Recently I described a possible alternative Turing test that looks for certain non-person like behavior. I’d like to try it out and see if it is robust and has any value.
Here is some data represented in an ordinary control chart.
It’s easy to see there is a recognizable pattern here. The line follows a downward trajectory till about observation 16 then it meanders around till about observation 31. At which point it begins an upward track that lasts till almost the end of the chart.
The data in question is real and public but obsolete. I won’t say what it’s source is right now to avoid any bias in your attempts see if we can infer design. I can provide the actual numbers if you like.
The question before the house is. Is the clear overall pattern we see here a record of intention or does it have a “non-mental” cause?
Using the criteria discussed in my “poker” thread I would suggest looking for the following behaviors and excluding a mental cause if they are present.
1) large random spikes in the data
2) sudden changes in the overall pattern of the data that appear to be random
3) long periods of monotony
4) unexplained disjunction in the pattern.
I have some other tests we can look at as well .
What do you say design or not? Are you willing to venture a conjecture?
peace
exactly, Humans can and do regularly distinguish between mental and non-mental causes.
why should the “biological realm” what ever that means be different.
If we can identify person-like behavior in some “realms” why not others?
peace
Your sentence means exactly the same if you leave the word ‘mental’ out.
No I grasped it just fine.
What you apparently fail to grasp is that additional context leads to increased opportunity for personal bias.
That is why Turing tests always limit the context given as much as possible
like I said I’m trying to develop an alternative Turing test. I really don’t care if it’s called science. If Turing got along with out providing operational definitions I can as well.
do you need a nap?
peace
No
The response of the German navy would be very different if the behavior was non-mental. We treat persons differently than non-mental things.
check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance
peace
Okay, you don’t know the difference between context and distraction either. Now I have all the answers concerning what ID is about. Thanks.
I think you believe you had all the answers about ID a long time ago 😉
You seem to be fixated on ID for some reason. If you like you can act as if the test has nothing to do with ID. I really don’t care what you call it and that might help you to think about with out so much emotion
I’m just trying to put something together that might be useful.
peace
Human mental causes. Are you suggesting that humans are responsible for “design “in biology?
fifthmonarchyman: why should the “biological realm” what ever that means be different.
If we can identify person-like behavior in some “realms” why not others?
Since there are no confirmed examples of design in biological organisms, you are trying to extrapolate a sample size of one. That makes as much sense as… well, let’s be honest, it makes no sense at all.
Maybe if you could provide a real life example, I might understand what you are trying to say. For example, without any knowledge of beavers, do you think that humans would be able to look at a beaver dam and intuit that it was designed?
no I know the difference.
Turing tests try to limit the context. If you know too much about the subject of the test then the findings are more likely to be biased. That is why the length is limited and the test is blind
peace
It is one of those hypotheticals again, if you want to see the difference between the “operating systems” output, you need both to process the same data holding other variables constant.
So ,it looks like you have 65 or so data points, are these monthly totals? If so you have your pattern being influenced by seasonal criteria which we assume is not intentional.
This does not translate into “context is limited”. But of course you know all about it. Carry on.
What behaviour?
Again
I submit that when we say something has a mind or is intelligent or is conscious in part what we mean is that to some extent it thinks like us
no I’m suggesting that it’s at least possible that we might recognize some mental (ie personlike) behaviors in the cause of the “panorama of life”
we would have to run the test to be sure
There is no confirmed examples of mind in a computer but we have no problem performing Turing tests on computers.
can you provide a real life example of a computer with a mind?
I think you are also fixated with ID and this is making it hard for you think about this with out the emotion.
I’m trying to develop a alternative Turing test that is not limited to language based interactions.
The fact that such a test might be useful when making design inferences in biology is just a happy coincidence
peace
You are going to have to use your words.
I’ve repeatedly asked you if you are happy with the context provided in the standard Turing test. That “context” consisted in a five minute cold conversation with a bot and a human.
You need to explain your answer
peace
I don’t think you can find that in Turing’s 1950 paper.
Yes, he limited it to using a teletype. But that was more because of the limits of technology at that time, rather than to limit the context.
the behavior we see represented in the chart
peace
that is why I’ve been referring to this actual Turing test
http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx
rather than to a theoretical one
peace
A five minute cold conversation with a bot and a human, whereas you provided just a graph, nothing else. No explanation what the graph was about. You provided zero context.
What behavior? Who or what is behaving and what was he doing? Whereas in Turing test, we are having a conversation.
