Several regulars have requested that I put together a short OP and I’ve agreed to do so out of deference to them. Let me be clear from the outset that this is not my preferred course of action. I would rather discuss in a more interactive way so that I can learn from criticism and modify my thoughts as I go along. OPs are a little too final for my tastes.
I want to emphasize that everything I say here is tentative and is subject to modification or withdraw as feedback is received,
It’s important to understand that I speak for no one but myself it is likely that my understanding of particular terms and concepts will differ from others with interest in ID. I also want to apologize for the general poor quality of this piece I am terrible at detail and I did not put the effort in I should have due mainly to laziness and lack of desire.
With that out of the way:
Background
For the purpose of this discussion I would like to expand upon the work of Phill Mcguire found here and stipulate that cognition can be seen as lossless data compression in which information is integrated in a non-algorithmic process. The output of this process is a unified coherent whole abstract concept that from here forward I will refer to as a specification/target. Mcguire’s work thus far deals with unified consciousness as a whole but I believe his incites are equally valid when dealing with integrated information as associated with individual concepts.
I am sure that there are those who will object to the understanding of cognition that I’m using for various reasons but in the interest of brevity I’m treating it an an axiomatic starting point here. If you are unwilling to accept this proviso for the sake of argument perhaps we can discuss it later in another place instead of bogging down this particular discussion.
From a practical perspective cognition works something like this: in my mind I losslessly integrate information that comprise the defining boundary attributes of a particular target; for instance,”house” has such information as “has four walls”, “waterproof roof”, “home for family”, “warm place to sleep”, as well as various other data integrated into the simple unified “target” of a house that exists in my mind. The process by which I do this can not be described algorithmically. from the outside it is a black box but it yields a specified target output: the concept of “house”.
Once I have internalize what a house is I can proceed to categorize objects I come across into two groups: those that are houses and those that are not. You might notice the similarity of this notion to the Platonic forms in that the target House is not a physical structure existing somewhere but an abstraction.
Argument
With that in mind, it seems reasonable to me to posit that the process of design would simply be the inverse of cognition.
When we design something we begin with a pre-existing specific target in mind and through various means we attempt to decompress it’s information into an approximation of that target. For instance I might start with the target of house and through various means proceed to approximate the specification I have in my mind into a physical object. I might hire a contractor nail and cut boards etc . The fruit of my labor is not a completed house until it matches the original target sufficiently to satisfy me. However, no matter how much effort I put into the approximation, it will never completely match the picture of an ideal house that I see in my mind. This is I believe because of the non-algorithmic nature of the process by which targets originate. Models can never match their specification exactly.
Another good example of the designing process would be the act of composing a message.
When I began to write this OP I had an idea of the target concept I wanted to share with the reader and I have proceeded to go about decompressing that information in a way that I hoped that could be understood. If I am successful after some contemplation a target will be present in your mind that is similar to the one that exists in mine. If the communication was perfect the two targets would be identical.
The bottom line is that each designed object is the result of a process that has at its heart an input that is the result of the non-algorithmic process of cognition (the target). The tee shirt equation would look like this
CSI=NCF
Complex Specified Information is the result of a noncomputable function. If the core of the design process (CSI) is non-computable then the process in its entirety can not be completely described algorithmically,
This insight immediately suggests a way to objectively determine if an object is the result of design. Simply put if an algorithmic process can fully explain an object then it is not designed. I think this is a very intuitive conclusion, I would argue that humans are hardwired to tentatively infer design for processes that we can’t fully explain in a step by step manner. The better we can explain an object algorithmically the weaker our design inference becomes. If we can completely explain it in this way then design is ruled out.
At some point I hope to describe some ways that we can be more objective in our determinations of whether an object/event can be fully explained algorithmically but as there is a lot of ground covered here so I will put it off for a bit. There are also several questions that will need to be addressed before this approach can be justifiably adopted generally such as how comprehensive an explanation must be to rule out design or conversely when we can be confident that no algorithmic explanation is forthcoming.
