Design as the Inverse of Cognition

     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

923 thoughts on “Design as the Inverse of Cognition

  1. Patrick says,

    How is this different from just randomizing bits in the string until the Hamming distance is equal to 0.2 * length?

    I say,

    I’m not a programer but a quick Google check seems to confirm that the concepts are equivalent for our proposes . I would need to study to be sure.

    You say,

    And again, what exactly does it model?

    If by “it” you mean the evolved copy it models the original string

    Peace

  2. fifthmonarchyman:
    The question is whether what is happening when I “learn” the specification/target of a numeric string is what the paper is talking about. I think it is and I think I could make a good argument to that effect.

    I scanned the paper in OP for the word “learn”. Not found. So no, I don’t think you can make a good argument to that effect.

  3. Erick says,

    I scanned the paper in OP for the word “learn”. Not found. So no, I don’t think you can make a good argument to that effect

    I say,

    So you believe that because the paper does not use the actual word “learn” it is not talking about learning?

    Is this the sort of in-depth analysis I can expect for you?

    geez

    from here……….

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognition

    cognition : conscious mental activities : the activities of thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering

    peace

  4. fifthmonarchyman:
    Erick says,

    I say,

    Soyou believe that because the paper does not use the actual word “learn” it is not talking about learning?

    Is this the sort of in-depth analysisI can expect for you?

    geez

    You could actually have given the good argument you said you had. To remind you, since you keep mentioning “learning”, I wanted to see if your pre-prepared material has any relevance to learning. Evidently it hasn’t.

    Or if it has, then give the argument. Your words were, “The question is whether what is happening when I “learn” the specification/target of a numeric string is what the paper is talking about. I think it is and I think I could make a good argument to that effect.”

  5. fifthmonarchyman:
    JonF says

    I’m not using anynon-standard terms as far as I can tell.

    If you think I’m using a term in a nonstandard way please provide the standard definition and where you think I deviate from it.That is how conversations work

    Start with “losslessly integrating”. AFAIK there is not “standard” definition. What tests to we do to determine of a system is integrating (to me that means it is incorporating something into something else, or evaluating an integral), and what tests do we apply to determine if a system is losslessly integrating?

    {ABE} I see you have been asked to supply an operational definition for “explain” in the context of explaining an object. You have not tried to provide one. So that’s another one for you.

  6. Erik says,

    You could actually have given the good argument you said you had.

    I say,

    I think you have misunderstood my purpose here. I’m not trying to convince any one of anything. What I want to do is tidy up my own ideas. I don’t really care to have a debate about this stuff right now I just want to see if the other side can understand where I’m coming from and in the process get some idea of the loose ends in my method.

    I’m pretty sure I could establish that what I’m doing when I learn the pattern that is present in the string is what the authors of the first paper are talking about. If you don’t want to go to the effort of understanding any of this that is fine with me. But I’m not going to spoon feed information to you right now.

    JonF says,

    What tests to we do to determine of a system is integrating

    and
    What tests do we apply to determine if a system is losslessly integrating?

    I say,

    Apparently like Erick you don’t have the time to actually follow along with the discussion and would like a short cut. That’s fine I guess.

    Perhaps I’ll get around to putting all of this in a summery some day but before I can do that I want to see what work I need to do.

    peace

  7. Patrick says,

    You have not yet provided an operational definition for “explained” that both excludes algorithms and does not recurse to “a human thought of it.”

    I say,

    I did a lot of thinking about this today and I believe I understand what you are missing. But to help me be sure would you answer a question for me?

    Where exactly does the concept of Pi exist in your opinion? Is it in the human mind or someplace else?

    Your answer will clear a lot of this up and help me to phrase my definition in a way that you can understand

    peace

  8. Hey Patrick,

    I also did some thinking about your take on the financial paper and I think I see something you are missing there as well.

    The authors are not saying that humans are different than computers because they can distinguish between a real string and one produced by a particular randomization process. Their claim is that we can always tell the difference with feed back.

    That is why there were two different games in the study each with a different randomization process. When playing one game you see one particular feature that distinguishes the strings. The real one has more spikes for example.

    But then if you randomize in a different way you will see another feature entirely. The point is we can always tell the difference no matter how you choose to randomize.

