What is the evidence for “purposeful intervention”?

FMM: Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation.

FMM notes in the same comment:

 If there in nothing about an idea that distinguishes it from it’s alternative it seems to be superfluous.

So the idea is “non designed mutations” and the alternative is “purposeful intervention”.

Give that, and given FMM has not discarded the idea of purposeful intervention there must be something that distinguishes it from non designed mutations.

What is that distinguishing factor? What is the actual evidence for “purposeful intervention” regarding mutations?

And, more broadly, what is the evidence for “purposeful intervention” in any area of biology? Apart from, of course, wishful thinking.

603 Replies to “What is the evidence for “purposeful intervention”?”

  1. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    fmm: It’s sounds almost as if you are trying to define away the designer for some reason.

    You say “define away” but you’ve had this entire thread to show some evidence for purposeful intervention and have totally failed to do so.

    What is the actual evidence for “purposeful intervention” regarding mutations? From what I’ve read from you, there is literally none at all.

    little hints like this one let me know you are not paying attention 😉

    I’m paying full attention. You are embarrassing yourself. But tell me, specifically, how you know that there is not a message from “the designer” in the sounds of tinnitus? I’m interested to know. Was it “revelation”?

    Why don’t you show your “design detection” toolkit in action and demonstrate a negative, that the sounds that tinnitus sufferers “hear” is not encoded data from the designer?

  2. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: What is the actual evidence for “purposeful intervention” regarding mutations? From what I’ve read from you, there is literally none at all.

    It’s little comments like this that let me know you are not paying attention 😉

    peace

  3. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Please link, an example is too onerous?

    Not at all, The paper details a good example of what I’m talking about.

    With feedback people can easily distinguish real market data from randomized copies.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4592

    peace

  4. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: So is it your claim that for the same inputs in the same physical configuration the brain will produce a different result each time?

    No, my claim is that people tend to believe that intentional processes are non random and nonalgorithmic, that is all.

    An identical brain could produce the same result and it not be intentional or it could produce the same result and it not be algorithmic.

    The point is if it did produce exactly the same results through an algorithmic process we would probably not infer that that particular result was directly intentional.

    OMagain: What governs decision making really then?

    The person making the decision.

    peace

  5. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Corneel: 3 : a natural or artificial process that results or tends to result in the survival and propagation of some individuals or organisms but not of others with the result that the inherited traits of the survivors are perpetuated — compare darwinism, natural selection

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

    I’ll take #15

    Natural selection = selection of an off-white or beige color

  6. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: No, my claim is that people tend to believe that intentional processes are non random and nonalgorithmic, that is all.

    No, this is your claim:

    If there in nothing about an idea that distinguishes it from it’s alternative it seems to be superfluous.

    And you have not shown how the idea that mutations are intentional is different from the idea that they are not, and hence by your own rules have demonstrated that your position is superfluous

    fifthmonarchyman: It’s little comments like this that let me know you are not paying attention

    You rarely say anything you have not already said.

  7. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Not at all, The paper details a good example of what I’m talking about.

    With feedback people can easily distinguish real market data from randomized copies.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4592

    peace

    “As of 2014, more than 75 percent of the stock shares traded on United States exchanges (including the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ) originate from automated trading system orders.ATSs can be designed to trade stocks, options, futures and foreign exchange products based on a predefined set of rules which determine when to enter an order, when to exit a position and how much money to invest in each trading product”

    Are people learning to recognize non algorithmic patterns or the results of algorithms?

  8. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Are people learning to recognize non algorithmic patterns or the results of algorithms?

    In the study people are learning to recognize nonrandom sequences that were thought to be random from sequences that are randomized.

    I use exactly the same approach to learn to recognize real reported temperature data from data produced by a forecasting algorithm.

    I have also used the same approach to recognize all kinds of other real world data from data produced by a evolutionary algorithms.

    The question was whether people could distinguish between sequences like this at all. Clearly they can.

    newton: As of 2014, more than 75 percent of the stock shares traded on United States exchanges (including the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ) originate from automated trading system orders.