If possible I would like to explore these in the future perhaps in the comments section. It will depend on the tenor of feed back I receive.
peace
I suggest you read the article at your link. Perhaps your memory of it has drifted.
petrushka says
lets see,
quote:
Memory re-consolidation is the process of previously consolidated memories being recalled and then actively consolidated all over again, in order to maintain, strengthen and modify memories that are already stored in the long-term memory. Several retrievals of memory (either naturally through reflection, or through deliberate recall) may be needed for long-term memories to last for many years, depending on the depth of the initial processing. However, these individual retrievals can take place at increasing intervals, in accordance with the principle of spaced repetition (this is familiar to us in the way that “cramming” the night before an exam is not as effective as studying at intervals over a much longer span of time).
end quote:
nope I’m recalling it just fine
peace
Read on.
I did
there is nothing at all about recall causing memories to degrade over time. It’s just as I stated
In fact look for yourself here is everything after the quote I gave
quote:
The very act of re-consolidation, though, may change the intial memory. As a particular memory trace is reactivated, the strengths of the neural connections may change, the memory may become associated with new emotional or environmental conditions or subsequently acquired knowledge, expectations rather than actual events may become incorporated into the memory, etc.
Research into a cognitive disorder known as Korsakoff’s syndrome shows that the retrograde amnesia of sufferers follows a distinct temporal curve, in that the more remote the event in the past, the better it is preserved. This suggests that the more recent memories are not fully consolidated and therefore more vulnerable to loss, indicating that the process of consolidation may continue for much longer than initially thought, perhaps for many years.
End quote:
again this is exactly my and the paper’s understanding of memory.
are you confusing “the association with new emotional or environmental conditions or subsequently acquired knowledge,” with degrading??
surely you have better reading comprehension than that?
peace
Memories can be changed by recalling them and associating them with subsequent learning.not just degraded, but changed to be unfaithful. False memories can be implanted.
fifth,
Pay attention to the quote marks in my (and Patrick’s) comments.
There’s a huge difference between
…and…
My claim was the latter.
I encourage you to learn programming. It will train you to be careful about such distinctions.
petrushka says,
I say,
I agree that memories can be changed by associating them with subsequent learning. What does that have to do with the idea that the memory function is nonlossy?
I think you are confounding and confusing the idea of the the memory function with the idea of memory itself,
The paper in the OP is not claiming that our memories are reliable or that we don’t forget things. It is claiming that the memory function is nonlossy it’s about the process of cognition and not the subject of that cognition .
peace
Keiths said
I say,
OK
If that is the case your claim is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
That sentence is just another way of saying PI which is precisely the nonlossy compression for the infinite string that is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.
It does not matter what set of symbols I choose to use to represent the Target. I could call it “George” if I wanted to.
That does not change the fact that the Target is an infinite string and as such can not be explained by an algorithm.
peace
I suggest you submit your theory of pi to a math journal. In the meantime, regail us with more fairy tails about lossless Integration in human memory.
All,
The idea of a lossless memory function seems to be a stumbling block to folks here so perhaps I should try and unpack it a little.
If my memory function was lossy I would remember each of the relevant informational details of a memory separately but not precisely.
For example when it came to the pizza I ate last night I would remember the taste of the peperoni and the temperature of the pie and the color of the cheese and the texture of the crust each individually but with little precision. If my memory was like that a particular individual detail could change and I would not be able not tell the difference.
On the other hand if my memory function is non lossy I will remember the event as one unified whole. So when it came to lasts nights the taste of the peperoni would not be separable and discrete from the temperature of the pie and the texture of the cheese in my mind.
Or look at the concept of PI yet again.
If my memory function was lossy I would remember each individual digit of Pi that I had ever seen individually but not precisely,
and as a consequence I would not be able to tell which of these two strings was the actual string
3.1415
or
3.1226
but of course I can easily tell the difference so I know that my memory function is nonlossy
Does that make sense or do you need still more explanation?
petrushka
I say,
I don’t have a theory of Pi. So I’m not sure what the paper would be about
Everything I’ve said about Pi is common knowledge and uncontroversial as far as I can tell.
I’ve been talking about Pi a lot here simply because it is a well defined and understood “target” that everyone should be able to get their heads around quite easily.
I could have substituted any target that you like but I expect we would have had to spend much more time ironing out the details and implications
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Really. Here’s one link: http://www.themarysue.com/memory-distortion-in-brain/
Google “memory changes with recall” for many more.
That directly contradicts the assertion in the paper.
fifthmonarchyman,
But it can output the string “Pi”. That’s a finite string. How is it any less of an explanation if an algorithm outputs “Pi” than if I say “Pi”?
Patrick says.
I interesting but I’m not sure if it is relevant to what we are discussing.