    To capture this effect with the test you proposed you would need to repeat your steps 1-6 for every conceivable randomization process not just one.

    peace

  9. [latexpage]

    fifthmonarchyman: Where exactly does the concept of Pi exist in your opinion? Is it in the human mind or someplace else?

    I’m obviously not Patrick, but I’ll give my response anyway.

    The concept of $\pi$ is in the human mind. Concepts are mental things. But perhaps you meant to ask about the number $\pi$.

    Platonists would say that $\pi$ exists in a platonic reality. I am not a platonist. It is sometimes useful to talk of $\pi$ as if it exists, but it really doesn’t exist in any ordinary sense of the word “exist”.

  10. Neil Rickert says,

    Platonists would say that pi exists in a platonic reality. I am not a platonist. It is sometimes useful to talk of pi as if it exists, but it really doesn’t exist in any ordinary sense of the word “exist”.

    I say,

    Dang,

    I thought that is what you guys might say. As a platonist I have no problem with the idea that Pi really exists independent of the human mind. It’s self evidently true in my worldview

    Apparently when I speak of “explain” as meaning something like “describe the target” folks from your side of the isle automatically assume that a target must be either a physical thing or exist only in the human brain.

    It would never occur to me to limit myself so that only those two buckets were available.

    I will have to think some more about how to define “explain” in a way that even you poor handicapped non platonists will be able to get.

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman: Apparently when I speak of “explain” as meaning something like “describe the target” folks from your side of the isle automatically assume that a target must be either a physical thing or exist only in the human brain.

    I’m not actually insisting on any such restrictions. I’m simply having trouble understanding what you mean by “explain”, particularly in light of what else you have said on the topic.

    It looks from here that if we think we completely understand what you mean by “explain”, and we give an example to illustrate that, then it is almost certain that you will say that we have it wrong.

  12. Ok here is my first attempt at a slightly more wordy operational definition for the philosophically handicapped.

    Explain- 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.

    This is a first draft so by all means ask clarifying questions if you don’t understand

    peace

  13. Neil Rickert says,

    It looks from here that if we think we completely understand what you mean by “explain”, and we give an example to illustrate that, then it is almost certain that you will say that we have it wrong.

    It’s possible that will be the case. However it might help me to see where I’m not being clear so I can modify my definition.

    On the other hand I might completely agree with what you say. You never know till you give it a go.

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: Explain- 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.

    Given any finite string, there are infinitely many patterns that it could be said to contain. At least as I understand it, that’s the basis for Wittgenstein’s “impossibility of following a rule.”

  15. Neil Rickert says,

    Given any finite string, there are infinitely many patterns that it could be said to contain. At least as I understand it, that’s the basis for Wittgenstein’s “impossibility of following a rule.”

    I say,

    I guess I’ll be reading up on some Wittgenstein.

    A big part of what I’m saying is based on the idea that you and I can agree that a particular shape is a circle and not a triangle. I hope we don’t have to give that up sort of common ground.

    peace

  16. Hey Neil Rickert,

    Just a quick question for clarification

    Are you saying that there is no way to say that the evolved images in this study are not equivalent to the recognizable objects themselves? And therefore we can’t say the deep neural networks were fooled?

    http://www.evolvingai.org/fooling

  17. fifthmonarchyman: Are you saying that there is no way to say that the evolved images in this study are not equivalent to the recognizable objects themselves? And therefore we can’t say the deep neural networks were fooled?

    It’s hard to say if they were fooled, without a definition of “fooled”.

    I did not look closely at that study. I’m pretty sure that the way perception works is very different from the way that typical neural networks programs work.

    On the other hand, human perception can be fooled. There are such things as optical illusions.

  18. Neil Rickert says,

    I’m pretty sure that the way perception works is very different from the way that typical neural networks programs work.

    I say,

    I’m telling you we are on the same page here!!!
    It’s this difference that might possibly provide a way forward in the ID swamp.

    If folks like us can agree on stuff it’s gives you hope that at last cats and dogs can live in harmony.

    you say,

    On the other hand, human perception can be fooled. There are such things as optical illusions.

    I say,

    I could not agree more. But we humans are fooled in very different ways than neural networks are. That is the point!!!

    As the study says we look at the entire global structure of an object while neural networks look at small distinguishing features like the color of individual pixels for example.

    That is what you would expect from an algorithmic lossy data compression verses a non lossy one like we employ.

    Switching gears to design, suppose the skynet neural network was programed to produce an army of terminators based only on what it saw in objects that it had recognized in 80’s Sci-fi flicks.

