Testing the claim that intentional mutations can be differentiated from nonintentional mutations

fifthmonarchyman has helpfully explained how we can detect intention for specific mutations:

No, I have suggested that humans are hardwired to infer that intentional things are non-random and non-algorithmic.

Therefore directly intentional mutations would be differentiated from those that would be categorized as nonintentional by this property.

Given that statement, I hope that fifthmonarchyman can give a demonstration of how to determine if specific mutations are directed or not.

So, fifthmonarchyman, can you walk us through the process of how you perform that differentiation? Or will you admit that this claim cannot be grounded in reality and that you nor anyone else cannot perform any such differentiation?

I can give some examples of fully sequenced mutations in human populations if that would be useful fifth? Or pick your own, it really does not matter as it’s more about the process then the specific mutation.

 

132 thoughts on “Testing the claim that intentional mutations can be differentiated from nonintentional mutations

  1. Kantian Naturalist: If physical or metaphysical possibilities are a sub-class of logical possibilities, then knowing the logical possibilities alone cannot tell us what events belong to the sub-class of physical or metaphysical possibilities and which ones do not.

    Wait. Which is the sub-class of which?

    Option A: Physical AND metaphysical possibilities are a sub-class of logical possibilities so that logical possibilities is an umbrella term for both?

    Option B: Physical/metaphysical possibilities are a sub-class and logical possibilities are another sub-class (while the sub-classes have some unknown relation that occasionally is there and occasionally is not).

    Some other option? Because I have a problem with both of the above options. Namely, physical and metaphysical should be different categories, physical being a sub-class or subset of the metaphysical.

    Kantian Naturalist: (I have some views about how to understand the relation between language and reality, but I’m still working out the details. I think this stuff is all much more complicated than philosophers in the Western tradition have thought.)

    Good. Work on it. Hopefully you’ll get somewhere. It’s really not very difficult.

    Erik: Are you saying that there are unexpected miracles in store for every philosopher who thinks he has gone over everything possible in his mind? I suspect you are.

    Kantian Naturalist: I don’t know what you mean by “miracles” here, but I do think that it’s always possible to be surprised by the unfolding of reality, no matter how consistent and seemingly comprehensive one’s metaphysics.

    That’s a yes then. My response to it: If there are miracles (surprises rather) left, you did NOT go over everything possible. But it’s indeed possible to go over everything, so that no surprises are left.

  2. fifthmonarchyman:
    step one) record a series of mutations
    step two) randomize the recorded sequence
    step three) determine if with feedback the two sequences can be distinguished from each other.

    tentative conclusion one) If the sequences can be distinguished the mutations are not random and you can move to step four

    step four) compare the recorded sequence of mutations with the output of the best available modeling algorithm.

    Tentative conclusion two) If the sequences can be distinguished we can infer that the mutations were not produced by an algorithm.

    By combining conclusions one and two we can say that because the mutations are non-random and non-algorithmic that “normal” humans would (tentatively) infer that they were intentional

    peace

    Hello FMM. It seems that this particular conversation keeps coming up time and again. I probably shouldn’t wade in again, but here goes anyway.

    I am going to show you that this apporach is fatally flawed.

    Let’s call the original recorded set of mutations S1.
    Let’s call the randomized sequence R1.
    Let’s assume that these two can be distinguished, so we go to Step 4.

    We now produce a new set using a modelling algorithm. Let’s call this M1. We compare S1 with M1 and conclude that they are different. From this we can infer that S1 was not created by an algorithm. Ok so far?

    Now, we are going to go a step further and cascade this process. We take the output of the modelling, M1, and simply re-label it as S2 without changing anything about it.
    We randomize S2 into R2, and we notice that we can distinguish S2 and R2 (most people will understand why: modelling algorithms don’t produce random output). So we can go to Step 4 again, and do another modeling run aimed at mimicking S2. Call the output M2.

    Now here is the thing. In general, modelling tools of natural phenomena use a stochastic approach to allow for the fact that we do not precisely know the initial values of all the variables. As a consequence, it is highly unlikely that M2 will be identical to M1, or as it is now known, S2. Therefore, the observers will be able to distinguish M2 and S2 from each other.

    According to you, we can therefore infer that S2 was not produced by an algorithm. However, we actually do know that it was produced by an algorithm – the modelling software. Ergo, your approach is invalid.