    Designers often use algorithms to accomplish their purposes. If my hypothesis is correct when they do “the fingerprint” of design would be found upstream if at all.

    peace

  9. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: And you have not shown how the idea that mutations are intentional is different from the idea that they are not, and hence by your own rules have demonstrated that your position is superfluous

    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.

    That you do not know that this was my contention demonstrates that you are not paying attention.

    peace

  10. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: You rarely say anything you have not already said.

    right back at you friend

    peace

  11. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman:
    to avoid repetition ignore it is

    A snowflake needs its safe-space.

  12. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:
    fifth:

    As I’ve explained more than once:

    Any numeric pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t rule it out), and any numeric pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    You need different criteria than “nonrandom and nonalgorithmic”.

    Indeed, fifth’s distinction is a fail.

  13. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: right back at you friend

    You have an opportinity to say something you’ve not yet said – demonstrating your claim to be true: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/testing-the-claim-that-intentional-mutations-can-be-differentiated-from-nonintentional-mutations/

    I look forwards to the litany of excuses as to why you cannot do the things you claim can be done.

  14. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: In the study people are learning to recognize nonrandom sequences that were thought to be random from sequences that are randomized.

    I disagree, no one thinks the pattern of fluctuations of the stock market are random. Unpredictable due to the complexity, yes. The challenge is can human discern the difference of the pattern if provided feedback with a randomomized patterns.

    I use exactly the same approach to learn to recognize real reported temperature data from data produced by a forecasting algorithm.

    You think you could tell the difference in the patterns of different forecasting models given feedback?

    I have also used the same approach to recognize all kinds of other real world data from data produced by a evolutionary algorithms.

    For instance?

    The question was whether people could distinguish between sequences like this at all. Clearly they can.

    What are people distinguishing is my question. The data of the stock market is driven by algorithms based on feedback loops , the randomized patterns probably do not. Temperature has an autocorrelation factor.

    The necessity of the feedback seems to be significant factor.

  15. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: I disagree, no one thinks the pattern of fluctuations of the stock market are random.

    perhaps I should have said effectively random

    quote:

    the belief that human beings cannot distinguish market returns from randomly generated ones is widespread. For example,Malkiel (1973) discusses an experiment in which students were asked to generate returns by tossing fair coins, which yielded observations that were apparently indistinguishable from market returns

    end quote:

    newton: You think you could tell the difference in the patterns of different forecasting models given feedback?

    I don’t know it’s an interesting question I’ll give it a shot when I get a little time and get back to you.

    newton: For instance?

    For example—- written text in a couple of languages, Industrial production, an appointment schedule.

    diverse intentional things like that

    newton: What are people distinguishing is my question.

    Are you asking what are the differences people see or what those differences represent?

    I would say that people are seeing places where the model diverges from “real” data.

    newton: The necessity of the feedback seems to be significant factor.

    I would say It’s vital.

    We are not just saying that the two sequences are different but that the patterns in them are distinguishable.

    That requires predicting what will come next. In order to make that kind of prediction you make a hypothesis and test it, after a little trial and error you can lock in on the systematic differences in the sequences

    peace

  16. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel: Any numeric pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t rule it out), and any numeric pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    Once again we are not trying to infallibly detect design. I don’t know how many other ways I can say it. We can’t ever rule out the possibility that we are mistaken

    All we are doing is pointing out that humans will tend to infer design given certain types of patterns.

    It’s always possible that we are mistaken and there is a hidden algorithm or what we see is just a lucky coincidental random fluctuation.

    There is absolutely no way to prove that other minds exist but when we observe a certain kind of rustle in the bushes normal folks tend to think there is intention behind it.

    peace

  17. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    looks like on March 25th Southend-On-Sea has suddenly developed the ability to tell the future.

    https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGMC/2018/3/25/MonthlyCalendar.html?cm_ven=localwx_calendar

    Did you hear that rustle?