    Odds are very high that they would only succeed in producing amorphous abstract stainless steel art pieces. Because that is what you get when you start with a lossy data compression garbage in garbage out.

    Again If I’m correct it’s that difference that might possibly allow us to distinguish design from non-design.

    peace

  19. Somehow I doubt that “design”, considered abstractly, can be reliably detected. I think of the alien that leaves, well, something on your doorstep. You’ve never seen anything like it before – maybe the alien defecated, maybe it’s the alien’s lunch, or the alien’s spaceship, or the alien itself. With no background information at all, how could you tell?

    I think the conceptual error here is in thinking of “design” as a thing rather than as a process. What we call “designs” are the outputs of design processes. To identify them, we need to know at least something about the process itself. Otherwise, we could simply say that everything that causes any changes is a design process, and therefore everything we see is a design.

  20. fifthmonarchyman: But we humans are fooled in very different ways than neural networks are.

    I’m sure this is true.

    AI is typically trying to implement something along the lines of Marr’s theory of vision. In particular that is a form of indirect perception or representationalist perception. In my opinion, Gibson’s theory of direct perception is a more likely explanation of how we do it. The kind of error in that neural network research is about what I would expect from attempts at indirect perception, but I would not expect that kind of error with Gibson’s approach. (I’m sure you can find Wikipedia entries for J.J. Gibson and for David Marr).

    That is what you would expect from an algorithmic lossy data compression verses a non lossy one like we employ.

    I’m not seeing where this comes in. I doubt that our brains are doing any kind of compression.

    Switching gears to design, suppose the skynet neural network was programed to produce an army of terminators based only on what it saw in objects that it had recognized in 80’s Sci-fi flicks.

    LOL. That’s probably a good way of describing what AI sees as required for vision. I cannot imagine that a brain would be “designed” for that. The brain has to solve a very different kind of problem.

  21. Flint says,

    With no background information at all, how could you tell?

    I say,

    If I’m correct we have background information. That is what I’m discussing here,

    Cognition is nonlossly non algorithmic information integration. That is true whether the integrater is me or a being from the planet Melmac.

    By the same token design is simply the inverse of cognition. Again this is true whether the designer is me or a Klingon house wife.

    Keep in mind this is more than philosophical rumination on my part. I believe I have a test that can reliably distinguish between designed things and those that are not. I’ve even tried it and so far it works as advertised.

    Time will tell if I’m all wet about generalizing the idea.

    peace

  22. Neil Rickert says

    I’m not seeing where this comes in. I doubt that our brains are doing any kind of compression.

    I say,

    If you don’t like the word compression think about it as information integration.

    As shown in the video we integrate vast amounts of diverse information into a united undifferentiated singular idea called “how to ride a bike”. for example.

    So that changing just one small part of the component information makes the entire idea collapse in on itself.

    Peace

  23. Neil Rickert says,

    The kind of error in that neural network research is about what I would expect from attempts at indirect perception, but I would not expect that kind of error with Gibson’s approach.

    I say,

    perhaps you are right. and computers are in theory capable of integrating information as we are discussing here. If that is the case then I see no obstacle to them designing stuff as well.

    When they do we will be able to distinguish their designs from the output of algorithmic processes if my method is correct.

    At that point we will have to think deeply about what it really means to be a conscious person.

    That is a discussion for another time though.

    As it stands computers are not even close to thinking like us and this won’t change without a vastly different approach to how they accomplish their tasks.

    peace

  24. fifthmonarchyman:
    I think you have misunderstood my purpose here. I’m not trying to convince any one of anything. What I want to do is tidy up my own ideas. I don’t really care to have a debate about this stuff right now I just want to see if the other side can understand where I’m coming from and in the process get some idea of the loose ends in my method.

    You are actually misunderstanding your own purpose here. You are here to tidy up your ideas. This much I grant you. But we are debating over very fundamental matters here. We are not just debating the loose ends of your method, but whether it is a method in the first place. Your ideas are profoundly untidy and you are directly refusing to tidy them up.

  25. Erick says,

    We are not just debating the loose ends of your method, but whether it is a method in the first place.

    I say,

    So that I know you are up to speed please give a quick summery of what you believe I’m talking about.

    Including the highlights of the method Ive proposed

    Thanks in advance

    peace

  26. fifthmonarchyman: If you don’t like the word compression think about it as information integration.

