Several regulars have requested that I put together a short OP and I’ve agreed to do so out of deference to them. Let me be clear from the outset that this is not my preferred course of action. I would rather discuss in a more interactive way so that I can learn from criticism and modify my thoughts as I go along. OPs are a little too final for my tastes.
I want to emphasize that everything I say here is tentative and is subject to modification or withdraw as feedback is received,
It’s important to understand that I speak for no one but myself it is likely that my understanding of particular terms and concepts will differ from others with interest in ID. I also want to apologize for the general poor quality of this piece I am terrible at detail and I did not put the effort in I should have due mainly to laziness and lack of desire.
With that out of the way:
Background
For the purpose of this discussion I would like to expand upon the work of Phill Mcguire found here and stipulate that cognition can be seen as lossless data compression in which information is integrated in a non-algorithmic process. The output of this process is a unified coherent whole abstract concept that from here forward I will refer to as a specification/target. Mcguire’s work thus far deals with unified consciousness as a whole but I believe his incites are equally valid when dealing with integrated information as associated with individual concepts.
I am sure that there are those who will object to the understanding of cognition that I’m using for various reasons but in the interest of brevity I’m treating it an an axiomatic starting point here. If you are unwilling to accept this proviso for the sake of argument perhaps we can discuss it later in another place instead of bogging down this particular discussion.
From a practical perspective cognition works something like this: in my mind I losslessly integrate information that comprise the defining boundary attributes of a particular target; for instance,”house” has such information as “has four walls”, “waterproof roof”, “home for family”, “warm place to sleep”, as well as various other data integrated into the simple unified “target” of a house that exists in my mind. The process by which I do this can not be described algorithmically. from the outside it is a black box but it yields a specified target output: the concept of “house”.
Once I have internalize what a house is I can proceed to categorize objects I come across into two groups: those that are houses and those that are not. You might notice the similarity of this notion to the Platonic forms in that the target House is not a physical structure existing somewhere but an abstraction.
Argument
With that in mind, it seems reasonable to me to posit that the process of design would simply be the inverse of cognition.
When we design something we begin with a pre-existing specific target in mind and through various means we attempt to decompress it’s information into an approximation of that target. For instance I might start with the target of house and through various means proceed to approximate the specification I have in my mind into a physical object. I might hire a contractor nail and cut boards etc . The fruit of my labor is not a completed house until it matches the original target sufficiently to satisfy me. However, no matter how much effort I put into the approximation, it will never completely match the picture of an ideal house that I see in my mind. This is I believe because of the non-algorithmic nature of the process by which targets originate. Models can never match their specification exactly.
Another good example of the designing process would be the act of composing a message.
When I began to write this OP I had an idea of the target concept I wanted to share with the reader and I have proceeded to go about decompressing that information in a way that I hoped that could be understood. If I am successful after some contemplation a target will be present in your mind that is similar to the one that exists in mine. If the communication was perfect the two targets would be identical.
The bottom line is that each designed object is the result of a process that has at its heart an input that is the result of the non-algorithmic process of cognition (the target). The tee shirt equation would look like this
CSI=NCF
Complex Specified Information is the result of a noncomputable function. If the core of the design process (CSI) is non-computable then the process in its entirety can not be completely described algorithmically,
This insight immediately suggests a way to objectively determine if an object is the result of design. Simply put if an algorithmic process can fully explain an object then it is not designed. I think this is a very intuitive conclusion, I would argue that humans are hardwired to tentatively infer design for processes that we can’t fully explain in a step by step manner. The better we can explain an object algorithmically the weaker our design inference becomes. If we can completely explain it in this way then design is ruled out.
At some point I hope to describe some ways that we can be more objective in our determinations of whether an object/event can be fully explained algorithmically but as there is a lot of ground covered here so I will put it off for a bit. There are also several questions that will need to be addressed before this approach can be justifiably adopted generally such as how comprehensive an explanation must be to rule out design or conversely when we can be confident that no algorithmic explanation is forthcoming.
If possible I would like to explore these in the future perhaps in the comments section. It will depend on the tenor of feed back I receive.
peace
Patrick says,
I say,
That is what my method purports to do.
If a string represents a designed object then an observer should always be able to distinguish it from one produced by an an algorithm when the two strings are close
peace
Neil Rickert asks,
I say,
I expect it to describe the patterns in the string in such a way as enable an observer to reproduce and expand them with out reference to the actual steps of the algorithm.
At least that is my tentative expectation
peace
In what geometry?
fifthmonarchyman,
But what about when the algorithm produces the designed string?