    The reason for this flaw is that there is a lack of clarity in your terms. What exactly do you mean by ‘algorithmic’ – is this purely deterministic, or are stochastic processes included as well? If they are, the above cascading demonstrates that your approach is invalid. If ‘algorithmic’ equals ‘deterministic’, you have another massive problem: where do stochastic processes fit in with your classification? If they are not algorithmic, are they therefore intentional? Or are they in a separate class of their own? If so, how do we go about telling them apart from ‘intentional’ processes?

    Even more fundamental is your (hidden) assumption that intentional processes are not algorithmic. If they are, the entire enterprise is obviously doomed from the beginning.

    fG

  3. fadedGlory, to fifth:

    According to you, we can therefore infer that S2 was not produced by an algorithm. However, we actually do know that it was produced by an algorithm – the modelling software. Ergo, your approach is invalid.

    fadedGlory,

    I’ve explained again and again to fifth that all of the patterns he’s talking about can be produced by algorithms, and that none of them qualify as “non-algorithmic”.

    He won’t (can’t?) take that on board. He simply moves the goalposts, and then pretends that he hasn’t.

    A goalpost-shifting example from the other thread:

    fifth:

    People can know that the best algorithm we have is not able to produce the pattern in question.

    keiths:

    No. For any specific pattern, it is trivial to come up with an algorithm that will produce that pattern.

    fifth:

    This is not logical proof that the pattern is non-algorithmic but it is evidence that any algorithm that could account for it is at least more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it.

    I believe humans are hardwired to infer intent when presented with nonrandom patterns like that.

    keiths:

    That’s an amusing attempt at a goalpost shift. You’re trying to shift from

    “the pattern is non-algorithmic”

    …to…

    “the pattern is algorithmic, but it’s produced by an algorithm that is more obscure than the best algorithm we can conceive of to produce it”.

    But the latter doesn’t even make sense. If we can come up with a “best” algorithm to produce the pattern, who cares if there’s also a “more obscure” pattern that also produces it? We’ve already got a “better” one.

    If you’re finally going to abandon the “non-algorithmic” criterion — and that’s long overdue — then you’ll need to replace it with something that actually makes sense.

    Of course fifth hasn’t abandoned the “non-algorithmic” criterion. He simply uses “non-algorithmic” to refer to algorithmic patterns. Problem solved! It’s as if the goalpost shift never happened.

    Rational people will roll their eyes at this, of course, but remember, fifth is a presuppositionalist Christian. He’s a believer, not a thinker, and the goal is to maintain his beliefs regardless of any evidence or arguments against them.

    Redefining “non-algorithmic” to mean “algorithmic” is par for the course.

  4. faded_Glory: According to you, we can therefore infer that S2 was not produced by an algorithm. However, we actually do know that it was produced by an algorithm – the modelling software. Ergo, your approach is invalid.

    No

    Since we know that S2 was produced by an algorithm we can’t conclude it was not produced by an algorithm.

    The reason we tentatively infer S1 was not produced by an algorithm is because we know of no algorithm that can produce it. That is most certainly not the case with S2.

    faded_Glory: What exactly do you mean by ‘algorithmic’ – is this purely deterministic, or are stochastic processes included as well?

    I mean produced by an algorithm. Stochastic functions could be included in that definition if they are part of a step by step process.

    faded_Glory: where do stochastic processes fit in with your classification?

    For our purposes stochastic and random are basically synonymous so if a process is stochastic or/and algorithmic my hypothesis is it would be less likely to be considered intentional.

    faded_Glory: Even more fundamental is your (hidden) assumption that intentional processes are not algorithmic.

    It is my assumption that intentional processes are not algorithmic but that is immaterial to my idea.

    I’m only concerned with what humans are hardwired to infer not in what is actually the case. I think we are hardwired to believe that algorithmic processes are not directly intentional. That has been my experience anyway

    It’s very possible that intentional processes are algorithmic after all but I’m not sure how you would ever conclusively prove it one way or the other.

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman: Since we know that S2 was produced by an algorithm we can’t conclude it was not produced by an algorithm.

    Come now, FMM, surely your test is a blind one? The person making the observations on the data sets should not know their provenance. If they do, the entire thing is a total farce.

  6. faded_Glory: The person making the observations on the data sets should not know their provenance.