    I don’t think we do that, either.

    As shown in the video we integrate vast amounts of diverse information into a united undifferentiated singular idea called “how to ride a bike”. for example.

    This presupposes that we start with “disintegrated” information and then need to integrate it. It’s hard to imagine how that could ever evolve. It looks like irreducible complexity on steroids.

    It seems to me that our brains are collecting the information that they need in the way that they need it. The isn’t any integration of information, because the collecting of needed information has already put the information where it is needed.

  27. Neil Rickert says,

    It looks like irreducible complexity on steroids.

    Funny you should say that. Here is the wikipedia definition of Integrated Information

    Quote:

    In a system composed of connected “mechanisms” (nodes containing information and causally influencing other nodes), the information among them is said to be integrated if and to the extent that there is a greater amount of information in the repertoire of a whole system regarding its previous state than there is in the sum of the all the mechanisms considered individually. In this way, integrated information does not increase by simply adding more mechanisms to a system if the mechanisms are independent of each other.

    end quote:

    That sure sounds like irreducible complexity to me.

    You say,

    It’s hard to imagine how that could ever evolve.

    I say,

    That does not seem to be a good reason to reject IIT, Perhaps it’s our understanding of evolution will need to evolve in light of this new understanding.

    IIT has already lead to new practical insights into things like anesthesia awareness and locked in syndrome that have alluded scientists for years.

    It is not going away.

    You say,

    It seems to me that our brains are collecting the information that they need in the way that they need it. The isn’t any integration of information, because the collecting of needed information has already put the information where it is needed.

    The brain’s collecting of information into one repository is just another way of saying integration. We start with diverse inputs and integrate them into a unified singular thing. As conscious agents it’s what we do.

    To quote from the paper

    quote:
    The implications of this proof are that we have to abandon either the idea that people enjoy genuinely unitary consciousness or that brain processes can be modelled computationally.
    end quote:

    This is profound stuff indeed.

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman: The brain’s collecting of information into one repository is just another way of saying integration. We start with diverse inputs and integrate them into a unified singular thing.

    I doubt that the brain is doing that.

    As conscious agents it’s what we do.

    I don’t think so.

    Sure, I may record data in a computer or in a notebook. And that fits. But that’s going on outside the brain. It’s not what I am doing when just looking around and/or thinking.

    This is profound stuff indeed.

    You may believe that. I think it is bunkum.

  29. fifthmonarchyman,

    JonF
    What tests to we do to determine of a system is integrating
    . . .
    What tests do we apply to determine if a system is losslessly integrating?

    Apparently like Erick you don’t have the time to actually follow along with the discussion and would like a short cut. That’s fine I guess.

    That’s hardly a short cut, it’s two questions that are essential understanding what you are talking about. Without those operational definitions your words are literally nonsense (without meaning).

    Can you provide the tests JonF requested?

  30. fifthmonarchyman,

    You have not yet provided an operational definition for “explained” that both excludes algorithms and does not recurse to “a human thought of it.”

    I did a lot of thinking about this today and I believe I understand what you are missing. But to help me be sure would you answer a question for me?

    Where exactly does the concept of Pi exist in your opinion? Is it in the human mind or someplace else?

    Your answer will clear a lot of this up and help me to phrase my definition in a way that you can understand

    It seems to me that if you can’t clearly and unambiguously define a term that appears to be central to your argument then you haven’t really thought that argument through very well. Nonetheless, I’ll play along.

    The Merriam Webster definition of “concept” is:
    1. something conceived in the mind
    2. an abstract of generic idea generalized from particular instances
    Given those two options, it’s clear that any concept exists in human minds (and perhaps some animals, although I suspect dolphins are more naturally wired for three-dimensional geometry), by definition.

    If you’re actually asking “Where does Pi exist?” I could say that it’s in the mind of whatever beings understand sufficient mathematics or I could say that it exists in the circumference of every unit circle.

    Why do you ask?

    ETA: I just saw, and agree with, Neil Rickert’s response.

  31. Explain- 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 does an algorithm that produces the exact string not meet this criteria? How is it any different from reading the same string in a book or hearing it spoken aloud?

  32. A big part of what I’m saying is based on the idea that you and I can agree that a particular shape is a circle and not a triangle.

    Circles and triangles are well-defined. If we use the same definitions, we can reach agreement.

