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.
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.
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?
It’s little comments like this that let me know you are not paying attention 😉
peace
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
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.
The person making the decision.
peace
I’ll take #15
Natural selection = selection of an off-white or beige color
No, this is your claim:
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
You rarely say anything you have not already said.
“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?
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.
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
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
right back at you friend
peace
A snowflake needs its safe-space.
Indeed, fifth’s distinction is a fail.
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.
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.
You think you could tell the difference in the patterns of different forecasting models given feedback?
For instance?
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.
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:
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.
For example—- written text in a couple of languages, Industrial production, an appointment schedule.
diverse intentional things like that
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.
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
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
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
fifth:
keiths:
PopoHummel:
fifth:
Your criteria are so badly broken that if you actually used them, you would never detect design. I’ve explained this already:
An intelligent person, having been shown that his criteria were broken, would replace them. You cling to them. Why is that, fifth?
Then you are detecting design from a different pattern not the one in question.
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?
keith wrote:
———-
fifth:
keiths:
PopoHummel:
fifth:
Your criteria are so badly broken that if you actually used them, you would never detect design. I’ve explained this already:
An intelligent person, having been shown that his criteria were broken, would replace them. You cling to them. Why is that, fifth?
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.
correct
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
keiths:
fifth:
Here it is, again:
keiths:
fifth:
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”.
From the way you quote it looks like you’re quoting me, while in reality you’re quoting keiths.
(…)
keith:
@fifth: Why are you equating intent/design with the “non-algorithmic” property?
keiths wrote:
———————
keiths:
fifth:
Here it is, again:
keiths:
fifth:
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”.
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
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
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
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
I am paying attention, in the study about stocks the recognition is learned not hardwired.
Every stock investor seems to have an infallible system, the financial equivalent of perpetual motion.,
@fifth:
I disagree with you attributing quotes to me which aren’t mine. Please don’t do it.
fifth:
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:
And marriage is between a man and a woman… until someone decides that marriage can be between two men.
fifth:
It seems to me you rule out the causes you are aware of. You have no clue whether these causes are non-algorithmic.
They can recognize the pattern of where stocks have been but not where they are going.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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”.
keiths:
fifth:
No, it’s correct, and the logic is obvious and straightforward:
1. You say
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?
Agreed
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
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
fifth:
But people have no clue whether a pattern is non-algorithmic.
fifth:
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:
It seems to me you’re trying to associate design with the totally useless property “non-algorithmic”.
keiths wrote:
——————————
keiths:
fifth:
No, it’s correct, and the logic is obvious and straightforward:
1. You say
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?
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!
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?
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.
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?
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.
You’re attributing quotes to me that aren’t mine. Please stop.
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? 😉
OMagain:
Sure, and why not? Hiding from two people isn’t that much worse than hiding from one.