I want to thank OMagain in advance for doing the heavy lifting required to make my little tool/game sharable. His efforts will not only speed the process up immeasurably they will lend some much needed bipartisanship to this endeavor as we move forward. When he is done I believe we can begin to attempt to use the game/tool to do some real testable science in the area of ID . I’m sure all will agree this will be quite an accomplishment.
Moving forward I would ask that in these discussions we take things slowly doing our best to leave out the usual culture warfare template and try to focus on what is actually being said rather than the motives and implications we think we see behind the words.
I believe now would be a good time for us to do some preliminary definitional housework. That way when OMagain finishes his work on the gizmo I can lay out some proposed Hypotheses and the real fun can hopefully start immediately.
It is always desirable to begin with good operational definitions that are agreeable to everyone and as precise as possible. With that in mind I would like to suggest the following short operational definitions for some terms that will invariably come up in the discussions that follow.
1. Random– exhibiting no discernible pattern , alternatively a numeric string corresponding to the decimal expansion of an irrational number that is unknown to the observer who is evaluating it
2. Computable function– a function with a finite procedure (an algorithm) telling how to compute the function.
3. Artifact– a nonrandom object that is described by a representative string that can’t be explained by a computable function that does not reference the representative string
4. Explanation –a model produced by a alternative method that an observer can’t distinguish from the string being evaluated
5. Designer– a being capable of producing artifacts
6. Observer– a being that with feedback can generally and reliably distinguish between artifacts and models that approximate them
Please take some time to review and let me know if these working definitions are acceptable and clear enough for you all. These are works in progress and I fully expect them to change as you give feedback.
Any suggestions for improvement will be welcomed and as always please forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes.
peace
How so? Any finite sequence is trivially represented by an algorithm that prints one character of the sequence at a time. If instead of “Hello World” you have “kjsakhdf87wejwelkdfs8hi24klgf”, then print(“kjsakhdf87wejwelkdfs8hi24klgf”) works
Something just struck me.
Say String A is the original and is designed. It gets perturbed using an algorithm that produces the closely related String B. The observer notices that B is different from A and concludes that A is designed (whereas B is algorithmically produced). This is how the tool works, right?
However, because the perturbation is an algorithm it can be reversed. A second observer starts with String B and compares it to a (reversed) perturbed closely related copy which is the String A. A is different from B, so she will conclude that B is designed and A is algorithmically produced!
This is obviously fatal, unless I am mistaken about the procedure.
fG
You are mistaken. Design is not derived, it is presumed. The second observer is wrong but can never know it by any empirical means. The second observer can never know her error until informed of it by one of the Enlightened, whose presumptions are invariably correct as a matter of doctrine.
fifth,
Your neck has already been chopped.
Your entire argument rests on a false assumption: that human memory is “vastly non-lossy.”
Science shows that your assumption is false, and so does your own experience as a lousy speller and grammarian. You can’t remember how words are spelled, even after seeing the correct spellings again and again. Your memory is extremely lossy.
Poof — there goes your argument.
1) I provided the definition in the OP
a) My definition is simply the standard one found here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
2) I provided a reference paper that uses the term in exactly the same way I do
3) I explained how I am using the term
I’m not sure how much more I could have done.
I think the confusion I am seeing here is the result of confounding of two separate functions:
1) the algroythym that produces a string
2) the function that chooses the appropriate algroythym to use
Number one will be computable for any finite string.
Number two will be noncomputable if the function in question is the inverse of an integrating function*
* this is the hypothesis my game intends to test
I hope that helps. If it does not please ask specific questions
peace
that is why I repeatedly specified that the algroythym can’t target the specific digits in the real string,
that would be cheating
peace
I think you are making the mistake I addressed in my response to Neil.
If you need further clarification let me know
peace
I have repeatedly addressed this gross misunderstanding of the paper in my comments to Patrick.
If you have objections that I have not addressed or if still don’t understand the difference between reminiscence and data compression let me know and I’ll go over it all again
better yet ……
if you are right then you should be able to easily produce software that would be able to generally and reliably do what I do when I learn the patterns in the string
Patrick says this could be accomplished in an easy two week hack. Apparently he is busy right now, Maybe you could pick up the baton from him and falsify the prediction and in the process crash the markets and make us rich.
peace
As I see it, the mistake is in using the word “function” in the second. Choosing is not a function, at least in the technical sense of “function”. So it isn’t a non-computable function. Rather, it isn’t a function at all.
fifth,
You keep telling us that the kind of memory you are talking about is the kind that applies to telephone numbers and computer passwords.
People forget old telephone numbers and computer passwords. You forget how to spell words.
That kind of memory is lossy, yet your argument depends on it being “vastly non-lossy”.
Poof – there goes your argument. It doesn’t even get off the ground.
Yes that is reminiscence and as such is completely irrelevant to the point of the paper.