What if an algorithm produces a grammatically correct version of a designed string that contains spelling and grammar errors?
Your claim is:
I don’t think you’ve proven that by any stretch. I’ll try to think of a simpler example, but off the top of my head consider the genetic algorithms that create antenna designs. The target is most definitely not in the algorithm, because it is not known. Nonetheless, the GA produces a useful antenna design.
fifthmonarchyman,
By the way, I’m interested in your response to this question I posed:
Patrick says,
I say,
I don’t think the algorithm does explain the artifact. this is because an observer can’t reproduce and expand the string with out referencing the actual steps of the algorithm.The relevant step in this case is the target Pi
peace
fifthmonarchyman: I expect it to describe the patterns in the string in such a way as enable an observer to reproduce and expand them with out reference to the actual steps of the algorithm.
How do you find the decimal expansion of Pi without an algorithm?
In mathematics, the infinite series for Pi are tautologically equivalent to Pi. They are Pi.
NR says,
I say,
What is the target that the GA is seeking?
peace
The antenna GA isn’t seeking anything.
against my better judgement and everything that I believe about fruitful dialogue
zac says
I say,
let me know when you can describe the difference between “the algorithm” and “an algorithm”. This would go along way toward convincing me that you are truly interested in discussion.
peace
petrushka says,
I say,
Then it does not explain anything by definition. The same way shuffling a deck of playing cards does not explain a royal flush,
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Let me try this more abstractly.
1. There exists a string S that explains, by your definition, an artifact A.
2. S is of finite length.
3. An algorithm G can generate S.
4. G, by your definition, therefore “explains” A.
Do you agree that S is logically possible?
If so, do you agree that a logically possible S can be of finite length?
If so, why wouldn’t G explain A?
Sure it does. The word seeking is simply doesn’t apply to GAs. Except as an informal metaphor.
fifthmonarchyman,
It doesn’t have a target. It has a fitness function that models the behavior of the antenna and the GA rewards designs that have certain characteristics relative to other designs.
Does a description of the GA explain the antenna? If not, why not?
Patrick says,
I don’t think S can be a finite length . That is partially what I am getting at when I talk about cognition being non computable. There is no finite string that can explain an artifact.
This is definitely some abstract thinking
PS
Thank you for the interaction I appreciate it
Patrick says,
What are the characteristics and what are the other designs of?
peace
Try something simpler to define. The traveling salesman problem. The selector is a single number, but there is no target. One can easily set up a set of points to be traversed to which there is no knowable solution. There is a solution, but it cannot be reached within the life of the universe.
And yet a simple GA can incrementally improve the number.
5th: in what geometry are you asserting that pi can be defined as a string of digits?
petrushka
Yea that is the deal with all algorithms they are forever approaching the target but never quite getting there,
peace
petrushka says
When did I claim that Pi could be defined as a string of digits? My entire point is that Pi can not be defined by any finite string
peace
Then what’s the point of a string comparison? Why not take a useful finite string like a genome and ask if it can be reached by evolution?
I’m trying to see if an algorithm can explain a string if it can then then the string does not represent a designed object.
I have taken a string representing a DNA sequence and compared it to one that was close to the original but produced by an EA .
I can distinguish between the two.
I’m curious if this result can be generalized
peace
What happens when you compare genomes from distant relatives. Can you tell if the differences are designed? That is the question posed by common descent.
Can you distinguish coding from non coding DNA, or from regulatory DNA? Can you Infer the reason why some species of onions have genomes four times as long as others?
The only question of interest to biology is whether evolution can account for the similarities and differences among organisms. Unless you have something to say about this, I don’t see any point to your post.
fifthmonarchyman,
So there is no way anything I say to you would ever constitute an explanation, by this definition?
I can tell them difference between actual weather and algorithmically produced predictions of weather. What does this have to do with design?
Patrick says,
I say,
Only the target would count as an explanation of a designed object under this definition.
This suggests an objective way of distinguishing between objects that are designed and those that are not
peace
petrushka asks,
Not a lot unless there is something about the weather that you believe needs to be explained. In other words does it have a target?
Targets are where the actions is and algorithms are not helpful at all in explaining them.
peace
Once again, if there is any possible finite string that counts as an explanation under your definition then it can be algorithmically generated.
If there is no finite string that counts as an explanation under your definition then nothing counts as an explanation because at some point communication must be bounded.
fifthmonarchyman,
And now we need an operational definition of “target”. I have the distinct impression that this is going to end up being circular.
Evolution and GAs also do not have targets. So what point do you have?
Patrick says.