The actual memory did not degrade with recall but a new different memory was recalled instead.
quote:
Researchers conducted the study by having people relate objects to locations on a grid over the course of three days. They found that while recollections on the second day had only a few inaccuracies, for recollections on the third day subjects took those second day inaccuracies as their real memories, and placed objects closer to the inaccurate coordinates that they now remembered as being the correct ones.
end quote:
If any thing that would seem to support the papers understanding of the memory function.
If the memory function was lossy you would become less sure of what you knew each time you recalled it. Your memories would become more fuzzy. The study seems to show just the opposite.
Am I missing something?
peace
You saying Pi does not explain the string any more that an algorithm outputing “Pi”
What explains the string is the concept of Pi itself.
peace
Patrick, I took your advice and it appears that that the study you mention is the first one of this sort so that would appear to confirm that no memory studies have contradicted the understanding of the paper in the OP
check out the subtitle
quote:
The first experiment to show the enhancing and distorting effect of recall.
end quote:
peace
This is all very exciting, but today my internet is my phone, so I’m taking a break from this thread.
all,
Here is the relevant paragraph from the OP paper
quote:
One issue with presenting the XOR gate as the canonical example of synergistic information is that it is lossy. A two bit input is reduced to a single bit output, meaning that half the entropy has been irretrievably lost. If the brain integrated
information in this manner, the inevitable cost would be the destruction of existing information. While it seems intuitive for the brain to discard irrelevant details from sensory input, it seems undesirable for it to also hemorrhage meaningful content. In particular, memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would cause them to gradually decay.
end quote:
I would hope you could see the obvious difference between recall causing gradual decay over time and recall causing the incorporation of new or false memories.
Recall causing gradual decay of memories would be a problem for nonlossy compression
recall causing the the incorporation of new or false memories not so much
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
There are algorithms to calculate Pi. The description of these algorithms is finite. The word “Pi” itself is finite.
Again, how is generating one of these algorithms or the string “Pi” algorithmically any different in terms of your definition of “explain” than having a human being convey exactly the same strings to you?
fifthmonarchyman,
Recall demonstrably changes the memories. Whether you want to call that “decay” or not is immaterial. The fact is that some of the original memory is lost. That makes memory lossy.
Please read again the authors’ assertion (without evidence): “In particular, memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would cause them to gradually decay.” What they say “must” be false is exactly what is observed.
If you want to use this paper to support your argument, you’re going to have to either drop the non-lossy assertion or support it with actual evidence.
fifthmonarchyman,
Okay, then please answer the question as restated by keiths. What is the difference between an algorithm that generates the string “The ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.” and a human saying the same thing?
You seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either algorithms can “explain” artifacts or explanation of artifacts is impossible. There’s nothing special about a string coming from a human vs coming from an algorithm.
for our purposes there is no difference neither explain the string.
In fact a human saying Pi can be described as an algroythym as well.
This is not an argument about the difference between human speech and algorithms it’s an argument about the difference between algorithms and non algorithmic functions
peace
Targets explain artifacts. Why is this hard to understand?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
By the definition you posted, they both do.
Please give an example of how one might “explain” a sonnet and another for how one might “explain” Pi. I, for one, have even less idea what you’re talking about than I did initially.
Patrick,
That appears to be true of fifthmonarchyman, also.
Quick question: how is a target to be distinguished from a Markov selector?
fifth,
Your argument is riddled with problems, the most serious of which is your inconsistency regarding what constitutes an “explanation”.
1. You tell us that the target explains the artifact, and that in the case of pi, the target is the infinitely long decimal expansion. You say that an “algroythym” cannot produce this target, but merely an approximation of finite length.
Yet the same is true of humans. Therefore, by your reasoning, humans cannot “explain” pi.
2. Then you contradict yourself by telling us that it is the concept of pi, not the target, that is the explanation.
3. But earlier you told us that to “explain” was to
4. You’ve said that “Pi is also obviously a concept that can be communicated.” That’s correct, and textbooks are one means of communicating it. Yet a textbook is a finite string, and all finite strings can be produced algorithmically.
I’d suggest taking a break, thinking things through, and seeing if you can salvage anything from your argument that will withstand the criticisms we’ve already raised.
Patrick says
Please give an example of how one might “explain” a sonnet and another for how one might “explain” Pi.