    I’m confident that we are dealing with a person because it’s not random and algorithms never behave like that 😉

    peace

  18. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    fifth:

    I seek to define intentional as nonrandom non-algorithmic.

    I like that definition I haven’t seen a lot of argument as to why it’s inappropriate.

    keiths:

    As I’ve explained more than once:

    Any numeric pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t rule it out), and any numeric pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    You need different criteria than “nonrandom and nonalgorithmic”.

    PopoHummel:

    Indeed, fifth’s distinction is a fail.

    fifth:

    Once again we are not trying to infallibly detect design. I don’t know how many other ways I can say it.

    Your criteria are so badly broken that if you actually used them, you would never detect design. I’ve explained this already:

    You’ve told us that you infer design if you think that a pattern is nonrandom and nonalgorithmic. As I’ve explained, every pattern can be produced by an algorithm, and every pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t forbid it).

    Therefore, if you were competently applying your criteria, you would never infer design.

    An intelligent person, having been shown that his criteria were broken, would replace them. You cling to them. Why is that, fifth?

  19. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Designers often use algorithms to accomplish their purposes. If my hypothesis is correct when they do “the fingerprint” of design would be found upstream if at all.

    Then you are detecting design from a different pattern not the one in question.

  20. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Once again we are not trying to infallibly detect design. I don’t know how many other ways I can say it. We can’t ever rule out the possibility that we are mistaken.
    All we are doing is pointing out that humans will tend to infer design given certain types of patterns..

    I agree.

    What’s the point in calling design non-algorithmic? All we do is imho pattern-matching. We don’t look for any causal algorithm while doing so. We might afterwards be interested in the cause. Then we try to establish a model (algorithm) of the cause.

    Where does the non-alogirthmic part come in place?

  21. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    keith wrote:

    ———-

    fifth:

    I seek to define intentional as nonrandom non-algorithmic.

    I like that definition I haven’t seen a lot of argument as to why it’s inappropriate.

    keiths:

    As I’ve explained more than once:

    Any numeric pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t rule it out), and any numeric pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    You need different criteria than “nonrandom and nonalgorithmic”.

    PopoHummel:

    Indeed, fifth’s distinction is a fail.

    fifth:

    Once again we are not trying to infallibly detect design. I don’t know how many other ways I can say it.

    Your criteria are so badly broken that if you actually used them, you would never detect design. I’ve explained this already:

    You’ve told us that you infer design if you think that a pattern is nonrandom and nonalgorithmic. As I’ve explained, every pattern can be produced by an algorithm, and every pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t forbid it).

    Therefore, if you were competently applying your criteria, you would never infer design.

    An intelligent person, having been shown that his criteria were broken, would replace them. You cling to them. Why is that, fifth?

  22. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel: An intelligent person, having been shown that his criteria were broken, would replace them.

    You have not shown that my criteria are broken the most you have done is show they are fallible. I grant that. In fact it’s an integral part of my argument.

    newton: Then you are detecting design from a different pattern not the one in question.

    correct

  23. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel: every pattern can be produced by an algorithm, and every pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t forbid it)

    OK, your point is?

    We are not trying to rule out the possibility that a particular pattern is not intentional we are trying to specify what it is about patterns that makes us infer intention.

    Like I have repeatedly said there is simply no way to prove the existence of other minds.

    That is not what I’m trying to do.

    peace

  24. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:

    You’ve told us that you infer design if you think that a pattern is nonrandom and nonalgorithmic. As I’ve explained, every pattern can be produced by an algorithm, and every pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t forbid it).

    Therefore, if you were competently applying your criteria, you would never infer design.

    fifth:

    OK, your point is?

    Here it is, again:

    Therefore, if you were competently applying your criteria, you would never infer design.

    keiths:

    An intelligent person, having been shown that his criteria were broken, would replace them. You cling to them. Why is that, fifth?

    fifth:

    You have not shown that my criteria are broken the most you have done is show they are fallible. I grant that.

    They aren’t merely fallible; they’re completely broken. If you actually followed your own criteria, you would never infer design.

    That’s known, in the jargon, as “a massive failure”.