I say,
Could you elaborate
Pi counts as an explanation for the string 3.14159 and it is not by any means finite. Pi is also obviously a concept that can be communicated.
peace
Patrick says,
From the OP
quote:
cognition can be seen as lossless data compression in which information is integrated in a non-algorithmic process. The output of this process is a unified coherent whole abstract concept that from here forward I will refer to as a specification/target.
end quote:
and/or
quote:
The target plays no role in what constitutes a search; rather, the target only features in the context of measuring the active information in a search. The target is effectively the measuring stick. The choice of target is arbitrary, and I could have as easily chosen cities, paintings, beetles, cows, volcanoes, mountains, lakes, or crystals. The same conclusion applies to all of them: they show up far more often than chance would lead us to expect.
end quote:
Winston Ewert
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
So if I say “Pi” to you, that’s an explanation but if an algorithm outputs the string “Pi” it isn’t?
fifthmonarchyman,
You’ve defined “target” such that it can only be the result of a “non-algorithmic process.” That’s not how most people use the term.
That’s fine, if unnecessarily confusing and prone to equivocation. However, you haven’t demonstrated that the words you’re using in this paragraph have any real world referents.
I think you’ve gotten too far ahead of yourself. If you start with observations followed by hypotheses you might end up with something understandable and defensible. At this point it looks more like trying to define your conclusion into existence.
I’ll work on getting you longer strings this afternoon.
If
counts as an explanation for 3.14159, then both 3.141591 and 3.141597 should both count. Moreover, note that “3.14159”, considered as a hexadecimal number, is not even a good approximation of 
.
You talk of an “objective way of distinguishing between objects that are designed”. But your way of distinguishing seems understandable only by you, and that suggests that it is highly subjective.
Patrick says,
I say the algorithm does not output the string PI it outputs a an approximation of Pi that is only good for a finite number of digits.
peace
Patrick says,
If the paper in the OP is correct then a “target” can not be the result of an algorithmic process.
If your software is successful in integrating information in the strings as well as humans do then this claim will be falsified. I would think.
you say,
I say,
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that you would like proof that a particular target was the result of non-algorithmic processes? If so that is what the paper in the OP is all about.
Peace
fifth,
“the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter” is a finite string, easily produced by an algorithm. This contradicts your claim:
fifthmonarchyman,
What if the algorithm outputs the string “Pi”? How is that any less of an explanation than me saying “Pi” to you?
fifthmonarchyman,
I don’t think that necessarily follows from the paper. Can you fill in the missing steps?
In any case, reaching that as a conclusion is different from making it a definition. You said:
That means “target” is defined to not come from an algorithmic process.
That’s not how I read the paper. Please provide citations from it to make your point.
What I mean about real world referents is that you have failed to take into account the fact that memory is lossy and that the assertion in the paper:
is exactly opposite to what is observed in real memories.
I think perhaps 5th means that people can hold the concept of pi and the concept is lossless. What I fail to see is how the definitional of pi for an arbitrary geometry is different from an algorithm or representation that can produce correct digits of pi indefinitely.
Patrick, to fifth:
Likewise, what if the algorithm produces the string “the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter”? How is that any less of an “explanation” when an algorithm produces it than when Patrick says it?
Patrick says,
I say,
What? I don’t understand. Are you actually saying that the more times you recall something the more that particular memory decays? Really?
That is not my experience at all.
For me It’s the memories that I don’t bring to mind often that seem to degrade over time. Are you saying your experience is the opposite of that.
I highly doubt that is the case
peace
Patrick says,
I say,
The algorithm does not output the string Pi. Not all of it anyway,
It can’t in a finite universe. That is precisely what it means to say that Pi is transcendental.
peace
Keiths said
really?
from here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
quote:
Being an irrational number, Pi cannot be expressed exactly as a common fraction, although fractions such as 22/7 and other rational numbers are commonly used to approximate Pi. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern.
end quote:
peace
People are notoriously bad judges of their own memory recall.
Neil Rickert says,
I say,
My way of distinguishing is very simple and highly understandable. I would venture to bet that anyone who gives it a try can figure it out in very short order.
The difficulty is not in the method itself it’s with the grounding of the method. One of the reasons I am here is to see if the premises that ground the method are understandable by critics.
The jury is still out but the questions I’m getting from several folks right now make me think that they are beginning to get what I’m saying.
peace
petrushka says,
though I haven’t looked it it up I would be willing to bet studies would support my view that constantly recalling something is less likely to make a memory degrade than never bringing it to mind.
peace
edit
check it out
http://www.human-memory.net/processes_consolidation.html
A quick check of the science appears to support my and the paper’s understanding.