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.
This thread is for actual demonstrations of what has been claimed is possible not more discussion about it. If that means this is the only comment then that’s fine by me.
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
Go on then, do it.
Give me a recorded series of mutations or tell me how to record them myself.
better yet do something useful for once and follow the process yourself.
I’m pretty busy with life and weather forecasts right now
peace
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/genomicsdat.html
I imagine those are all the “series of mutations” data you’ll need to get started. Or is that insufficient for some reason?
So your claims regarding intentional mutations rest on your ability to do something you’ve no idea how to do? And yet you have absolute assurance that mutations are directed?
Assume your conclusion much?
I’ve just done so. I await your next excuse as to why you cannot proceed with bated breath.
where exactly is the recorded sequence of mutations???
peace
I haven’t given mutations a lot of thought. I’m much more interested in the output of AI
how in the world did you get that Idea????
what conclusion is that ???
I think you are assuming what other people think. I’ve made no claim that mutations are directed.
In the other thread we spent a lot of time discussing “happy accidents” were you not paying attention?
peace
OMagain,
A couple of years ago you chided me to make my game shareable, I provided it to you but you did nothing about it.
Now you challenge me to say how I would evaluate a sequence of mutations and when quickly I do so you demand I do that work for you yet have not provided a usable list for me to use.
I sense a pattern 😉
In the other thread folks are actually offering constructive criticism about how to move forward.
It is pretty much a consensus that we first need to establish that humans are in fact more likely to infer intent when presented with a pattern that is non-random and non-algorithmic.
I think that is a good first step. why don’t you??
peace
When I first joined TSZ, I intentionally came up with a password to use.
So I’m wondering what fifth can predict about my password, based on the fact that I intentionally came up with it. Can he predict enough to be able to break it?
The challenge is clearly about a test, a demonstration, of the alleged process of design detection. Nowhere, in the OP was it requested that you merely ‘say’ what you would do to meet the challenge.
You too? Sometimes I feel like no one is listening.
———once again———
It’s always possible to hide your intention if you try hard enough. Just because there are no fingerprints on the gun does not mean that no one touched the murder weapon
The only claim is the hypothesis that we are hardwired to infer intent when presented certain patterns.
It’s not about being able to read minds or break codes
peace
If you are talking about a “design detecter” you are clearly not talking to me. Yet my username is mentioned in the OP.
I’m talking about humans innate tendency to infer intent given certain patterns and how that perhaps can be made a little more systematic.
If you want to discuss some sort of alleged infallible design detection algorithm perhaps you should discuss it with an imaginary strawman friend.
Because it has nothing to do with what we have been discussing.
Once again there is no possible way to prove the existence of other minds.
peace
quote:
quote:
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?
end quote:
nuff said
peace
I didn’t have to try very hard. I just used a random number generator to create that password (as I usually do for passwords).
“Intentional” does not necessarily imply anything about the sequence that resulted from that intention.
fifth:
Consensus? What are you smoking?
Your non-random and non-algorithmic criteria are completely broken, as I’ve explained to you yet again.
If you actually applied those criteria correctly, you would never detect design.
Except you did not actually perform any such differentiation did you?
So, mutations are not directed and therefore naturalistic evolution did it all, is that what you are now saying?
I provided what I thought you’d need. Perhaps you can give an example of what you need, if it’s not the sequenced genomes of several generations of bacteria where mutations are present.
But let’s start simple.
On this page is a Sequence for Normal Hemoglobin and one for Sickle Cell Hemoglobin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation#Sickle-cell_anemia
Was that particular point mutation intentional?
That’s what I asked. You did not perform a differentiation, you described how you would do so.
And you specifically asked him for a demonstration:
I wrote your “game” in an hour. In the “couple of years” since you could have written it many times over yourself in a way that could prove or disprove your claims regarding it.
Yes, the pattern is you are too lazy to do your own work.
Perhaps when he tells us what a “list of mutations” looks like if it’s not an incrementally sequenced genome over several generations then we can get started.
Why would I do that ? Am I claiming that mutations are intentional?
Not at all, I’m merely saying that there is perhaps a way to determine if the average person would consider them to be intentional.
I’m simply not that interested in whether a particular set of mutations are intentional.
If you are then by all means get too it. I explained how to do it
What claims are those exactly??? The Game does exactly what I claim it does it allows me to compare sequences.
I have no need to “prove” that fact as the original game in the paper did the same thing.
I am interested in demonstrating if comparing sequences allow me to make useful improvements to weather forecasting algorithms.
That is what I am spending my free time exploring right now.
peace
I would expect to see a sequence of numbers that represent the mutations somehow. I have no idea how you would put that together it’s your project you come up with something.
peace
Are you claiming humans are a black box detector? Are you claiming that humans are a *reliable* detector?
Humans may very well have an innate sensation of intention from natural events, such as angry volcanoes, righteous lightening, and beneficent rain.
Hardly sufficient in any framework given the clear outline of the challenge.
You forgot to highlight the word ‘demonstration; which is, after all, the heart of the challenge.
Here you forgot to highlight the word ‘process’ which is what we are interested in with the challenge.
You could just say, honestly, that you can’t meet the challenge which is the hypothesis being tested.
Zachriel,
Science counts on humans being reliable detectors.
That’s not going to work, precisely because it omits two relevant factors: (1) underlying facts of chemistry that make some mutations more probable than others and (2) the role of natural selection and development as ‘locking in’ biases.
You’re thinking of ‘randomness’ in the strictly mathematical sense, as if one can compare genetic sequences to number strings being produced a random number generator. But there’s an empirical l reality that those sequences represent. It’s only by ignoring the facts of chemistry and biology that one can get the tentative conclusions posited here.
