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
I know
Even though I’m terrible at detail if I have a predefined method to an experiment I try to follow it. It helps later when I want to reproduce the results or understand what went wrong
peace
Patrick says,
I posted this very paragraph the first time you asked for a definition of “target” a coupe hundred comments ago and my very first post here was in a thread about active information. I’m not sure how you could have missed that.
Even if you did I think I have made it abundantly clear that targets are the result of non algorithmic processes.
I would hope we could agree that evolution is an algorithmic process.
Targets are the patterns that the observer learns and/or that the designer models.
When we look at the sweep of life we see patterns in the data. We often give these patterns names like “birds” or the “Cambrian explosion.”
Those patterns are where the action is they are what interest us and they can’t be explained by appeals to algorithmic processes.
peace
fifth,
In all of those cases you end up with a finite numeric string.
Take any finite numeric string, whether or not it is designed. Create a bunch of randomly modified copies of the string. Create line charts for all of them.
Can a human observer tell the difference between the chart of the original string and the chart of each of the copies? Yes, in all cases, because it’s always possible to zoom in to the point where the differences are obvious. Remember, you told us that the “zoom level” is not the kind of “resolution” you’re talking about, so we can vary it at will.
Your method will flag every finite string as designed. Where is the value in that?
fifth,
Let me state the obvious:
Even if you define “resolution” in a way that excludes the “zoom level”, you still have a problem. What’s the “correct” zoom level?
All you’ve done is to change the name of the problem from “the resolution problem” to “the zoom level problem”.
Not in the sense that you appear to define algorithmic.
Would you describe a drunkard’s walk as algorithmic?
ETA:
Let’s say you have a plant that scatters seeds. A few land on fertile ground and live to propagate. Most land nearby, and even if they propagate, they compete for resources.
Some of the ones that land at some distance scatter their seeds even further from the progenitor.
Is this an algorithm?
No. I could not agree with that.
Let’s say you go back after a thousand generations or so and map the locations where the plants are thriving.
Are those locations targets? Are they active information? Are they designed?
Just because evolution can be modeled (in some aspects) as an algorithm doesn’t mean evolution is an algorithm.
All analogies break down when extended.
Definitely when they are extended to prove a crank theory.
My seed analogy is an extended analogy, but I only intend it to illustrate the possibility that active information is not an indicator of design.
Perhaps another way of saying that:
Just because you can write algorithms that model or copy some aspects of biological evolution doesn’t mean that evolution is an algorithm or that it is limited by the rules of the model.
Just because you can design a search that models some aspects of evolution doesn’t mean that evolution is a search or that evolution has targets.
Just because molecules have attributes doesn’t mean the attributes are targets.
Guys.
Here is how I see it.
If evolution is not algorithmic and not teleological then it’s random. I don’t know what other choice there could possibly be.
If evolution is random then it’s explanatory utility is the equivalent of saying “we don’t know”.
What I’m I missing?
peace
That seems like a false dichotomy (or false trichotomy).
When it rains, the water run-off tends to flow down hill toward the river or creek. To me, that does not seem algorithmic, nor does it seem teleological. No doubt there are some random aspects, but the tendency to flow down hill does not seem random.
fifth,
An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem.
When a rock tumbles down the side of a mountain, is it following a step-by-step procedure? Is it solving a problem? No.
It’s not teleological, it’s not random, and it’s not algorithmic, though it can be simulated by an algorithm.
ETA: I see Neil and I are thinking in similar terms.
fifth,
In any case, your problem is much bigger than whether or not evolution is algorithmic.
You have a methodology that isn’t capable of distinguishing design from non-design.
keiths,
If I can tell which of the strings that were sent to me are designed will that change your mind?
What is it that “we don’t know”?
keiths:
fifth:
Your method doesn’t detect design; it simply detects whether the zoom level happens to be sufficient for distinguishing a line chart of the original string from those of the modified copies. For any pair of distinct strings, there is a zoom level at which this is possible. At that zoom level, your method will infer design whether or not the string is designed.
If you happen to get the answers right for OMagain’s and Patrick’s strings, I will suspect that either you got lucky or that you weren’t actually following the method you sketched out for us.
It’s clear that you understand the zoom level problem. You acknowledged it (though I’ll bet you wish you hadn’t):
That was a revealing admission. It means that you know your method doesn’t work, and that what it’s revealing is something about the zoom level, not whether the string in question is designed.
what ever it was that we appealed to “randomness” to explain
Peace
Keiths
I say
Zoom level is not an issue. My method like all methods is limited to the resolution of the measurement used.
It works the same way with locating extrasolar planets for example.We are limited by the resolution of our telescopes. If an astronomer had a method for detecting planets that was reliable but could not definitively rule out the existence of planets too small for his instruments to see. Would you call his approach a failure?
peace
Biologists believe mutations are uncorrelated with fitness. They mostly believe that most fixed alleles are the result of drift rather than selection. But every fixed allele has passed through the sieve of purifying selection. They cannot be strongly deleterious.
