words) that I KNOW I have, but you can only assume that I have.

Wilber, I used to think that even if we could synthetically replicate a human brain and all its neurons and connections, the result would somehow be missing some magic ingredient only human brains possess. I’m finding that position harder and harder to justify. I’m realizing that the “magic ingredient” idea is probably just a product of our own wishful thinking.

The animals you mention may just be figments of my imagination but I learned that I was 'conscious' in a way that they need not be. Doesn't this little bit of learning require reference to an 'unobservable internal state'?

Yes, the feeling of consciousness itself might be an 'unobservable internal state', but I think Thorndike’s point was that the origin of that feeling, that higher brain function, can be traced back to the countless S/R feedbacks and neural network building that took place before that moment.

[Philip]

It was Fred Hoyle arguing not against evolution, but against abiogenesis (order arising out of disorder), who said a tornado blowing through a junkyard could never assemble a 747. The analogy doesn’t work for either: tornadoes are great examples of order arising spontaneously out of disorder, and evolution is not the assembly of individual parts, but the gradual modification of existing ones.

Where did the existing parts come from?

[wilber]

Pete wrote:

Wilber, I used to think that even if we could synthetically replicate a human brain and all its neurons and connections, the result would somehow be missing some magic ingredient only human brains possess.

You have made assumptions here which are not in my post.
However, it seems that you are saying that when it is possible to build a machine that seems to 'identify itself' in a mirror and the like, then you believe it will possess consciousness?

I note that your so far objective posts have deteriorated into subjective and emotive language (ie 'magic'). I'm not sure if this is defensive as you feel threatened or just lazy language. If a scientific mind considers the possibility of a phenomenon that may, to date, be a mystery, then he should not discard the possibility by denegrading it as 'magic'.

The relationship between consciousness and the brain is an exciting field of work but you would be wrong to suggest that many conclusions have been drawn and you must be careful of reductionism.

Music is more than the score, even more than the soundwaves hitting my eardrum.

I’m realizing that the “magic ingredient” idea is probably just a product of our own wishful thinking.

You and I may wish for different things but what of Love, Beauty, etc etc? I hope you are going to be consistent and dismiss all such things as 'wishful thinking'.
I mustn't derail the thread.
Thanks for the talk Pete.
All the best
Wilber

PS - almost forgot: although the above is interesting, and for all I know you may be right, it is irrelevent to the point I was making which still stands. The only way I can learn of the (experience of) consciousness is by referring to an unobservable internal state therefore I reject Thorndike's theory.