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 can only add that after hundreds of posts, nothing very interesting has emerged. It’s really your job to explain yourself, not ours.
My tl;dr reading was that FMM was suggesting he had a method that might work to distinguish between strings that are randomly generated from those that might carry information without needing any other clue as to the nature of that information
Not sure if he still holds to that claim.
I see a morass of unconnected assertions.
Why are we discussing finite strings and transcendental numbers? What does any of this have to do with anything? It’s very Gaulinesque.
I have no idea what that means and I really (REALLY!) don’t want to know! 😉
fifthmonarchyman,
You gave two examples yourself (the sonnet and Pi).
Are you now saying that humans can’t explain things to other humans? Everything I’ve learned from textbooks is not an explanation?
Explanation and lossless are two terms that don’t seem to mean what we think they mean.
Keiths said,
I says
apparently you missed the word “Expand” in the definition
peace
Patrick says,
I’m saying that in the end cognition is a non algorithmic process. That means that true understanding comes about by intuition to some extent.
Textbooks are helpful in the process of learning but reading something is no guarantee you will understand it. If it was education would be like programing a computer.
peace
petrushka says,
I say
You say that yet you keep posting for some reason. I find that to be interesting in itself
That is news to me I did not know I had a job here.
anyway
I have asked repeatedly for someone to summarize what I’m saying so that I could know if you understood it. That is after all what my operational definition of “explain” says you would be able to do if I had explained myself here.
Since no one has attempted post a summery the only way I can ascertain if I’ve been successful is by trying to read in between the lines of the comments you do post.
you say,
I say,
Your criticism is duly noted.
I would suggest if we would have limited ourselves to one thing at a time instead of trying to tackle the whole idea at once it might have been less so. I probably should have not yielded pressure to put it all out there
live and learn
peace
Alan Fox says,
Yes I still hold that claim
I’m waiting on Patrick or anyone to provide a string so we can put the hypothesis to the test here.
peace
Can your test distinguish between a functional genome and one having a fatal mutation? Or one having parts randomly altered? Can you identify the working one?
The thing is, I am sympathetic to the general notion that brains integrate. But so does evolution. I’m trying to figure out how you think they are different, if you do.
http://pastebin.com/KKMLAaha
http://pastebin.com/67MfBvNn
As a start, what can you tell me about those two 5000 character strings?
Patrick:
fifth:
You didn’t answer Patrick’s question:
petrushka,
Plus ‘computable’, ‘transcendent’, and ‘Kolmogorov complexity’.
fifth,
Seriously? You think that unless the observer can “expand” the sonnet, then it hasn’t been “explained”?
Your definitions of “explain” are getting stranger and stranger.
I for one am deeply confused by what the mind’s pi really is. People were computing the area of circles long before mathematics had the concept of transcendental numbers. The only non-circular (!) definition of pi is the number resulting from carrying out a pi formula to infinity.
Attributing some special significance to the definition — circumference divided by diameter — is just magical thinking. We can’t know both at the same time, any more than we can divide by zero.
Yes,
quote:
“What I cannot create, I do not understand”?
end quote:
Richard Feynman
A printing press can print a copy of the sonnet but it has no clue what it’s about.
That is what I’m getting at. Only when you can create a sonnet that is similar do you truly understand it.
You might be able to train a parrot to repeat the sonnet but that does not mean you have explained it to him.
Peace
Ah, ninja’d by OMagain. When you’re done with those strings, you can try the six here: http://www.softwarematters.org/ffm-strings.txt
As with the shorter strings, between zero and six of these are designed. The remainder, if any, are not. Please tell me which are which and why.
Good luck!
fifth,
So a professor has not “explained” a Shakespearean sonnet unless the student can produce one?
That doesn’t make sense, fifth.
ETA: Also, how does one “expand” a sonnet? By making it longer?
Keiths asks,
I guess you missed it when Patrick and I had this discussion earlier. Oh well I can repeat myself if need be. I do find it to be odd that you have missed or overlooked so much of what has been said here.
You could “expand” the patterns in the string by writing a sonnet that was similar in style to the original or perhaps you could paint a picture that conveyed the same emotions that were expressed in the sonnet.
There are lots of ways to do it. What’s important is that you reproduce the patterns without simply reproducing the exact digits in the original string.
peace
Keiths says,
I say,
What is important for my definition is not that the student actually write a sonnet only that there is enough information in the algorithm so that he could write a similar one if he wanted to.
peace
fifth,
That needn’t involve expansion. The variant could be the same length or shorter. I think you’re being led astray by your pi example, in which there really is an expansion.
