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
fifth, to petrushka:
It shouldn’t matter. Your tool is supposed to distinguish design from non-design, even when you don’t know the nature or provenance of the strings.
it needs to be all numeric.
Take a look at the financial paper to see what I mean we need it to fit in a moving line graph for comparison.
What I would suggest you do is take your real and “complexity” string plug them in and see if you can distinguish them
If you can you need to do some more work.
peace
It does not matter I was trying to ascertain if he actually did represent it as a numerical string.
The point of making the game shareable is so we can see each others work and see if we get the same results.
Instead of taking this adversarial tone why not relax give it a try and see if it makes sense to you?
You can make suggestions to improve it if you like
peace
fifth,
After all this time you still don’t understand that numeric data can be represented in hex, binary, or decimal?
Plug them into what?
If hex is not acceptable, please provide a sample that is acceptable.
I think I understand that.
What I need is a string that I can easily compare on a moving line graph.
What I got last time was not that
just trying to avoid that particular hassle
Peace
OK, so we are going to play the game of I spend hours trying to produce something that your crybaby program can digest, and you are going to sit back on your ass and say we aren’t doing it right.
It is your job to produce unambiguous instructions for submissions.
here is the baseline string I provided OMagain
The Game
it’s expected to be available next week
peace
fifth,
You still don’t know how to convert numbers from one base to another?
The game is not complete yet. When it is done I will work with OMagain on a list of instructions
peace
Just give us an example of what you would submit.
fifth, to petrushka:
keiths:
fifth:
It does matter, according to you. Remember, that was your excuse for why your tool failed to recognize a sonnet, your canonical example of design!
There are lots of converters on the internet. That much is not hard
I believe that the original representation is what get’s carried over to each additional conversion, So that what you are representing when you convert to another base is not the original object but the string itself.
I don’t know this for sure but it is a suspicion of mine.
What I’d like to do is see if the game works for everyone on simple straightforward representations before we try it on strings that have been repeatedly converted to other bases
does that make sense?
peace
did you not see the string I linked too?
peace
No, it does not make sense. Base conversion does not change the data. ASCII is a conversion. There are other coding schemes.
If text is acceptable, then it should make no difference how it is coded.
Is text acceptable?
It has been my impression that you were claiming to analyse some abstract pattern property of strings.
keiths:
fifth:
No, I’m asking whether you know how to convert numbers from one base to another.
This is an example of how your lack of curiosity really hurts you. If you understood how to do a base conversion and had thought about why it works, you would understand that base conversion does not change the underlying data.
If I take a decimal integer, change it to binary, then change the binary to hexadecimal, then change the hexadecimal to base 62, then change the base 62 number back to decimal, I will have the same decimal integer I started with.
See
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/pre-algebra/applying-math-reasoning-topic/alternate-number-bases/v/number-systems-introduction
Keiths:
FMM is too busy reordering the world of biology, mathematics, cryptography, steganography, and artificial intelligence to be bothered with learning javascript or how to convert bases.
That definition works well for me.
It makes choosing a matter of pragmatic judgment, rather than logical determination. As I see it, logical determination is forced so not a real choice.
I should’t have to aske this, since I’ve already asked a dozen times:
Are we supposed to have delimiters between the numbers? Line feeds or commas?
Or are you going to waste more of our time without specifying how the strings are presented?
Do you even know what the fuck a string is?
Wait a minute there honcho. look at the following “conversion”
Jenny’s number—— original object
8675309 ———- numeric representation
XXXXXXXX —–bar graph
XXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
–
XXXXXXXXX
100001000101111111101101——– decimal to binary
845FED——— binary to hexadecimal
�_ ————- hexadecimal to text
I think some of the pattern might have got lost in the conversion process. What do you think?
This from someone who thought that because I sometimes forget phone numbers it means that don’t integrate information losslessly.
And who thought that the problem of the one and the many is just as much a issue for a trinitarian Christian as it is for an atheist
and who thought that it’s not logically possible for God to be omniscient.
I’d bet I could give more examples if I thought about it.
Just an ounce of curiosity would have prevented all these errors in mere minutes and you are the one lecturing me about curiosity 😉
peace
I have no idea. it depends on how OMagain does the actual coding.
In Excel the numbers are in individual cells in the spread sheet
In the processing program I whipped up I left spaces in between the numbers
What will be necessary in the App is anybodies guess
No I would suggest that in order to not waste time you wait on OMagain to finish the game before you try and produce a string to load into it.
IMO It’s a waste of time worrying about producing strings now when you should be giving feedback on my definitions
peace
how does software know what the most appropriate alternative is?
So now you agree with Patrick that computers choose?
It sometimes hard to keep up with you all’s positions?
peace
We already gave you feedback. Are you familiar with the term, operational definition.
I mean, as something other than a buzzword.
How about providing operational definitions for your terms.
how about some suggestions?
Lets start with this one
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
How would you change it?
Let’s start by asking how you determine “can’t be explained by a computable function”.
Show me a string and apply whatever analysis is necessary to determine it cannot be “explained” by a computable function.
You are aware, I hope, that the output of many simple algorithms will produce every possible finite string.
fifth,
Jesus, fifth. You managed to screw up even the simple bar graph.
Do you see why we roll our eyes?
Did you even read my definitions?
Explanation –a model produced by a alternative method that an observer can’t distinguish from the string being evaluated
You do know we already covered this up thread don’t you?
