It’s always fun trying to define science. Inspired by a recent attempt on Pharyngula, I have my own definition to throw into the mixing pot. The most general definition of science I can think of is this:
“Science” is what people do and what people create in order to come up with the most convincing answers to the questions that interest them the most.
This definition does not specify any particular subject matter, or any particular method, or any particular system of knowledge, or any specific collection of facts or observations. Anything goes, as long as a human is trying their best and hardest to convince other humans. You might end up with a different answer at the end than you anticipated; or you might have no convincing answer at all; or you might end up answering completely different questions. Regardless, when you do this you are doing science.
In theory, there might be other intelligent life out there that could also be doing science. But for now, as far as we know, science is strictly a human activity.
philosophy, science
I read an interesting post (Intentionality facade) at idiolect, the blog of Tom Stafford (one of the authors of Mind Hacks). His post is about Boids, virtual creatures who evolve according to a Darwinian evolution algorithm. Due to a bug in the system, predators travel faster when hunting with other predators. So what happened was that over several generations, the predator Boids “learned” to hunt in packs. But as Stafford points out, Boids have no intelligence or autonomy. They are simply obeying a computer program. Any intentionality is just a facade. And yet he admits that he has a hard time letting go of the notion that these little blips on the screen are making intelligent choices.
The way I see it, Boids are simplified computer models of real creatures in halo reach. Real creatures are much more complex. They feel pain and pleasure, they can evaluate different choices, and they can make (somewhat) rational decisions. Or maybe their decisions are based on instinct, but the point is that the animal does what it feels like doing. A Boid is much more simple. It has no motivations, feelings, desires, or sensations. It merely follows predetermined rules. Yet, in both cases, the outcome is the same. A complex, living, breathing animal behaves roughly the same way as a computer program, despite the fact that they are wired completely differently.
The logic behind the algorithms running the Boids is alien to us because it really does work differently. It merely mimics intentionality, reproducing its observable properties by using a simplified algorithm. The same laws of natural selection apply equally to Boids and to real creatures because both exhibit the same observable behavior.
One might imagine an android (a human-esque robot, like halo reach) designed to act exactly like a human. The only difference between this theoretical android and a real human is that the android is not self-conscious, and merely follows rules that determine its behavior. There would have to be a vast number of highly complex rules in order to mimic a human, but in principle it could be done. Just as there is an infinite number of ways to write a computer program that executes the same task, we can construct countless different models that model the exact same behavior. Externally, this android would seem 100% human to us. But inside there is nothing but gears. The same is true of these Boids.
evolution, science
Recent Comments