Teoria do Computador Inteligente
Enviado: 11 Out 2006, 16:22
A breakthrough in Intelligent Design Theory has recently been announced.
ID Theory has laid the groundwork for investigating how the fundamental force called intelligent causation explains the origin of living things. ID scientists have now proposed a new, related theory that resolves some of the questions that have plagued ID theory. The new theory is called “Intelligent Computer Theory” (or “IntComp Theory”), which proposes that living things were designed by an Intelligent Computer rather than an Intelligent Designer.
Initially, other ID researchers rejected IntComp theory outright. One critic put it this way: “Computers can only do what they are programmed to do. If an Intelligent Computer created life, an Intelligent Designer must have programmed the computer in the first place”.
However, the breakthrough insight of IntComp theory was to recognize that asking “Who programmed the Intelligent Computer?” is outside the scope of IntComp theory. One may as well ask “Who designed the Intelligent Designer?”. As one prominent IntComp researcher explained, “If an infinite regress of designing agents is no problem for ID theory, an infinite regress of designing computers is obviously no problem for IntComp theory either”.
The superiority of IntComp theory over traditional ID is immediately evident. While ID proposed an “agent” whose nature is completely mysterious, everybody knows what a computer is and how it works. The mystery of how the Intelligent Agent managed to manipulate DNA and other biological components has also been solved, since the Intelligent Computer could have used robotic arms. Moreover, the research program of IntComp theory is perfectly clear: Elucidate the precise manner in which the Intelligent Computer designed life. This represents a huge advance over ID theory, which simply ignores all questions regarding how the Intelligent Designer did anything.
Still, IntComp skeptics complained that all computers are built by human beings, so before there were human beings, there could not have been an Intelligent Computer. But of course this is no different from noting that all designs are designed by living things, so before there were any living things, there could not have been an Intelligent Designer.
The most stubborn holdouts for ID attacked IntComp on the grounds that no known computer can design anything as incredibly complex as living organisms. The objection was overcome by pointing out that no known living intelligent agent can do it either. Finally, traditional ID theorists demanded direct evidence that the Intelligent Computer ever really existed. But IntComp theorists explained that it is not necessary to demonstrate its existence directly, since it can only be inferred by its effects.
Thus, IntComp theory has answered all challenges from the ID camp, and has proven to be a huge step toward using intelligence as an explanation for biological origins. Already the benefits of this new theory have become evident. There is a tremendous literature on computer intelligence, and there are actual examples of computers that can design complex structures such as electronic circuitry and mechanical devices. “IntComp enables intelligence-based theories to finally join other scientific theories in offering actual explanations for things.”, said one source.
One of the most promising models for the operation of the Intelligent Computer is a method called “random-generate-and-test”, where design variations are generated randomly, then subjected to selection. The method has already shown to behave quite intelligently on a variety of design tasks, including the design of complex financial trading strategies that outperform the best human experts. While this challenges the idea that intelligence must model the world and envision hypothetical situations, there is no reason at present to believe this generate-and-test approach is not capable of designing eyeballs, flagella, and similar structures.
The response from biological scientists has been mixed. When asked if IntComp theory was more scientific than ID theory, one biologist remarked, “There is certainly no evidence that predictive intelligence was involved. However, at least we know what they’re talking about”.
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat. ... =0&fpart=1
ID Theory has laid the groundwork for investigating how the fundamental force called intelligent causation explains the origin of living things. ID scientists have now proposed a new, related theory that resolves some of the questions that have plagued ID theory. The new theory is called “Intelligent Computer Theory” (or “IntComp Theory”), which proposes that living things were designed by an Intelligent Computer rather than an Intelligent Designer.
Initially, other ID researchers rejected IntComp theory outright. One critic put it this way: “Computers can only do what they are programmed to do. If an Intelligent Computer created life, an Intelligent Designer must have programmed the computer in the first place”.
However, the breakthrough insight of IntComp theory was to recognize that asking “Who programmed the Intelligent Computer?” is outside the scope of IntComp theory. One may as well ask “Who designed the Intelligent Designer?”. As one prominent IntComp researcher explained, “If an infinite regress of designing agents is no problem for ID theory, an infinite regress of designing computers is obviously no problem for IntComp theory either”.
The superiority of IntComp theory over traditional ID is immediately evident. While ID proposed an “agent” whose nature is completely mysterious, everybody knows what a computer is and how it works. The mystery of how the Intelligent Agent managed to manipulate DNA and other biological components has also been solved, since the Intelligent Computer could have used robotic arms. Moreover, the research program of IntComp theory is perfectly clear: Elucidate the precise manner in which the Intelligent Computer designed life. This represents a huge advance over ID theory, which simply ignores all questions regarding how the Intelligent Designer did anything.
Still, IntComp skeptics complained that all computers are built by human beings, so before there were human beings, there could not have been an Intelligent Computer. But of course this is no different from noting that all designs are designed by living things, so before there were any living things, there could not have been an Intelligent Designer.
The most stubborn holdouts for ID attacked IntComp on the grounds that no known computer can design anything as incredibly complex as living organisms. The objection was overcome by pointing out that no known living intelligent agent can do it either. Finally, traditional ID theorists demanded direct evidence that the Intelligent Computer ever really existed. But IntComp theorists explained that it is not necessary to demonstrate its existence directly, since it can only be inferred by its effects.
Thus, IntComp theory has answered all challenges from the ID camp, and has proven to be a huge step toward using intelligence as an explanation for biological origins. Already the benefits of this new theory have become evident. There is a tremendous literature on computer intelligence, and there are actual examples of computers that can design complex structures such as electronic circuitry and mechanical devices. “IntComp enables intelligence-based theories to finally join other scientific theories in offering actual explanations for things.”, said one source.
One of the most promising models for the operation of the Intelligent Computer is a method called “random-generate-and-test”, where design variations are generated randomly, then subjected to selection. The method has already shown to behave quite intelligently on a variety of design tasks, including the design of complex financial trading strategies that outperform the best human experts. While this challenges the idea that intelligence must model the world and envision hypothetical situations, there is no reason at present to believe this generate-and-test approach is not capable of designing eyeballs, flagella, and similar structures.
The response from biological scientists has been mixed. When asked if IntComp theory was more scientific than ID theory, one biologist remarked, “There is certainly no evidence that predictive intelligence was involved. However, at least we know what they’re talking about”.
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat. ... =0&fpart=1