Do you see what context means? Of course you do, because you are the tester master.
quote:
In order that tones of voice may not help the interrogator the answers should be written, or better still, typewritten.The ideal arrangement is to have a teleprinter communicating between the two rooms. Alternatively the question and answers can be repeated by an intermediary. The object of the game for the third player (B) is to help the interrogator. The best strategy for her is probably to give truthful answers. She can add such things as “I am the woman, don’t listen to him!” to her answers, but it will avail nothing as the man can make similar remarks
end quote:
from here
https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf
peace
Submarine losses are a behaviour?
If I would have said that the graph was about what was happening to particular resources over a time frame would that be enough?
You need to be specific
yes in a standard Turing test you are having a conversation and in my test you are looking at non language based behavior.
I thought that was clear
As far as who or what was behaving
Who— a person
or
what— a non personlike entity
I thought that was clear as well
peace
no losses are a result of behavior
peace
Don’t ask me. You are the tester master. You know all about it.
So far so good. And now add the final crucial bit of information. Come on. You know what it is.
Nah, it’s already been a perfectly nice practical exercise. Thanks.
The losses are the result of Allied actions. I know that, you know that, the Germans know that. Their reactions will be based on that. There has never been any uncertainty about this, there was never a need for a ‘test’, there was nothing to discover here apart from how exactly the Allies got this edge, and your graph contains zero information about that.
This is all completely useless.
The title of this thread is A Practical Exercise in Design Detection. Fifth overpromised and underdelivered, as usual.
Could someone wake me up when fifth actually has a practical (and properly tested) method of detecting design?
Fmm, let’s look at your response to some of my questions:
Q: To get round that you will have to come up with some objective tools to establish if a data set has a ‘pattern’ or not. Do you know of any such tools?
Fmm: To be sure that there is no pattern I would need the raw data to see if I could distinguish your chart from randomized groupings of the same data.
Q: So what exactly has your ‘methodology’ contributed to our collective knowledge?
Fmm: For one thing we know we need more data points than you provided
Q: Do you seriously think the Germans attributed the increased losses to natural (‘algorithmic’) causes?
Fmm: I don’t have any inside information but it’s obvious that the Germans did not have a counter to the increased losses they were taking
Q: Now you will have to explain very carefully why these things are not ‘mental’:
2) different battle locations
3) poorer quality control in newer subs
Fmm: {crickets}
My verdict: you’re all at sea (pun intended).
How do you know the Germans know that?
Do really you not see the need for a Turing Test that can be employed in cases like the Poker players encountered?
Is there never ever any uncertainty when it comes to ascribing consciousness to entities in areas where a conversation is not feasible?
And They talk about ID being a science stopper 😉
It’s been very useful from my perspective. Ive see the lengths that normally rational people will go to avoid even thinking about things they don’t like
You apparently are willing to never even attempt to discover if non-communicative computer is conscious,
peace
Battle locations are often a function of chance. You fight where you encounter the enemy
Poorer quality control is often the result of fewer available resources an not a conscious choice
Surely you know these things
peace
This burden shifting is just silly
once again I think the information in my test is completely adequate.
You are the one demanding more context while at the same time accepting the limited context offered in a standard test. You need to quantify exactly how much context is sufficient. And explain yourself
You just can’t demand more like that is a legitimate answer.
We’d all like more information but decisions sometimes have to be made when information is limited.
peace
OK but you can’t just re-post my response you need to explain why you feel they are inadequate
peace
Because I know that the Germans are not stupid.
In your particular example there was never a need to discern if the losses were caused by ‘algorithmic’ or ‘mental’ causes. You have simply made this up. You don’t even clearly explain what you mean by ‘mental’ causes (e.g. where you list ‘poorer quality control’ as an algorithmic process). And when I present two counterexamples you duck and weave and refuse to make a choice, right after berating us for not making a choice in your example.
Don’t you ever wonder why there is not a single commenter here who thinks you’re on to something?
Whatever.
quote:
Some Germans had suspicions that all was not right with Enigma. Admiral Karl Dönitz received reports of “impossible” encounters between U-boats and enemy vessels which made him suspect some compromise of his communications. In one instance, three U-boats met at a tiny island in the Caribbean Sea, and a British destroyer promptly showed up. The U-boats escaped and reported what had happened. Dönitz immediately asked for a review of Enigma’s security. The analysis suggested that the signals problem, if there was one, was not due to the Enigma itself. Dönitz had the settings book changed anyway, blacking out Bletchley Park for a period. However, the evidence was never enough to truly convince him that Naval Enigma was being read by the Allies.
end quote:
from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra
peace
I did make a choice. I chose to say that I could not conclude that the cause was mental with the information I had.