But most neutral mutation go extinct by drift. So the result of tens of thousands of generations is highly contingent. Rerun, the direction would not be the same. Is that what you mean by random?
fifthmonarchyman,
If I remember correctly, that is how you have defined “target”.
Rather than go down another rat hole, what is your operational definition of “algorithmic process”? I remember you discussing that with someone upthread.
Let’s keep that “and/or” in mind for a moment.
You have defined the word “target” to exclude algorithmic processes.
You have defined evolution as an algorithmic process.
You have defined “target” as a “pattern”, implying that patterns exclude algorithmic processes.
You have defined “pattern” as observer dependent.
You have finished by asserting that patterns can’t be explained by algorithmic processes.
Basically you’ve used a lot of idiosyncratic definitions to say some combination of “It looks designed to me.” and “I don’t see how this could have evolved.”
That’s not a compelling argument. Just to start with, the fact that an observer can model an observation as a pattern is not evidence that the observation is of a designed artifact.
fifth,
You just got through telling me that zoom level and resolution weren’t the same thing. Which is it?
It isn’t analogous.
All of the zoom levels are available to us. Line charts are produced by software, after all. Your method infers design at one zoom level but doesn’t at another. We want to know whether the string is designed, but your method is giving us information about the zoom level instead.
What good is a design detection method that can’t distinguish between design and non-design, or even help us to do so?
Keiths says,
I say,
When you zoom you just look at fewer data points at a time; Zooming will not allow you to infer design with all strings.
Zooming is NOT repeat NOT what I mean by resolution, Resolution is about measurement level not about zooming. I’m not sure how I can be more clear about this.
Resolution is not zooming
Resolution is about measuring by the inch verses by the foot.
If you tried the method for your self you would see this.
peace
PS I’m at 60 plus R squared with the big string, Should have it tomorrow then I’ll start on Patrick’s.
fifth,
Yes, it will. If the copies can always be distinguished from the original, you infer design. Zoom in on the right parts of the strings and you will be able to distinguish them. Therefore, you will always infer design, whether or not the original string is designed. It’s a fatal flaw.
I know. I’m the one who had to remind you of that, remember?
We’ve already been through this. I wrote:
If you want to be taken seriously, you’ll need to apply more discipline to your thinking. Less flailing, more consistency.
Patrick says,
I say,
My method depends on the understanding of cognition as a non-algorithmic process and design as the inverse of cognition.
If I was presenting an argument here the paper in the OP and my testable prediction about the Finical paper would be important to my conclusion.
First things first though. I need to button down some loose ends before I’m ready for the argument stage.You have been helpful in that regard. Thanks
You our latest statement seems to be associated with the problem of other minds. Perhaps we can discuss that sort of deep philosophical stuff later.
peace
Keiths says,
I say.
But you can’t always distinguish the copy from the original. If the original was produced by random or algorithmic processes you will be unable to distinguish it from a copy produced in the same way.
that is the point,
peace
fifth,
Not true. Any two strings that differ, even if only by a single bit, can be distinguished by an observer at the right zoom level regardless of how they were produced.
When you zoom in on that part of the line chart you will see the difference.
I’m eagerly waiting for the argument. I’d note that evolution run multiple times will result in different outcomes. That will be true whether it’s biology or a simulation.
Kudos Fifth for your tenacity, patience, diligence, and unflappable manner.
You are putting ID’s money where its mouth is.
Non-lossyedly, of course.
🙂
Oh? Then perhaps provide a summary of what’s happened so far and how that supports ID?
Keiths says,
I say,
yes the method is designed so that the strings will differ OMagain’s string will differ from the algorithmic copy in hundreds of places. The observer will not just need to say they are different he will need to say which one is the original. This will necessitate knowing the patterns and not the individual digits.
the observer only has about twenty guesses to tell which string is the original
In my method there is no way for a human to tell the original from a copy by looking at individual digits unless the observer knows what they are in advance.
OMagain’s string has 5000 characters there is no way for me to memorize them all and I would need to do just that in-order to pick it over the copy unless there are global patterns (targets) that mark it as designed.
peace
Hey Steve,
Thank you for that kind word. My long term goal is to see if we can move this discussion away from the same old culture war rut. Into some actual practical and interesting territory.
I think my idea has potential to do that but I don’t feel equipped yet to present it so that others can see what I see. Conversations like this one go along way to getting me there.
If nothing else they serve as motivation to dot the eyes and cross the tees
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
All of which requires operational definitions and supporting empirical evidence.
No, my last comment simply points out that, once we look at the definitions you’ve provided, what you are saying is indistinguishable from “It looks designed to me.” and “I don’t see how this could have evolved.”
I look forward to your results from the strings you’re investigating.
Ah, there’s your problem. I don’t know if there’s a single word for it, but evolution is none of those; it’s a combination of random and non-random elements.
Evolution incorporates random elements but is more than random.
You are missing the most basic possible understanding of evolution.
fifth,
That doesn’t help you. It’s easy to find a string that will fool your method.
