It is not possible to have a rational discussion on any topic without first defining, in as unambiguous a way as possible, your vocabulary terms and starting assumptions. So before any discussion of intelligence can go forward, there needs to be made a proper definition of what this thing called intelligence might be.
One of the constant complaints in such discussions is the lack of workable definitions of what intelligence is. This to me is just an excuse. People have always been free to define anything any way they want. If fruitful discussions of topics such as intelligence, consciousness, and free will have gone nowhere, it’s only because those involved never bother to attempt definitions of these terms to start with.
Consider the case of theoretical physics. A new theory starts with new speculations, assumptions, and good guesswork. But the physics community never requires a theoretician to justify their starting premises before their research is allowed to go forward; just the opposite is the case.
Having proposed starting assumptions, no matter how far out in left field they may seem, the next step for the theoretician is to recast them in rigorous mathematical terms, terms that can then be used as a basis for a mathematically rigorous theoretical development. A useful theory should eventually arrive at the prediction of new phenomena; at this point, it can be checked experimentally.
Having experimental predictions prove consistent becomes an indication that the starting assumptions might have some validity. Then, gaining the confidence that a theory’s starting assumptions have some validity; a further cycle of theoretical development based on those starting assumptions begins, leading to further experimental predictions, and further testing and checking. This cycle repeats until predictions no longer match experiment. At which point, with the inadequacies of the old theory becoming apparent, new theoretical models are proposed with new starting assumptions of their own.
Notice, this is exactly the opposite of how all discussions on subjects such as intelligence, consciousness, free will, and the definition of life, historically proceed. What this blog proposes to do is to approach these questions as if we were theoretical physicists; not philosophers, theologians, or just people who like to argue for the sake of arguing.
So this blog will now attempt to do something I have never seen proposed before; that is, offer some simple working definitions for consciousness, life, and intelligence.
• A lifeform is a self-organizing, self-sustaining, self-reproducing system, which acquires the energy needed to perform these actions, by selective interactions with its environment. Note: this asserts that life is a strongly emergent phenomenon.
• Consciousness is that attribute of a lifeform that allows it to be aware of its environment; that is, consciousness is nothing more than having a system of hardware inputs.
• If the existence of choice is included as a fundamental law of physics, then intelligence is what we call it, when a physical system displays the ability of exercising choice in response to its environment: see note [1]. This makes intelligence a property of a strongly emergent system.
Some observations that come immediately from these definitions:
• These three terms can only be defined in reference to each other, so the definition of one depends on the definition of the others.
• You don’t have to have a biological body to qualify as a lifeform. An intriguing thing that comes from these definitions is that collective or distributed systems such as an ant colony or a government bureaucracy also qualify as lifeforms.
• By these definitions, a plant would qualify as both conscious and possessing intelligence.
Besides agreed-upon definitions, another thing that all theoretical discussions need in order to progress is some standard of truth to act as a metric to gauge the validity of a theory’s conclusions. In all such debates there are two qualitatively different standards; these I will refer to as Aristotelian truth and Galilean truth; named after the two men most associated with their usage. How these two standards for truth appear in scientific debates, will be the subject of my next post.
[1]… Referring to something as physical just means that its functioning is governed by the laws of physics.
No comments:
Post a Comment