  25. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: (…)

    From the way you quote it looks like you’re quoting me, while in reality you’re quoting keiths.

  26. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman:
    We are not trying to rule out the possibility that a particular pattern is not intentional we are trying to specify what it is about patterns that makes us infer intention.

    (…)

    The point is if it did produce exactly the same results through an algorithmic process we would probably not infer that that particular result was directly intentional.

    keith:

    You’ve told us that you infer design if you think that a pattern is nonrandom and nonalgorithmic. As I’ve explained, every pattern can be produced by an algorithm, and every pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t forbid it).

    Therefore, if you were competently applying your criteria, you would never infer design.

    @fifth: Why are you equating intent/design with the “non-algorithmic” property?

  27. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths wrote:
    ———————

    keiths:

    You’ve told us that you infer design if you think that a pattern is nonrandom and nonalgorithmic. As I’ve explained, every pattern can be produced by an algorithm, and every pattern can be produced by a random source (provided that the distribution doesn’t forbid it).

    Therefore, if you were competently applying your criteria, you would never infer design.

    fifth:

    OK, your point is?

    Here it is, again:

    Therefore, if you were competently applying your criteria, you would never infer design.

    keiths:

    An intelligent person, having been shown that his criteria were broken, would replace them. You cling to them. Why is that, fifth?

    fifth:

    You have not shown that my criteria are broken the most you have done is show they are fallible. I grant that.

    They aren’t merely fallible; they’re completely broken. If you actually followed your own criteria, you would never infer design.

    That’s known, in the jargon, as “a massive failure”.

  28. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel: From the way you quote it looks like you’re quoting me, while in reality you’re quoting keiths.

    Keiths has demonstrated that he will do anything whatsoever to attain a debating advantage including pretend to believe things that he does not in fact believe.

    Therefore he has disqualified himself from entering into a civil discussion. You have not as of yet proven to be so despicable so I will answer you. If you disagree with what you post let me know.

    peace

  29. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel: @fifth: Why are you equating intent/design with the “non-algorithmic” property?

    because it has been my experience that persons are not algorithms and algorithms are not persons. That is the reason why it’s not murder to shut off a chat-bot

    PopoHummel: They aren’t merely fallible; they’re completely broken. If you actually followed your own criteria, you would never infer design.

    Again

    That is simply incorrect. I’m not inferring intent because I have ruled out random and algorithmic causes with logical certainty.

    Logical certainty is not possible you can’t prove that other minds exist.

    I infer intent because I’m hardwired to infer intent when presented with certain patterns. Namely patterns that appear not to be random and that have no plausible algorithmic source.

    Now I have answered you multiple times in different ways If you post exactly the same objection again it will mean that you aren’t paying attention.

    I’m giving you a big benefit of the doubt here

    peace

  30. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel,

    I’m starting to suspect that you are just a sock puppet utilized by keiths to allow him enter into a conversation where he is not welcome.

    Please in the future respond in your own words so as to demonstrate this is not the case.

    peace

  31. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I infer intent because I’m hardwired to infer intent when presented with certain patterns. Namely patterns that appear not to be random and that have no plausible algorithmic source.

    I am paying attention, in the study about stocks the recognition is learned not hardwired.

  32. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    Every stock investor seems to have an infallible system, the financial equivalent of perpetual motion.,

  33. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    @fifth:

    I disagree with you attributing quotes to me which aren’t mine. Please don’t do it.

    fifth:

    because it has been my experience that persons are not algorithms and algorithms are not persons.

    We have no clue how people design. So where do you get the idea, that design is non-algorithmic? What’s the non-algorithmic part of design and why?

    fifth:

    That is the reason why it’s not murder to shut off a chat-bot

    And marriage is between a man and a woman… until someone decides that marriage can be between two men.

    fifth:

    That is simply incorrect. I’m not inferring intent because I have ruled out random and algorithmic causes with logical certainty.

    I infer intent because I’m hardwired to infer intent when presented with certain patterns. Namely patterns that appear not to be random and that have no plausible algorithmic source.