Suppose you sample the intensity of solar radiation over a 24-hour period at a spot in the Atacama Desert. Plot your string. You’ll get a nice smooth curve with a recognizable shape, all due merely to the fact that the earth is rotating.
Now create randomly-modified copies of your string. The modifications will create large spikes and dips in the line chart. Your observer will easily identify the original as the one without the spikes and dips. Your method will infer design, and it will be wrong.
My last effort was ignored, so I will ask again. I will keep asking until it is answered.
given two strings — say protein coding sequences — that are related by descent, what would you expect to say about them?
Would you be able to tell which is the ancestor of the other? Would you be able to tell whether the changes are random, designed, sequentially evolved?
What if every character has been changed?
Keiths said
I say,
No
the observer will easily identify the original as the one without the spikes and dips and identify the original one as not random.
Then the the fun will begin. We are at only step one of the method. Next we have to create an algorithmic produced model that is close to the original then see if we pick the original from the model.
peace
petrushka says,
I don’t know Ive never compared strings related by decent
I don’t have any idea it would be interesting to find out
Then I’d guess that you could tell the two apart. We have to try it.
peace
JonF says.
If you can’t say what kind of process it is it becomes synonymous with “what ever happens”. If you say it’s not algorithmic and it’s not random and it’s not teleological. What is it???
If it has no definitional boundary how can we discuss it. You make it sound like it’s the Aether
correct, combined algorithmic
Random variation filtered by natural selection is an algorithm. Ever hear of evolutionary algorithms?
Right it incorporates random elements into the algorithmic process of natural selection. That is why the entire process can be characterized as algorithmic.
here is the step by step process
step one ( whatever/ fill in the blank/it does not matter)
step two (natural selection)
as long as you have a step two it does not matter what step one is
peace
edited to fix multiple blockquote errors
did I say I hate blockquotes?
Most evolutionary change is not due to adaptive selection. You can write algorithms that mimic evolution, but they are not biology. So far you have not presented anything remotely relevant to biology. If you have not yet tested your method on genomes, I must ask why.
petrushka says.
I agree. models are never reality. I’m not sure why that is relevant.
Because I don’t have access to many strings that represent genomic data AFAIK. I don’t particularly want to go to the trouble of acquiring them till I’m sure the method works for other strings I’m more familiar with. This is not primarily about evolution for me it’s about design detection.
peace
Genomic strings are easily available. You are the one who tried to label evolution as an algorithm. With each passing day you make less and less sense. Either that or the scope of your project has shrunk to the point it is no longer interesting.
Perhaps you could describe a real world scenario in which your method provides value. That’s the way to get people interested. Hypothetically, why would someone pay for your analysis?
All,
Here is my report concerning OMagain’s strings.
This was my first time investigating strings that were coded alphabetically and these were the longest strings I have looked at to date. This resulted in some interesting observations that I will share later. Once OMagain tells me if my conclusions are correct.
1) I was unable to reject the null in step one with the first string (the one that started with a K) this means that it is effectively random at this resolution
2) With the second string (the one that started with an L) I was able to reject the null in both step one and two. This means that the string is not random and can not be explained by algorithmic processes.
Therefore I conclude it is the product of design.
How did I do?
I’ll get to Patrick’s strings tomorrow
peace
Hey Patrick,
I see that your strings are in binary.
Although I’ve looked at binary strings before and I’m reasonably confident that my method will work with them. It was designed with base ten in mind. So it takes a bit longer to see the patterns when we are only looking at ones and zeros
It might speed the process if you had some regular numeric strings. I’m going to get started now regardless.
peace
Patrick,
your first string has the letters NIL imbedded from time to time among the zeros and ones is this a feature or a bug?
peace
petrushka asks.
I say.
I already use the method to evaluate the strength of various forecast models in my place of employment. It has replaced a much more subjective method that I used to use. So to some extent I’m already being payed for this. Though my boss does not the know details. He just knows I’m going with forecast model A verses model B because A does a better job of modeling what is actually happening .
I can think of lots of situations when it would be valuable to know whether a particular object or event is the result of design or non teleological processes. From archeology to insurance adjustments.
you say.
I say,
post a few here and I’ll run them through the method or better yet let me know how to contact you I’ll send you the spreadsheet and you can give it a go yourself. There is nothing magical about any of this it is a simple process
peace
Patrick says,
I disagree and I think you would too once you understood my reasoning. I think you would also see why objections of this sort boil down to the problem of other minds.
The explanation will take a bit so I would in the interest on not going down another rabbit trail right now ask you to put a pin in this objection. I promise to get too it later if you are still interested.
Peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I know you have posted the general outline of your approach previously. Just so it’s clear, could you detail step-by-step exactly what you did to reach those conclusions? How did you model the alphabetic strings to apply something like the finance game?
Thanks for all your effort.
fifthmonarchyman,
There’s a base converter here. If that doesn’t work for you, let me know.
fifthmonarchyman,
Bug. Give me a few and I’ll fix it.