    I’m not sure what this has to do with whatever you are trying to communicate when you use the word “explain”.

  33. Neil Rickert says,

    You may believe that. I think it is bunkum.

    I say

    opinions are like bellybuttons everyone’s got one.

    What is important is
    Are our ideas fruitful?
    Do they make testable predictions?
    Do they help us to understand the world?
    Do they shed light on other ideas?

    When it comes the IIT the answer to all those questions is heck yes. Can your understanding say that?

    If you are interested here is a Philosophical article on the unity of consciousness.

    check it out

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-unity/

    peace

  34. I believe I have a test that can reliably distinguish between designed things and those that are not. I’ve even tried it and so far it works as advertised.

    Your repition of this claim is quite timely. Here are six strings of bits. Between zero and six are designed. The remainder, if any, are not. Which are which, and why?

    A)
    110100111001011001011010010000001000100110010101010000001010001110001000100001010100000010010110100110011000100110000101100101011010001101000000101001101000100010000101100101010100000010100011100010001000010101000000100001111001100110000001100000111000100110010110101001001010001001000000100100111000100110000111100010001010001101000000110100111000100110000110101000111010001001000000101001001001011101000000100010001000100110100010010000001000001010100100100110011001010110001001100101011000011101000000100010001000010110000001100001000110101101000000100001011000000110000011100010000100000010100100100101011000010010000101100110010100000010000101101010001000010101000000110001001001011010100011100010000100000010001000100101101001010010000001100001111000010101000000101000111001011001000000100010001000100110100010010000001001010110000101101001100110000010000001100101111001011110000101100000011001100110001001100101011000011101000000101000101000100110000111100010001010001101101011010000001110001010000101

    B)
    111110111111001101100010011110000001011101000101010001001110001101010000010010011000111000011011001100110110101111110001100111000111000110001000110000111111100111000010011100001110011011110010010001110110010000001001001100001110111100110010001100001000001010010110001001111010000100000011001110001011001100100101101111111001101011111101001110010010100000010111111110011010111010101110001000001100001111110001111100110001101011100100011100001000111111110011011110001010101011011000100011000111101110101111110101001111011001101100001011011000100111011010100111110110110000011100110000101000101011111100111111110001001100100011111011110011100010100011001000110010010101111111110101110011001010001110011101010111000101000101110010000111111010111000111111101010010001001010010111101011010001011100000011011100010111111011001101000101010010101100101010001010111101110111000010111100001100010110111110010010111111011001011010110011111000010011100101110000100111101110000101101010101011001000000110111100011111011010

    C)
    010010000110111101110111001000000110010001101111001000000100100100100000011011000110111101110110011001010010000001110100011010000110010101100101001111110010000001001100011001010111010000100000011011010110010100100000011000110110111101110101011011100111010000100000011101000110100001100101001000000111011101100001011110010111001100101110001000000100100100100000011011000110111101110110011001010010000001110100011010000110010101100101001000000111010001101111001000000111010001101000011001010010000001100100011001010111000001110100011010000010000001100001011011100110010000100000011000100111001001100101011000010110010001110100011010000010000001100001011011100110010000100000011010000110010101101001011001110110100001110100001000000100110101111001001000000111001101101111011101010110110000100000011000110110000101101110001000000111001001100101011000010110001101101000001011000010000001110111011010000110010101101110001000000110011001100101011001010110110001101001011011100110011100100000011011110111010101110100

    D)
    001110011001011111100010011000000101001011111101100101001010011001011110100010101001110001000101100010100111101101110110011110010110100110010010010110101110101101100010101001011001011110011110011001001110101101101001011110000101011101100000100101100000101001111110010010100101100110101101101001001001011001111001000001101110001101000001100000001001101001110001010001010110101110010010101110100010100101100000101110001110101001111111110101101011001001000010101110110001011110001110010110101101101001001001011101100101101001001101100110010101101001100110011010101101101110010110011110010110100001000101101010011001011110010110001110101001001110110110001110011101101001011001101110011101100001101001100101101001011001100101011101100001101001000010101001101010001110011001100101100000100001111010101110010110001110100001101001010110000110001101000001010110011101000010011001010001010110001101001001100000010111011101100001101101101001001101011001110110001101000011101001011110011101000110101101101001011001101001