    It seems to me you rule out the causes you are aware of. You have no clue whether these causes are non-algorithmic.

  34. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    petrushka:
    Every stock investor seems to have aninfallible system, the financial equivalent of perpetual motion.,

    They can recognize the pattern of where stocks have been but not where they are going.

  35. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel: We have no clue how people design. So where do you get the idea, that design is non-algorithmic?

    My hypothesis is that people are hardwired to infer intent when presented with patterns that are non-random and non-algorithmic. It’s been my experience that I tend to infer intent when presented with patterns like that. My hypothesis is that other folks have the same experience. This is easily testable with a poll as has been suggested here as well as the other thread.

    I have no idea if design is non-algorithmic and I make no claim that it is.

    PopoHummel: And marriage is between a man and a woman… until someone decides that marriage can be between two men.

    OK your point is?

    If people no longer tend to infer intent when presented with a particular pattern it will be evidence that the hardwired inference has changed.

    I don’t see any issue.

    PopoHummel: It seems to me you rule out the causes you are aware of. You have no clue whether these causes are non-algorithmic.

    If I know of an algorithm that can plausibly explain the pattern I usually don’t infer direct design.

    I make an educated guess and modify my tentative inferences as more information comes in.

    This is all pretty strait forward and common sense. It only becomes controversial when the inference is controversial for some reason.

    peace

  36. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: in the study about stocks the recognition is learned not hardwired.

    The recognition is not the inference. You learn to recognize the difference in the two sequences what you infer about the difference is a different matter entirely.

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: They can recognize the pattern of where stocks have been but not where they are going.

    The recognize the pattern as something like “more spiky” or “less spiky”. They then can extrapolate that pattern into the future.

    It just boils down to realizing that the real data is not like the randomized copy.

    Pattern recognition is something humans are generally scary good at

    peace

  38. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    Just want to point out there there are two really different questions at work here:

    1. What can we say (if anything) about the underlying real patterns that we and other animals tend to conceptualize as purposive or intentional?

    2. Can we apply any of those facts (if there are any) to non-anthropogenic genetic sequences in order to determine if any of those sequences are a result of intention or purpose?

    I find (1) quite interesting and it’s the focus of my research. My best guess is that once we have a philosophically and scientific adequate theory of intentionality, the answer to (2) is going to be “no”.

  39. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:

    They aren’t merely fallible; they’re completely broken. If you actually followed your own criteria, you would never infer design.

    That’s known, in the jargon, as “a massive failure”.

    fifth:

    That is simply incorrect.

    No, it’s correct, and the logic is obvious and straightforward:

    1. You say

    I seek to define intentional as nonrandom non-algorithmic.

    2. Every pattern is random, in that it can be produced by a random source (as long as the distribution doesn’t prohibit it).

    3. Every pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    4. Therefore, no patterns qualify as “nonrandom non-algorithmic.”

    5. Therefore, if you actually followed your own criteria, you would never infer intent.

    Your criteria are badly broken. Why won’t you fix them, as an intelligent person would?

  40. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Just want to point out there there are two really different questions at work here:

    Agreed

    Kantian Naturalist: My best guess is that once we have a philosophically and scientific adequate theory of intentionality, the answer to (2) is going to be “no”.

    What do we do in the mean time?

    I would suggest we treat our hardwired tendency to infer intent given certain patterns just like we do our other faculties and hold it to be tentatively reliable in individual instances until we have good positive reason to believe it to be mistaken in those individual cases.

    To do otherwise is to apply our skepticism in a very inconsistent and biased manner. If we were consistently skeptical in this way we could not function in the world.

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Can we apply any of those facts (if there are any) to non-anthropogenic genetic sequences in order to determine if any of those sequences are a result of intention or purpose?

    I’m not that interested in “genetic sequences” I’m interested more in the output of AI.