    Why not? I use the test all the time to determine if data is random and I always know where the original data came from because I collected it.

    We don’t necessarily have to begin the test knowing the origin of the data sets but once we are evaluating them often recognizing a patterns “provenance” is one of the ways we can know it’s not random.

    Jenny recognizes her number.
    A mathematician recognizes Pi.
    I recognize that gaps in reported weather forecasts tend to happen on holidays.

    Besides we definitely know the “provenance” of one of the sequences we are looking at simply because we know how the set up works. At least one of the two is either a randomized copy or one that was produced by an algorithm.

    Any context we might have about the patterns we are evaluating just makes inferring easier.

    When cromagum man hears a rustle in the bushes he is even more likely it infer it was intentional if he has reason to believe that there might be someone in that direction.

    Finally I would suggest the decision to plug S2 into the test as a unit is an intentional one so a “blind participant” is not totally wrong in inferring that there is an intent behind it even if the individual values were produced by an algorithm. When he has more information he can modify is inference accordingly

    peace

  7. fifthmonarchyman: Why not? I use the test all the time to determine if data is random and I always know where the original data came from because I collected it.

    In what specific context? And show your working. Demonstrate your system works. Show your error rates.

    etc etc etc.

  8. fifthmonarchyman: It’s very possible that intentional processes are algorithmic after all but I’m not sure how you would ever conclusively prove it one way or the other.

    Ask your god for it to be revealed to you?

  9. OMagain: In what specific context? And show your working. Demonstrate your system works. Show your error rates.
    etc etc etc.

    Interesting that when I presented him with data from sources he didn’t know, he flopped.

  10. petrushka: Interesting that when I presented him with data from sources he didn’t know, he flopped.

    Again for probably the fifth time.

    I haven’t developed a design detector or a secret code breaker.

    I’m working on making our natural hardwired tendency to infer intent given certain patterns more systematic

    That is all

    peace

  11. OMagain: Ask your god for it to be revealed to you?

    Have you heard about the problem of other minds?

    There is literally no way to prove that other minds exist.
    Yet we all know they do for some reason.

    I find that paradox to be fascinating and it’s a big part of what leads me to believe that persons are not algorithms.

    If persons were algorithms I expect we could prove they exist.

    Do you get it??

    For some background check this out starting about 7:00

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seUU2bZtfgM

    peace

  12. fifthmonarchyman: Yet we all know they do for some reason.

    Do we? I accept the possibility they might not. I might be an infinity old transcendent god trying to keep myself busy, for all I know, hiding most of my memories from myself. It seems my imagination is somewhat more developed then yours. I’ve read weirder sci-fi.

    fifthmonarchyman: I find that paradox to be fascinating and it’s a big part of what leads me to believe that persons are not algorithms.

    The same input into a brain produces the same output. It’s just the laws of physics.

    Input. Transformation. Output.

    Remind you of anything?

  13. fifthmonarchyman: I’m working on making our natural hardwired tendency to infer intent given certain patterns more systematic

    No you are not. If you were you would have written a paper on all this by now. You’ve had experts point out why you are wrong for years now, and yet you don’t seem able to take that peer review (well…) and revise your thinking.

  14. petrushka: Interesting that when I presented him with data from sources he didn’t know, he flopped.

    It should not make a difference, I guess FMM has fooled himself so much for so long that he is unable to even contemplate that he’s fooling himself anymore.

    Otherwise the total failure of his “game” would have caused him to give up on it a long time ago.

  15. OMagain: Do we? I accept the possibility they might not. I might be an infinity old transcendent god trying to keep myself busy, for all I know, hiding most of my memories from myself.

    Well there we go 😉 LOL

    You really can’t know anything at all about the world can you?

    OMagain: The same input into a brain produces the same output. It’s just the laws of physics.

    No persons, no minds, no real relationships just a universe of philosophical zombies following the algorithm. Welcome to OMagain’s world.

    There is no way to prove he is wrong but I hypothesize that most folks would think he is.

    Subconsciously at least

    peace

  16. fifthmonarchyman: Why not? I use the test all the time to determine if data is random and I always know where the original data came from because I collected it.

    Your test was not meant to show if a dataset is random or not; your test was designed to allow a conclusion about it’s origin through intent or algorithm. If all you want to do is test for randomness there are existing, much better procedures to do so.