I say,
OK I’ll give it a go
A sonnet is explained when the observer understands the concept that the author was trying to get across. One way to know that the observer understands is to see if he can write a similar sonnet or maybe paint a picture that conveys similar emotions.
If I wanted to explain a sonnet to you I might tell you the background of the author or give various analogous examples of in poetry or art.
by the same token
Pi is explained when the observer understands the concept of Pi.
One way to know if the one way to know that the observer understands is to see if he can expand the digits of the string, Another more practical way to see if he gets the concept would be to see if the observer could calculate the circumference of a circle when he is only given the length of the diameter. This is what we do when we test students knowledge of concepts
If I wanted to explain Pi to you I might give you several circles and a ruler. Or I might have you go through the exercise of trying to square the circle.
The point is there is no simple step by step way to explain targets the in the end observer must “get it” by insight.
If there was a way to explain concepts algorithmically educating a child would be like programing a computer.
peace
PS If you need more clarification just ask
Keiths said.
I say,
I don’t think it is. It’s possible, even likely that I need to do a better job of communicating what I mean but our discussion has only convinced me that my original idea is sound.
That is good. One of the reasons I came here was to force myself to think a little deeper about this and it has worked.
I suggest that instead of assuming my “argument” is riddled with problems you might put some effort into actually understanding what it is.
One way to do that is to see if you can phrase my “argument” in a way that I would recognize and affirm.
Your latest summery is not even close.
here are some jumping off questions that might get you started
Why is explanation important when talking about artifacts?
How is an explanation related to a target?
What is the difference between produce and explain?
That should get you started.
another way to get your head around a concept is to continue to ask clarifying questions but with an eye to understanding the idea first before you try to discredit it.
peace
This is what I am getting (perhaps wrongly):
1: An explanation is expressed in an intention language, and is all about intention and meaning.
2: An algorithm is expressed in a formal language which is devoid of intention and meaning.
3: Therefore an algorithm cannot constitute an explanation.
I’ll grant that (sort of). But it leaves me thinking that this thread is all about counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The selecting environment provides meaning for the attributes selected, without all the intention bullshit. Sorry if I’m breaking an intention by posting.
fifth,
The problem is that you keep contradicting yourself, as I explained above.
See if you can come up with an operational definition of “explain” that you will actually be willing to stick to, instead of changing it every few comments.
Hey Neil Rickert,
As usual here you seem to be the closest to getting it.
you say,
I say,
On the contrary it suggests an objective way of determining if an object is designed.
namely If an algorithm can explain an object it’s not designed.
I think that makes this the opposite of a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” discussion
peace
keiths said,
If my operational definitions were airtight I would not be posting here. I’m only here to tidy up my ideas not win an argument.
Modifying and clarifying tentative definitions as feedback is received is the sort of thing one does when he is tidying up his ideas.
peace
petrushka says
I say,
Perhaps but I think the advocates of Panpsychism would disagree,
I suspect that in the end this will boil down to the problem of other minds.
With some folks saying explanation does not require intention and others disagreeing.
It’s possible that we live in a world of zombies and intention is merely an illusion. I know of no way to prove this is not the case.
A zombie universe is a philosophical position and I would guess that it goes against the hardwired inferences we are all born with.
peace
fifth,
Right. So go ahead and do that instead of suggesting that the problem lies with your critics. As I said:
fifthmonarchyman,
Both of these are processes that can be (and are) summarized in textbooks in finite strings. Hence they can be produced algorithmically.
That does not follow from the examples you provided.
Keiths said,
I’d suggest taking a break, thinking things through, and seeing if you can salvage anything from your argument that will withstand the criticisms we’ve already raised.
I say,
No offense but I’m quite sure that if I was making an argument it would easily withstand the criticisms you have raised so far, They seem to be pretty trivial.
I was hoping for more.
peace
Patrick says,
I say,
It’s funny how you keep confusing “produced” with “explained”. These terms are not even remotely synonymous.
I think I made the distinction clear a couple hundred comments ago.
you say,
Why not?
You are going to have to be more specific about that claim
Denial is not the same thing as refutation.
peace
fifth,
Your arguments haven’t withstood the criticisms we’ve raised, and whenever you’ve tried to fix one problem, you’ve created another (or more). The constantly shifting definitions of “explain” are just one symptom of your confusion.