Human memory is fallible. DUH
On the other hand what the paper is talking about something entirely different (cognition) do you understand the difference?
If you still don’t reread the paper it gives an extended example concerning the smell of chocolate.
peace
I have no problem with that appraisal.
But choosing is what we are talking about and computers don’t choose
peace
fifth,
Do you really think you can bluff your way out of this?
You’re the one who insisted that the kind of memory you are talking about is the kind used to remember phone numbers and passwords.
Now suddenly you want to reclassify those as ‘reminiscences’?
That’s pitiful.
Okay.
But biological organisms and systems do choose. And evolution is, to a large extent, a result of those choices.
If that means that the biosphere is designed, then the biological systems within that biosphere are designers.
If that’s what “intelligent design” means, then I agree with that. But most ID proponents reject that idea.
You are so far off the mark on this one it’s laughable. Please please go back and read the paper.
I am simply amazed that you still don’t know what is being talked about.
I’ve given multiple examples. I’ve explained myself repeatedly. I’ve even made jokes about the difference between read and fead and you still apparently think this is about how good I remember stuff.
Come on, you are better than this. At least I hope you are
use your head man.
Would it help if I whistled it 😉
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
As I previously explained, not only am I busy with work but based on your interactions in the last thread and this one I am not convinced that you would accept your claims being disproven. The Maguire et al. paper has been demonstrated to depend on a false claim, yet you still cling to it.
Let’s be very clear about what you’re saying. If I were able to demonstrate that a software system could perform as well or better than the human results at the game described in Is It Real, or Is It Randomized?: A Financial Turing Test, what would that mean to your argument (whatever it may be)? Would it show that your game is not useful for detecting design? Would it disprove your ideas about integrated information being only possible for humans? Would it disprove your idea that cognition is uncomputable?
I wouldn’t want to go to the effort only to see the goalposts move. Please explain exactly how such a demonstration would impact your argument.
I would agree that (some) organisms choose we call them intelligent agents or persons.
I’m not sure I would agree that systems choose I would need to see some evidence.
Would you agree that choice is not computable?
IOW would you join me in saying that there is an ontological gap between persons and computers that will never ever be bridged?
Again I would heartily agree that evolution to a large extent is the result of conscious choice.
I’m not sure your typical Darwinian would join us in that.
Again you need to demonstrate that biological systems are capable of conscious choice. That belief is something on the lines of modified Animism, I would not necessarily hold to it but it’s a far cry from the beliefs usually expressed by the average ID critic.
Most ID proponents and ID critics have not thought about these things much deeper than the tired old “Christians are poopy heads” debate.
😉
peace
Lets be clear that we are not talking about a single data set but your software needs to perform as well or better than humans generally when it comes to distinguishing between real financial returns and randomized approximations of the same
If that happened It would mean that what I am doing when I learn the pattern of a string is not Lossless information integration. It would therefore mean that my hypothesis is falsified.
yes
Actually my idea is that lossless information integration is only possible for persons and (not computers)
Your hack would demonstrate that I am not integrating information losslessly when I learn the pattern of a string.
It might still be possible that I integrate information losslessly at other times but I have no idea what that would look like or how we would test it.
I would think it would render the idea useless when it comes to humans
No, It would disprove that this particular type of cognition ie learning the “global” pattern of a numerical string is noncomputable.
It would also IMO crash the stock market and instantly make you the the most wealthy man in the history of the earth 😉
peace
fifth:
Your comment is one giant bluff, fifth.
You told us that the kind of memory you are talking about is the kind that applies to telephone numbers and computer passwords.
People forget old telephone numbers and computer passwords. You forget how to spell words.
That kind of memory is lossy, yet your argument depends on it being “vastly non-lossy”.
Poof – there goes your argument.
geeze
The paper is talking about how we commit stuff to memory (cognition) not how we remember stuff (reminiscence).
Are you really incapable of understanding the obvious difference between these two very different processes?
This is not difficult.
peace
fifth,
You told us that the kind of memory you’re talking about is the kind that applies to telephone numbers and computer passwords.
You didn’t realize, until it was too late, that you were shooting yourself in the foot, since that form of memory is extremely lossy — particularly in your case.
The process of committing stuff to memory is extremely lossy. If I rapidly dictate an arbitrary 50-digit decimal number to you, what are the odds that you’ll be able to repeat it perfectly from memory?
Your argument rests on a bad assumption, fifth. No amount of bluffing will change that.
Odd that people who work in cognitive science find it difficult, but clueless cranks who don’t understand base conversion and can’t figure out javascript find it easy.
I wonder how that could be.
The US went to war against Iraq. No individual had the ability to do that. So if it was a choice, then it was a choice by a system.
No. But I equally would not say that it is computable. I see this as dealing with a bogus question. “Computatible” applies to formal problems.
There’s a gap. I’m not sure I would call it “ontological”, given that I’m a skeptic of metaphysics. In any case, computer’s don’t actually know anything, so there’s an epistemic gap.