    E)
    001000001010101000000001100100011101110010011000110100011110000011001010111000011100101101001110111100001011110010010111100100001000001111010110011111100011011010001010011001100100001000010001010011101000111011011010111100100011010100000001000001001010110001011100000011101101011000111111010011000001110111110100110111100010001010010111100110011111001111000101101100010001101011111011011100000101101000011100111111111011001011000100010110100111101101010110101101001010000110001000101111111001110010000110100011011000101001011110101011101110010010100001010011110110110001001110010100011000000110001100100101001011100110011011110110110110010100110010011101011010101011100110001010100000000001110010001111101110010001111011101101111001110011011010001000000011110010001011101001110110011001000010100000111010010000110010000101100111101100010011110100010001110011110010010111011011100010010000100111001101011110110101100000101110100111110011101010110011001110101101110111010010001000001101011101000011101000000011

    F)
    001000010110000101111101001101010111001001111100110101001101001000110010110001100101001101010110001000101100001000110100110101110000001111001100011000011101010000010101110100101101110100100100011100010000011111000011000011010100011011010110011001111101001100100000010011000001010101100000010100111100010100110000110011011101110001010011110000000010011011000011011100100110001100010001010000000101010011011100001100010110110000001100010101110001001000111100001100100000010101010110010000001101001011000110011001010000110101110111000001111100001100110010000101000011011100100111110101100000110000010011110001101100000100010001010001100111000000111100011000010000001101000000000111010010110001110011000100010000011101110111110101010110011001010011001111010110110011010111011011010010000000101100000111010101011001100011110011000001000011010100011101010101011111010010001001100110010100010011110001100100011101010110110000110010001001001100010101001100001000010101011100110100000100110000000111010000110100010110

  35. Patrick,

    I will give your strings a go but remember they are well below the 500 character threshold that I usually ask for. My method is only as good as the resolution of the measurement and the longer string the better. I mentioned all this earlier in the thread you must have missed it

    I’ll get to the rest of your questions tomorrow as well family time and all

    peace

  36. fifthmonarchyman: Discovering a way that computers could automatically and reliably distinguish between actual financial data and randomized copies of that same data would allow us to make a fortune in the stock market. So by all means give it a go.

    Benfords Law. Next?

  37. fifthmonarchyman: What is important is
    Are our ideas fruitful?
    Do they make testable predictions?
    Do they help us to understand the world?
    Do they shed light on other ideas?

    When it comes the IIT the answer to all those questions is heck yes. Can your understanding say that?

    Yes, it can.

    If you are interested here is a Philosophical article on the unity of consciousness.

    I took a look. So that’s what “unity of consciousness” is supposed to mean. I guess I had never thought to look that up before now.

    Sure, I can see why that might seem a problem for people who have a very mechanistic idea of what the brain is doing. But that’s not my view. I see the brain as adaptive throughout.

    As best I can tell, IIT is looking at the brain as a syntactic engine. I am looking at it as a semantic engine. If two external signals carry similar semantic information, the brain should treat them similarly. It doesn’t matter if the signals are detected by different sensory modes.

    Nagel asked “what is it like to be a bat?”. But the bat’s sonar system is picking up the same kind of spatial information that we get with vision. So the bat’s experience of that should be similar to our visual experience. That the bat uses its ears rather than its eyes should be of little importance.

  38. fffm:
    “In a system composed of connected “mechanisms” (nodes containing information and causally influencing other nodes), the information among them is said to be integrated if and to the extent that there is a greater amount of information in the repertoire of a whole system regarding its previous state than there is in the sum of the all the mechanisms considered individually. In this way, integrated information does not increase by simply adding more mechanisms to a system if the mechanisms are independent of each other.”

    That sure sounds like irreducible complexity to me.

    Sounds more like emergence to me

  39. fifthmonarchyman,

    “If I’m correct we have background information. That is what I’m discussing here”

    Yes. And the absolutely necessary background information is an understanding of the design process. Design is a process, not an object. If you are unable to describe the design process, you cannot identify any object designed using that process. You can’t really work backwards from a presumed designed object to determine the process – many different processes can produce a given object, and any given process can produce many objects. There’s no one-to-one mapping.

  40. fifthmonarchyman,

    I will give your strings a go but remember they are well below the 500 character threshold that I usually ask for.

    Do you expect or require the strings to be character strings? If that’s not a limitation, how many bits do you need?