That’s why I urge you to slow down, think carefully, and see if you can come up with something that will withstand all of the criticisms we’ve raised so far — not just the latest one.
fifth,
No, you’re confusing the transcendentals with the irrationals. The former are a subset of the latter.
keiths said
That is good advice.
It seems a little disingenuous coming from someone who urged me to write an OP and then as soon as I did clamored for me to get to work demonstrating my method before we even discussed what my premises were.
You say,
i say,
It is not exactly accurate to say my definitions have shifted. I’m still quite happy with the tentative operational definition for explain that I provided earlier in the week. And that definition is merely a rephrasing of the original definition that I gave that was expanded for the philosophically handicapped among us,
It’s possible even likely that before I’m through I might need to add an additional clarifying sentence or two removing any wiggle room that I unintentionally left but the original idea will not change as far as I can tell.
peace
fifth,
Yes, it is.
You’re changing your definitions to correct the flaws we’ve identified for you, which is good, but the problem is that you’re changing them too hastily, without checking to see that the revised definitions work in all cases.
That’s why I’m advising you to slow down and think things through.
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m just applying the definition you specified. By that definition, a finite string can be an explanation. If that’s not what you mean, please modify your definition.
Keiths says,
I’m not sure what possibly gave you that idea but that is not at all what has happened. Perhaps you are assuming something that was never said. Lets pick apart your comment to see
you say
Correct humans can’t explain Pi, the target (ie concept of the ratio of a circle’s circumference to it’s diameter ) itself explains the digits of Pi,
The concept of Pi is the target there is no contradiction.
Correct again and I’ll stick to that definition for now but I reserve the right to modify it if and when feedback proves the change necessary
Communicate and explain are not even remotely synonymous. That should be obvious.
Maybe it’s you who should slow down and think clearly about what is actually being said instead of assuming stuff.
I mean on offense but it seems you are only thinking on the shallowest of adversarial levels here.
This is not a debate. If It was I would be more inclined to answer every silly little objection you tried to make about my definitions no matter how trivial or false they were.
Peace
Patrick says,
I say,
I never said a finite string can not be an explanation.
Finite strings can explain non-designed objects. My definition also does not specifically rule out finite strings explaining designed objects if they meet the specifications mentioned therein.
Can you think of a finite string that describes the patterns in the string in such a way as enable an observer to reproduce and expand them with out reference to the actual steps of the algorithm.
If you can I’m all ears at this time I will see about modifying this definition at that point.
Come on Patrick surely you know that producing a particular output is no guarantee the the output in question adheres to the specifications in the definition I gave.
Do you honestly think that all phenomena can be reduced to algorithmic processes?
Peace
fifthmonarchyman,
First, I can’t parse this.
Second, you seem to have added something about “the actual steps of the algorithm” that wasn’t in your previous definition of “explain”. Do you have a revised definition now?
If a human is capable of generating a string that you agree is an explanation, and that string is finite, then that string can be generated algorithmically. This is the case for your examples of the sonnet and Pi. Therefore, by that definition, an algorithm can explain a sonnet (or Pi) by generating that string.
If you mean to say something different, please just say it.
(Hopefully I’ll get those longer strings to you later tonight.)
Patrick says,
No change at all.
It’s the same one we have been using since the middle of last week. when I posted an expanded definition for the philosophically handicapped. Are you saying all this time you have been referring to my definition when you haven’t even taken the time to read it.
you say,
I say,
I agree. You have yet to show that a human is capable of generating such a finite string. Keep in mind as I have repeatedly said this is not about the differences between humans and computers but about the difference between algorithmic and non algorithmic processes.
you say,
I say
I hope so I’m getting a little bored here because no helpful criticisms seem to be forthcoming.
it seems to be just trivial definitional minutia so far.
peace
fifth,
In the OP, you stated:
People here at TSZ who are good at detail and who aren’t lazy have identified serious flaws and inconsistencies in your ideas. We have provided a service that you are unable or unwilling to provide for yourself.
It’s ridiculous for you to say that no helpful criticisms have been forthcoming.
fifth,
You wrote that to “explain” was to
Now consider the following algorithm:
1. Print “The string is:
‘How do I love thee? Let me count the ways…'”
It produces a description that enables the observer to reproduce the sonnet without reference to the actual steps of the algorithm.
Therefore, by your definition, it “explains” the sonnet, and the sonnet is therefore not designed.
Your methodology is badly broken.
That may not be pleasant for you to hear, but it is certainly helpful criticism.