    We don’t necessarily have to begin the test knowing the origin of the data sets but once we are evaluating them often recognizing a patterns “provenance” is one of the ways we can know it’s not random.

    Jenny recognizes her number.
    A mathematician recognizes Pi.
    I recognize that gaps in reported weather forecasts tend to happen on holidays.

    Besides we definitely know the “provenance” of one of the sequences we are looking at simply because we know how the set up works.At least one of the two is either a randomized copy or one that was produced by an algorithm.

    Any context we might have about the patterns we are evaluating just makes inferring easier.

    When cromagum man hears a rustle in the bushes he is even more likely it infer it was intentional if he has reason to believe that there might be someone in that direction.

    All this is just waffle to distract from the fact that an observer presented with S2 and M2, without knowing how and where they were created, will distinguish between them, and therefore conclude that S2 is non-algorithmic. She will be wrong in doing so, and hence your method is fundamentally flawed.

    Finally I would suggest the decision to plug S2 into the test as a unit is an intentional one so a “blind participant” is not totally wrong in inferring that there is an intent behind it even if the individual values were produced by an algorithm.When he has more information he can modify is inference accordingly

    Good Lord – the entire test is intentional, every data set you plug into it was done with the intention to run the test, so on that basis everybody should always conclude that all of the data sets are intentional – up to and including the randomised copies because they were randomised with intent.

    Seriously, you will need to do much better when dealing with founded criticism.

    One other point: you mentioned a few times that you are looking it weather forecasts and actual measurements. If you represent these as graphs, they are time series. There is a large body of literature about time series analysis, and I would recommend that you dive into that to save yourself from elemental errors and/or reinventing the wheel.

    You said you could spot differences between the forecasts and the actuals. Without knowing what it is you are doing, I would suggest that you look at these data in the frequency domain in addition to the time domain. Fourier transform will allow you to do so, there will be free software available for this. Many of the reasons why time series are similar or different will become much easier to understand in the frequency domain.

    fG

  17. fadedGlory,

    Good Lord – the entire test is intentional, every data set you plug into it was done with the intention to run the test, so on that basis everybody should always conclude that all of the data sets are intentional – up to and including the randomised copies because they were randomised with intent.

    It’s something, isn’t it? Fifth contradicts himself right and left, seemingly with no awareness of his stumbles (until one of us points them out).

    Half the time he’s advancing criteria that would, if he honored them, flag all evaluated patterns as intentional. The rest of the time he’s advancing criteria that would never flag them as intentional.

    Examples of the former:

    a) his insistence that all patterns are intentional, because everything that occurs in the universe is at the behest of his sovereign God; and

    b) the problem you pointed out, in which every decision to evaluate a pattern renders that pattern “intentional” by fifth’s dumb criterion.

    Examples of the latter:

    c) his “non-random” and “non-algorithmic” criteria, which none of the patterns satisfy; and

    d) his “transcendental number” criterion, which requires that the patterns be infinite and non-repeating.

    What can you do but shake your head?

    Fifth, you are totally out of your depth.

  18. faded_Glory: Your test was not meant to show if a dataset is random or not; your test was designed to allow a conclusion about it’s origin through intent or algorithm.

    no, my test was an attempt to make our natural innate tendency to infer intent given the presence of certain patterns more systematic.

    faded_Glory: If all you want to do is test for randomness there are existing, much better procedures to do so.

    actually not for things like markets as witnessed by the paper.

    faded_Glory: All this is just waffle to distract from the fact that an observer presented with S2 and M2, without knowing how and where they were created, will distinguish between them, and therefore conclude that S2 is non-algorithmic.

    Tentatively yes because she knows of no algorithm that can produce the pattern.

    faded_Glory: She will be wrong in doing so, and hence your method is fundamentally flawed.

    No not fundamentally flawed but simply fallible. Just like our natural innate tendency to infer intent.

    We infer intent when we observe nonrandom patterns until we are aware of an algorithm that can produce them. It’s what we do naturally my test just makes it more systematic.

    faded_Glory: Good Lord – the entire test is intentional, every data set you plug into it was done with the intention to run the test

    Again I agree. I think everything is intentional.

    However you aren’t allowed to choose “all the above”.