  41. fifthmonarchyman,

    Discovering a way that computers could automatically and reliably distinguish between actual financial data and randomized copies of that same data would allow us to make a fortune in the stock market.

    I do a lot of work in the financial services industry and I don’t see why that would be the case. We routinely use Monte Carlo methods to generate price curves that are similar to observed market behavior. Both the actual and simulated curves are constrained in ways that randomized data is not.

    Everyone knows that, though, so there’s no competitive advantage.

  42. Patrick asks.

    Do you expect or required the strings to be character strings? If that’s not a limitation, how many bits do you need?

    I say.

    I’ve tried binary strings in my method and it seems to work although the length needs to be longer. I don’t have hard and fast limits. When dealing with character strings I’ve been going with a 500 minimum. How many bits is that?

    I really think the best way to establish these kinds of things is for more people to try the game for themselves and see what they think. I’ll say once again that I’d be happy to share my spreadsheet if you will let me know how to reach you.

    What would be really cool is if someone with some programing skill would code this into a shareable app so that anyone can use it.

    peace

  43. Patrick says,

    We routinely use Monte Carlo methods to generate price curves that are similar to observed market behavior. Both the actual and simulated curves are constrained in ways that randomized data is not.

    I say,

    Here is the cool thing I have discovered. When you compare your Monte Carlo method generated data against the real thing using “the game” you can always tell the difference with feed back. I find that to be amazing

    peace

  44. velikovskys says,

    Sounds more like emergence

    I say

    Possibly I expect we would need to define it though. If by emergence you mean “things emerge” then it would seem to be a little vacuous,

  45. fifthmonarchyman:
    Patrick asks.

    Do you expect or required the strings to be character strings? If that’s not a limitation, how many bits do you need?

    I say.

    I’ve tried binary strings in my method and it seems to work although the length needs to be longer. I don’t have hard and fast limits. When dealing with character strings I’ve been going with a 500 minimum. How many bits is that?

    That depends on what flavor of encoding you want to use. If it’s bog-standard ASCII, 1 character is 7 bits, and 500 characters is 3,500 bits; if it’s one of the more common “extended ASCII” codes, 1 character is 8 bits, and 500 characters is 4,000 bits; if it’s Unicode, things are more complicated, but one Unicode character is typically 16 bits, so 500 Unicode characters would be 8,000 bits.

    I really think the best way to establish these kinds of things is for more people to try the game for themselves and see what they think. I’ll say once again that I’d be happy to share my spreadsheet if you will let me know how to reach you.

    Do you have a Google account? If so, you could upload your spreadsheet to Google Drive, and let anyone who cares to download it from there.

  46. Patrick says

    How does an algorithm that produces the exact string not meet this criteria?

    I say,

    look at the following

    2.1415 + 1

    The algroythym does not help you to expand the digits of the string at all.
    But once you know that the string is Pi you can expand it all day. That is what I mean when II say the algorithm does not “explain” the string

    You say,

    How is it any different from reading the same string in a book or hearing it spoken aloud?

    I say,

    It does not matter in what medium you encounter a string.

    When we are talking about designed objects there is more information in the string than is present in the individual digits.

    8675309 is packed with information that 8475302 is not. That extra information includes the knowledge that when I dial the first string Jenny should answer.

    peace

  47. fifthmonarchyman: What would be really cool is if someone with some programing skill would code this into a shareable app so that anyone can use it.

    I have been preparing some strings, but from the developments so far it seems it may not be relevant. Nonetheless I will post them soon.

    In the meanwhile, if you can present a document that is a sufficiently detailed design to turn your spreadsheet/method into a browser based app then I can potentially do that.

  48. OMagain says,

    I have been preparing some strings, but from the developments so far it seems it may not be relevant.

    sorry to hear that

    Remember I told you so I said that you needed to understand some background first.

    In the meanwhile, if you can present a document that is a sufficiently detailed design to turn your spreadsheet/method into a browser based app then I can potentially do that.

    I’m going took into a Google account per cubist’s suggestion. Right now though work beckons.

    peace

  49. fifthmonarchyman,

    I really think the best way to establish these kinds of things is for more people to try the game for themselves and see what they think. I’ll say once again that I’d be happy to share my spreadsheet if you will let me know how to reach you.

    If your method really works, you should be able to tell me which, if any, of the six strings I provided are designed — and why you decided that. If you need longer bit strings, let me know.

Leave a Reply