Science typically relies on multiple observations, varying conditions, instrumentation, and quantification to minimize observer biases.
Albeit with this caveat:
“Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
― Richard Feynman
There’s a nice literature on intentional pareidolia.
The more fundamental problem at work here is that seeing something as indicating purpose is entirely dependent on having the relevant concepts. Once you’ve acquired a concept and know how to use it correctly (according to the local norms governing concept use in your linguistic community), then of course one will be able to use it non-inferentially.
One doesn’t make an inference from “cow-shaped patterns in my visual field, therefore probably cows”. Rather, one just sees the cows. But if one didn’t have the right concepts, one could not see them as cows. (Conversely, a cow expert will be able to see them as Holstein or as Hereford, etc., without making an inference, under favorable conditions.)
This is a perfectly generic point about how the use of concepts in perception is non-inferential. Yet it can nevertheless be as affected by culture and language as any other conceptual capacity. And while there’s some evidence that adopting “the teleological stance” is ‘hard-wired’ in humans and other animals, there’s also plenty of reason to believe that it’s prone to over-generalize and to classify all sorts of real patterns as purposive when closer examination shows that they aren’t.
Figuring out when we’re reliably detecting real patterns and when we’re experiencing features of our own cognitive activity is the problem of metaphysics. And when you realize that we can only use our own cognitive machinery in order to distinguish between which parts of our experience are features of that cognitive machinery and which parts are underlying real patterns, it’s pretty tempting to conclude that the Skeptics are right — metaphysics is impossible.
KN,
Sure we do. It’s just that it’s not a conscious inference.
Perceptual inferences are still inferences, though they may take place below the level of conscious awareness.
If your visual perception is normal, it will (incorrectly) infer motion in the following figure. There’s no actual motion to be seen in that image. It is entirely inferred.
keiths,
I’m perfectly well aware that there are all sorts of top-down effects on lower-level sensory processing. The question isn’t whether they are real and interesting but whether it makes sense to call them inferences.
If we call these sorts of phenomena “unconscious inferences”, then we’re committing to using the same term to talk about
(1) the rule-governed action of explicating the conceptual relation between two or more propositions in a formal or natural language
and
(2) the process of information flow in a bidirectional multi-level hierarchy, where each level is comprised of interlocking neuronal assemblies.
I’m genuinely conflicted about this. There’s a sizeable literature in cognitive science on perceptual inference, active inference, and so on. But science is never immune from making philosophical errors, and this could be one. If we’re going to use the same word to mean two different things — and use it literally in both ways — we’d better have a really good theory as to why that makes sense.
Maybe we do. I’m not saying we don’t. I’m just saying it’s a puzzle.
no
Depends on what you mean by *reliable*. certainly not infallible but better than random chance.
I’m not sure what you mean by “natural events” are you saying you have proof that things like that are not intentional?
peace
Jesus Christ!
My hypothesis is that humans are hardwired to infer intent when presented with certain patterns. We are discussing how to test that in the other thread.
I think comparing answers to which of the three kinds of sequences is more likely to be intentional would do the trick.
What do you think?
peace
Is that a no?
peace
interesting
According to whom?? Are you saying you can demonstrate that certain patterns are not intentional??
peace
Exactly, all knowledge depends on it
Exactly, it’s important to realize you can be fooled. Either when you infer intent or when you don’t
peace
I have a question about the tentative conclusion two.
If the sequences can be distinguished, based on what can we infer that the mutations were not produced by an algorithm? Maybe we have simply not found the algorithm that produced it?
And how is your combined conclusion a conclusion, instead of presupposition? By what logical way did you arrive at that purported conclusion?
That is a very good question.
This is the reason why the inference is tentative. We satisfy ourselves that no algorithm can explain the pattern but we definitely can be mistaken.
There is simply no way to infallibly prove the existence of other minds.
peace
lets see if I can put it in the form of a syllogism. It’s rough so I would love some criticism.
premise one: All entities that are not random and not algorithmic are intentional.
premise two: X is shown to be not random
premise three: X is tentatively shown to be not algorithmic
final conclusion: Tentatively X is an intentional entity.
How is that?
Then you need an intender!
No need for infallible. How about a proof, full stop?
Yes, a premise. And where did you get this premise? Why should I take this premise seriously?
And how the intender does what he does.
It has all the flaws that the design inference (Dembski’s “explanatory filter“) has always had. You can define your premises however you wish; that doesn’t mean that any of them are true.
What does you intent detector say?
Long time ago, one of the first experiments on mutations across a long DNA sequence “found” what looked like mutational “hot spots,” so called because those regions contained more mutations than other regions. Another guy came and did an actual statistical test and found that the mutation numbers plotted by their frequency per region, followed a poisson distribution, thus showing that those first hot spots were no such thing.
Later on, some actual hot spots were found. Positions varying beyond what would be expected by chance. Examinations of the kind of twisting of the DNA, or probability for slippage (because of high repetitiveness), etc, made sense of those hot spots.
Then, of course, then we have the effects of natural selection (mostly purifying selection), resulting in regions with lower mutation rates, but we still find a distribution of mutations that looks pretty random, only less “dense.”
Given those backgrounds (and all the stuff I didn’t mention for lack of time and interest to being comprehensive), I don’t think there’s room to speculate about intentional mutations in nature, other than the ones we have introduced ourselves, which tend to be hard to tell apart, unless we have the data about who and what was introduced.
In examining natural variation, and comparing closely related species, what makes it very hard to find the mutations involved in the differences between species, is this huge, noisy, background of random and [mostly] inconsequential mutations.
[drops the mic]
I think an argument could be made that all three sequences have been generated intentionally.