I did not qualify “choice” with “conscious”. I’d say that there is intentiontal and purposive behavior at a level below what we would consider to be conscious.
There is nothing about cognition that is lossless.
It is even possible to lose the ability to comprehend color.. Not just lose color names or color vision, but to lose the concept of color.
How is it possible to agree with something that the other person did not say?
Still don’t get it do you?
If you rapidly dictate an arbitrary 50-digit decimal number to me I won’t be able to commit it to memory.
That says something about my memorization ability but it says nothing about how I commit stuff to memory.
use your head man
peace
Humans can and do forget stuff. Thank you captain obvious
Do you have any information that is actually relevant to what the paper said?
peace
What does the paper actually say. In your own words.
Give examples.
FMM: You misquoted another poster in a way that completely changes his meaning.
Have I ever told you that you and I could have some interesting conversations. 😉
you might find this to be interesting
check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
and especially this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_headship
I would argue that in the case of war there is a person who has the ultimate responsibility for that choice.
So in effect the choice is made by him (and us) at the same time.
I would also argue that in certain senses nations take on personal attributes.
In fact when you think about it even a particular human can be seen as collection of different systems under one federal head
This is the philosophical problem of the one and the many. I’ll just say we could kill some time on that one if we wanted ;-).
It does tend to get a little philosophical and theological so lets just put a pin in it.
peace
where have you been? have you fred anything in this thread? 😉
see multiple comments above where I explain and give examples
peace
I’m a bit confused about what is meant here with regard to evolution.
I would say that all choice is conscious choice.
If it’s not conscious it’s not choice by definition but a random or externally determined event.
peace
Link, please. the examples I have seen are simply factually untrue.
You are confused about what he meant but you are sure I misquoted him so as to completely change his meaning.
interesting
peace
here we go again.
Suppose I secretly produced a copy of petrushka that was exactly like you in every possible way except he was a South American televangelist.
Would my copy be you?
please take a minute to think about this before you respond.
It is not difficult
peace
fifth:
The bluffs are getting more desperate.
Use your ethics, man.
Your argument rests on a false assumption. Be honest about it.
Your response rests on a gross even laughable misreading of the paper. Be honest about it
peace
fifth,
My response is to your own ludicrous words. You brought up phone numbers and computer passwords as examples of non-lossy memory function.
You didn’t recognize your mistake until it was pointed out to you.
You are ending 2015 in failure, but you still have an opportunity to begin 2016 on a note of honesty. Why not admit that your argument has failed and get a clean start on the new year?
Yes and you apparently somehow thought that what I was talking about was my ability to remember phone numbers and passwords Instead of the way I went about committing phone numbers and passwords to memory.
What is amazing is that even after I’ve repeatedly shown you your error you still don’t understand what is being talked about.
I can only speculate that because the word “memory” is in the phrase “nonlossy memory function” you some how think the paper is claiming that human memory is infallible.
That is just plain hilarious.
Please take some time and think out what is actually being addressed.
If at that point you are still unable to get it I don’t know what else I can do for you.
peace
How well an organism does in the teleonomic behavior if finding food affects whether it makes it through natural selection.
A sunflower bends toward the sun. As best I can tell, this is not conscious, not random and not externally determined.
I would predict it is only a combination of random and determined and I would put the game forward is a possible way to test this prediction.
I would also say that if we find that there is something there beyond a combination of random and determined cause then I would conclude that there is a consciousness at work in the movements of the sunflower.
You might disagree but as I said in the end this discussion will always come down to the problem of other minds
peace
from here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151222082343.htm
quote:
Conclusion: “Some animals indeed appear to possess episodic memory. There is, however, no evidence that they are able to construct, reflect and compare different future scenarios like humans are.
end quote:
This sort of choice at least seems to be a limited to one particular biological organism
peace
So what?
Your choices are also a combination of random and determined. What makes them choices, is that they are determined by you. In the case of the sunflower, they are determined by the pragmatic needs of the sunflower.
As I see it:
determined by logic and truth requirements — not a real choice;
determined by pragmatic requirements — I count this as a choice.
I agree, I should have specified externally determined,
IMO In the case of the sunflower there is no “self” to do the determining.
Like I said i would respect it if you believed otherwise
I just think that would put you in an extreme minority among ID critics. I would think that view would be more at home among Animists than Atheists
peace
Not to get in to philosophy or risk releasing the bot but would would you consider this opinion to be based on truth and logic or pragmatism?
IOW by “real” do you mean “true”? If not why not?
peace
There’s no self in the sense of consciousness. But there is a coordination of activities that we do not see in a rock or an automobile.
I guess that would count as pragmatism.
I’m treating as similar to the question of whether an “if” statement in a computer language is really making a choice, or is merely following rules from the programmer.
“Would my copy be you?”
How about some examples more down to earth? How about some examples that could be submitted to your game?