    You have to choose the one you think most likely to be intentional. My hypothesis is that you will choose the the pattern that you deem to be nonrandom and non-algorithmic.

    faded_Glory: Seriously, you will need to do much better when dealing with founded criticism

    Look, I appreciate your time and trouble. I just disagree with your appraisal because I think you are focusing on the wrong thing here.

    Perhaps it’s because you think the test is meant to be some sort of an infallible design detector.

    When it’s just an effort to make what we do everyday naturally more objective and systematic.

    We are mistaken all the time when we infer intent just as we are when we infer anything with our senses and faculties. We don’t think our reasoning is “fundamentally flawed” just because we can be deceived.

    The very idea is silly.

    peace

  19. faded_Glory: I would suggest that you look at these data in the frequency domain in addition to the time domain. Fourier transform will allow you to do so, there will be free software available for this.

    Thanks I’ll check it out.

    peace

  20. fifth:

    We don’t think our reasoning is “fundamentally flawed” just because we can be deceived.

    I reject your criteria not because they’re fallible, but because they’re completely broken. They’re useless.

  21. petrushka:

    Interesting that when I presented him with data from sources he didn’t know, he flopped.

    fifth:

    Again for probably the fifth time.

    I haven’t developed a design detector or a secret code breaker.

    You claimed you had a design detection tool, but it failed miserably. Now you are trying to sweep your failure under the rug, as if it never happened.

    Let me refresh your memory with a comment of mine:

    fifth,

    Keith’s I am nothing short of flabbergasted that after all this time that you don’t understand the difference between inferring design and detecting design.

    fifth,

    I am nothing short of flabbergasted at your ability to trip over your shoelaces again and again.

    Your own words, from the Design as the Inverse of Cognition thread (emphasis added):

    fifth:

    The discussion will be about design detection I hope.

    fifth:

    My approach if correct shows that it is mathematically certain that there will always be gaps.

    If fact if I’m correct it changes “the gaps” from a defensive measure to a way to positively detect design in other places besides just biology SETI and Cryptology for example.

    OMagain:

    I also hope there will be demonstrations of said detection in action. Worked examples, if you will.

    fifth:

    I think I can do that. I’m not sure if they meet rigorous snuff but you will definitely get the feel for how all this works if we make it that far.

    fifth:

    On the contrary I believe my approach works very well on the practical level of determining if a particular object is designed, It just does not compel an answer when we get to the level of the universe.

    fifth:

    I don’t call you man and when I’m talking about your role in my approach to design detection I will probably call you “the observer”

    How many bullet holes can your poor foot take?

    You failed at detecting design. Now you’ve moved the goalposts and are failing again.

  22. @fifth
    I’m interested in how cryptology/cryptologists detect design, srsly. Exactly what is it that they detect? Full account, please.

  23. Erik: I’m interested in how cryptology/cryptologists detect design, srsly. Exactly what is it that they detect? Full account, please.

    I don’t know that cryptologists “detect design” rather they search for ways of decrypting patterns that are assumed to be intentional but “cryptic”.

    peace

  24. fifthmonarchyman,

    So when you said above (as quoted by keiths) that cryptologists “positively detect design” you were just mouthing off not knowing what you are talking about.

    Okay. Peace.

  25. Erik: So when you said above (as quoted by keiths) that cryptologists “positively detect design”

    Could you provide a link?
    Of the original not the quote by keiths

    peace

  26. fifthmonarchyman,

    On this very page where we are at:

    “If fact if I’m correct it changes “the gaps” from a defensive measure to a way to positively detect design in other places besides just biology SETI and Cryptology for example.”

    Here it seems to me you are saying that SETI-ists and cryptologists already “positively detect design” and you want to expand what they are doing (or what you think they are doing) to other domains.

  27. Erik,

    OK, I believe that was speculation from a very long time ago of how we might possibly use the method I’m playing around with, not a comment on anything that happens presently.

    I’ve long since abandoned the idea that design detection is even possible.

    The problem of other minds means that inferring intention will always be a subjective thing.

    For me it’s more about how folks usually react not anything inherent in the patterns themselves.

  28. Erik: To me it was self-evident from the get-go (that “detect design” is a contradiction in terms, a category error).

    You could be right.

    But I would say that most folks think they are detecting something when they infer intent. I think we are wired to think that way.

    peace

Leave a Reply