Instead of going through it all again an wasting 600 comments
Why don’t you take a minute and review and tell me what clarification you need.
that should not be difficult.
I’ll even give you a place to start http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/working-definitions-for-the-design-detection-gametool/comment-page-6/#comment-103219
peace
I never claimed to be captain anal retentive.
I originally went with horizontal dashes in the bar but it did not look the same in the post as it did in the editing window.
Must have gotten wires crossed when I tried to fix it.
Like I’ve repeatedly said I’m terrible at details I’d blame dysgraphia but really I just don’t care that much as long as I can get my point across.
peace
fifth,
You’ve heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, right?
It is your own lack of understanding, and your lack of understanding of your lack of understanding, that is preventing you from seeing what is obvious to skilled individuals: base conversions do not alter the underlying numbers.
So give us the procedure for ensuring that the string can’t be distinguished from a model.
I’m glad to hear that someone’s financial stability is in the capable hands of someone who can’t count and doesn’t care.
fifth,
The problem is that you aren’t even Sergeant Get-it-Right.
The sloppiness pervades your thinking, and it affects crucial issues, not just unimportant details.
this from somebody who mistook data-compression for reminisce
I did not say it did. However I’m not particularly interested “underlying numbers” but the pattern that is present in a numerical representation of an object.
Perhaps your right. I have no reason to doubt you. It makes sense as far as it goes. The problem is as far as my game goes it’s all an unnecessary complication.
How about this for an experiment.
Produce an ordinary numerical string and then a base conversion of the same string, Run them both through the game separately and see if the results differ.
That is what a curious person would do
Don’t you just love science
peace
Clarification would be in the form of operational definitions. That means a procedure.
It does not mean picking magic numbers out of your ass. It does not mean things defined as the negative of what can be done.
Try putting your definitions in positive terms. Do this and do that.
Is that addressing the post or the poster? 😉
If you have evidence that my general laziness affects my thinking on crucial issues present it.
I’d appreciate the feed back,
Just pointing out that I’m sloppy is not going to do it.
I’ll grant that I’m sloppy
peace
Did you read the paper?
Do you know why we can say definitively that integrating functions are noncomputable?
peace
If the paper includes a procedure for generating strings that qualify, it will be no problem for you to work one out.
So far I have described how I generated a string. I asked if it was acceptable, and you asked an irrelevant question. Every string stored in a computer file or displayed on a computer screen is represented as numbers. Every character displayed, every sentence, every image. If it can be viewed on a computer, it is numbers.
It is your job to tell us about the format requirements of your program.
As for you laziness, in the time you’ve been bitching about your program on this thread, I taught my self javascript and asp and built a client server game.
You don’t even seem capable of writing specifications for a program.
fifth,
I and others been pointing out sloppy mistake after sloppy mistake of yours for months, on this issue (your design detection “tool”) alone.
Example: your bizarre misunderstandings of computability, which is central to your argument.
fifth,
A curious, competent person — especially a curious, competent scientist — would think carefully about the issues before designing an experiment. Isn’t that obvious?
Two glaring issues — the resolution issue and the representation issue — were pointed out to you more than half a year ago. You still haven’t resolved them, yet you want to forge ahead as if they didn’t exist.
That’s foolish. Why do you have such an aversion to doing good science, as opposed to simply fantasizing about it?
petrushka,
I’m just catching up after the holiday, but I share your concern about “that’s not what I meant”. I hope that once OMagain makes the software available everyone will hold fire until fifthmonarchyman demonstrates its use with clear examples and provides a detailed explanation of what he thinks the results mean.
petrushka:
Patrick:
Fifth could save himself a lot of trouble by simply declaring ahead of time, “If it turns out to be right, I meant it. If it turns out to be wrong, it’s not what I meant.”
petrushka, to fifth:
Speaking of which, didn’t fifth say he was going to learn to program?
Fifth, what happened?
Amen.
But more importantly, I hope he will provide clear examples of test strings and how he derived them.
He could be doing that now.
The best and most unambiguous definition is an example.
fifthmonarchyman,
Given that even the most sophisticated artificial neural networks have only a tiny fraction of the nodes and connections of an organic brain, it’s not surprising to find some strange artifacts. Then again, we are susceptible to optical illusions, so don’t go feeling too superior to silicon.
In any case, that doesn’t address the claims of the Maguire et al. paper. Here’s a couple of paragraphs from the pertinent section:
Removing a memory from a neural network would cause the same problems as described in the first paragraph. There is no single place to change or delete data. It’s all integrated among the weights of each connection. By the definitions used in the paper, a trained neural network contains integrated information.
Your idea that “Actually my idea is that lossless information integration is only possible for persons and (not computers)” is demonstrably incorrect.
fifthmonarchyman,
A lot of people have lost a lot of money postdicting the market. This is no different. It doesn’t provide any means for predicting the next movement.
This aside, do you agree that what I proposed meets your challenge? (I’m still catching up — if you’ve already answered that question, please ignore this repeat.)
petrushka,
The algorithmic trading systems place more trades than anyone, but that’s a specialized realm. For managing portfolios, it’s sometimes hard to tell where the recommendation and automation systems leave off and the human input begins.
Misunderstanding how neural nets work — in brains and in computers — is the hallmark or this doomed enterprise.
I think it’s safe to say that at some time within the next 50 years, humans will lose out, except in the realm of insider trading.
The only way humans will compete is by knowing something the programs don’t know. About upcoming court rulings or regulations or something.