    Can we use our hardwired intention inference thingy as a sort of Turing Test? It seems that in the near future that sort of thing will be more useful than looking at things like “genetic sequences”

    peace

  42. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifth:

    My hypothesis is that people are hardwired to infer intent when presented with patterns that are non-random and non-algorithmic.

    But people have no clue whether a pattern is non-algorithmic.

    fifth:

    If I know of an algorithm that can plausibly explain the pattern I usually don’t infer direct design.

    Aha, the less algorithms you are aware of the more design you see. And you don’t know of any non-algorithmic source that can explain the pattern.

    So what use is the non-algorithmic property in “design”?

    Hm… Are you defining non-algorithmic as “I can’t think of any algorithm” ?

    fifth:

    This is all pretty strait forward and common sense. It only becomes controversial when the inference is controversial for some reason.

    It seems to me you’re trying to associate design with the totally useless property “non-algorithmic”.

  43. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths wrote:

    ——————————

    keiths:

    They aren’t merely fallible; they’re completely broken. If you actually followed your own criteria, you would never infer design.

    That’s known, in the jargon, as “a massive failure”.

    fifth:

    That is simply incorrect.

    No, it’s correct, and the logic is obvious and straightforward:

    1. You say

    I seek to define intentional as nonrandom non-algorithmic.

    2. Every pattern is random, in that it can be produced by a random source (as long as the distribution doesn’t prohibit it).

    3. Every pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    4. Therefore, no patterns qualify as “nonrandom non-algorithmic.”

    5. Therefore, if you actually followed your own criteria, you would never infer intent.

    Your criteria are badly broken. Why won’t you fix them, as an intelligent person would?

  44. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I’m not that interested in “genetic sequences” I’m interested more in the output of AI.

    I don’t think you actually understand what AI is.

    Or do you? Tell me more about this “output” of “AI” which you are interested in?

    Is there a particular “AI” you had in mind? What’s it’s name?

    What about “Deep Blue”? Is that sufficiently “AI” for you? It plays chess. It has a name!

    One of the two racks that made up Deep Blue is on display at the National Museum of American History in their exhibit about the Information Age;[citation needed] the other rack appears at the Computer History Museum in the “Artificial Intelligence and Robotics” gallery of the Revolution exhibit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)

    And it’s an “AI”. Wikipedia says so. Do you agree?

    Now, if so,given that particular AI’s output are simply chess moves are you interested in that AI’s output? Or did the words you used there have a more specific meaning that you forgot to add?

  45. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel: 3. Every pattern can be produced by an algorithm.

    If fifth agrees with that, I fear he’ll be agreeing that his deity can be an algorithm as well. And we’re the pattern it produced. So no, I doubt he’ll agree.

    PopoHummel: No, it’s correct, and the logic is obvious and straightforward:

    I see what you did there. Rather then saying fifth was simply incorrect, you said he was simply incorrect and then went on to show why too. What a game changing move.

    Fifth, dare you respond in kind?

  46. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:

    2. Every pattern is random, in that it can be produced by a random source (as long as the distribution doesn’t prohibit it).

    Imho he’s trying to say that a pattern is “intentional”, if it DIDN’T originate from a random source or an algorithm.

    fifth can correct me if I’m misrepresenting him.

  47. PopoHummel
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Fifth, dare you respond in kind?

    You’re attributing quotes to me that aren’t mine. Please stop.

  48. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    PopoHummel, to OMagain:

    You’re attributing quotes to me that aren’t mine. Please stop.

    OMagain,

    Fifth is hiding behind his Ignore button. PopoHummel is quoting my comments to deprive fifth of the excuse that “I didn’t see his comment — I have him on Ignore”.

  49. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:
    PopoHummel, to OMagain:

    OMagain,

    Fifth is hiding behind his Ignore button.PopoHummel is quoting my comments to deprive fifth of the excuse that “I didn’t see his comment — I have him on Ignore”.

    Ah, but can’t fifth just click ignore on another person? 😉

  50. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain:

    Ah, but can’t fifth just click ignore on another person? 😉

    Sure, and why not? Hiding from two people isn’t that much worse than hiding from one.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.