That is a perfectly legitimate response when it comes to Turing tests. I’m not saying the bot is not conscious I’m saying that I don’t know it’s conscious
Instead of that sort of answer you all said I’d given you no context and making a decision was impossible and the test was stupid etc etc etc
do you see the difference 😉
I’ve got a pretty good idea why that is. 😉
Like I said it’s not your negative opinion that I find interesting but the lengths you are willing to go to avoid even thinking about this sort of test
peace
quote:
The U-boat war had reached the tipping point, one that the Germans should have foreseen. But with the Germans literally fighting day to day, with no longer-range perspective, they continued to place tactics and numbers before all else. In effect, they continued to fight the war with a slightly improved version of their World War I boat (their technological improvements came too late in the war to make much difference), and with tactics that were increasingly ineffective. The British on the other hand utilized their intellectual and military-experience capital to create a superb defense, in which tactics played only a partial role.
Fanatical to the end, Dönitz continued to send his U-boat teams out in their obsolete craft against impossible odds. Despite moving their boats away from the North Atlantic after the disastrous losses of May 1943, the Germans lost 143 over the rest of the year. In 1944 they would lose 249 boats and in the five months of 1945 another 159; in the last year of the war they were losing close to one U-boat for every two merchantmen they sank. Nearly 30,000 U-boat sailors would die in pursuing Dönitz’s flawed hope that somehow fanaticism and faith in the führer would lead to success. Throughout the war, the Germans failed to recognize how effectively their opponents were using technology to counteract the U-boat attacks. Part of this was the result of inadequate staffing and analysis, but part was due to Dönitz’s decision to move his boats from one theater to another as the Allies adapted. Seeking the weak link in the Allied system of shipping, the Germans eventually faced a situation when the Allied defenses were strong everywhere. Then, without making any real changes in their own technological and tactical effectiveness, their U-boats were quite literally sunk.
end quote:
from here
http://www.historynet.com/why-germanys-kriegsmarine-lost-the-battle-of-the-atlantic.htm
peace
Which is ?
So are seeing the Allies intent and increase in knowledge ,manpower and technology or the German’s intent ,fanaticism and fear being shot by Hitler?
That I’m an evil fundie out to kill the fun who must be resisted no matter what and at all costs.
I’m not including you or Neil in this assessment, You two have actually offered some constructive criticism
thank you for that
peace
I think I’m seeing the Allies intent and increase in knowledge and the German inability to catch on to what was going on till it was too late.
peace
check it out
Intelligent design in action 😉
Possibly but most of the objections are concerning your methodology, not your motivation.
faded_Glory:
fifth:
faded_Glory:
Indeed. Who do you think was sinking those submarines, fifth? The Swiss?
Of course the losses were due to Allied actions.
Perhaps but objections with out suggestions for improvement are not very useful to anybody.
Some here even challenge the idea that a Turing Test for processes not involving communication is even a desirable objective.
I can’t think of any reason for that position except fear of what we might discover
peace
keiths there is nothing to see here it’s probably best if you go back to stuff you find to be more interesting like that problem of evil thingy you like to play with
peace
Well, that’s your assertion that you have yet to support. It’s not what I’m talking about, though.
You don’t have operational definitions for your terms and you don’t have a clearly articulated hypothesis. That means you have no idea what you’re trying to test. That’s part of the reason why your proposed testing methodology is uselessly vague.
Try reading a few scientific papers to see how it’s done.
Yeah, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with your inability to operationalize your definitions or come up with a credible testing framework. It’s everyone else’s fault.
It certainly could not be do to your willful inability to understand why operational definitions are not necessary and counterproductive when it comes to Turing tests or your unwillingness to offer suggestions to improve the testing framework
😉
peace
like this one?
check it out
https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf
😉
peace
Operational definitions are essential to any testing that purports to be scientific. If you don’t have them, you are literally talking nonsense.
My suggestion to improve your testing framework is to create one, starting with operational definitions of your terms.
Then might I suggest that you should have picked a title for your OP other than “A Practical Exercise in Design Detection”
Then, I must say, that you have failed.
who said anything about purporting to be scientific? I’m trying to develop an alternative Turing test. I could care less what you call it.
However if a standard Turing test is scientific then mine would be as well
That is quite a restricted framework you have if the choices are only scientific and nonsense
My suggestion is that you get with keiths and play with that problem of evil thingy he likes so much and leave this sort of thing to folks who are willing to try and understand what is being said 😉
peace
As always, you two are ships in the night. For Patrick, truth is established through tedious, rigorous hypothesis testing. For you, truth is established by agreement and acclaim. Both of you accuse the other of refusal to play by “the rules”.