Yet you’ve told us that
Also, for the record, do you believe that a Shakespearean sonnet can never be explained to someone who lacks the talent to write a similar one? That makes no sense to me.
Professors explain sonnets to their students all the time — even the poetically challenged ones.
So what can be said of a computer program that can crank out endless compositions in the style of Bach or Mozart? This can and has been done. Do you think your method can reliably distinguish the pastishes?
petrushka says,
I had to look the word, up but if the “pastishes” are produced by an algorithm I believe that my method can distinguish them from the original. As with the other biological examples you have mentioned I have not tested this so I could be all wet. At this point it’s all just a hypothesis.
So far I’ve tested several strings that represent designed objects and I seem to be able to distinguish between them and algorithmically produced strings that are close. I’d like to see if the method can be standardized and generalized.
The strings I’ve gotten here will be helpful in this regard. I was not really expecting to do this sort of testing right now but the “game” really is pretty enjoyable it’s like solving a puzzle. I highly recommend it as a pastime
I’ll tackle OMagain’s mammoth strings first and then move on to Patrick’s. I’ll keep you posted.
peace
I believe you are here heading to a place that will show that your method cannot work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope
You may download the scores from here: http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/scorepubs.htm
And you can listen here:
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/works.htm
Distinguish away!
OMagain’s link says,
I say,
Of course it can, ever heard of sampling?
The question is can you tell the difference between “U Can’t Touch This” and Rick James’s “Super Freak”?
I think you can tell the difference.
peace
No, rather the question is can you tell the difference between a piece of classical music written by a computer program and one written by a human.
Can you?
OMagain says,
I say,
Define “written” in both cases. If the computer program simply takes snippets of music and stitches them together that would be the equivalent of
“Print sonnet” would it not?
peace
I thought this would happen. To be honest, and I’m reluctant to say it, but you’ll have to go read his book or at the very least disabuse yourself of this notion that computer generated music is simply sticking together pieces of existing music.
As, guess what, even the best composers “simply take snippets of music and stitches them together”. Even Bach was “inspired” by those who came before him. So your criticism applies just as well to Bach as a computer program.
And in any case, if that’s all it’s doing then your method should be able to tell the two apart right?
There has to be some difference between the original and the copy
I can tell
3.14159265359
from
3.14159265059
but I can’t tell
3.14159265359
from
3.14159265359
peace
No. The programs compose completely original music that would pass the most stringent copyright test. The question is can your method distinguish human from machine composition.
One could submit them as WAV files converted to digit strings.
It’s not about “original” and “copy”. It’s about attempting to understand the way that we write music and replicating it in a computer program.
So your method cannot tell music written by a computer from music written by a human, and I understood that would in fact be a perfect test for it.
Pray tell, for the music I have linked to, what was the “original” it was “copied from”?
fifth,
There’s a way to distinguish between any two distinct finite strings. It’s called comparison, and it can be done by both humans and computers.
Whether or not the original string is algorithmically produced, it can be distinguished from close copies by the process of comparison. Any difference that is too small to be detected at one level of resolution can be detected by “zooming in”.
Therefore, according to your methodology, every finite string is designed.
Well, that’s one way to avoid false negatives, I guess. 🙂
I propose testing the first million digits of pi as produced by an algorithm compared to the first million real digits.
Would it make a difference whether the digits are binary rather than numeric?
We haz a winner.
petrushka,
It’s akin to KF’s belief in the magical power of the log transform.
Damn right you don’t.
Just bumping this so I can find it on my phone.
petrushka, says,
As I pointed out much earlier in this discussion. Pi is part of a special class of strings that will always appear random to the observer unless he knows the specification in advance.
Therefore in the case of Pi more often then not it will be impossible to reject the null hypothesis that the string is effectively random.
However once the observer knows the specification/target he will always be able to tell which of the strings is real and which is an algorithmic approximation. he just needs to compare the digiots at the point that the algorithmically produced string halts.
In this case he would need to wait for the million and first digit.
peace
Keiths says,
As a Christian I believe that every finite string is designed. However my method can not demonstrate that to be the case.
My method can if I’m correct show that certain strings can not be explained by algorithmic or random processes. At that point I feel justified in inferring design.
that is all.
more later right now I have some strings to compare
peace
OMagain says,
I say,
This is not about computers verses humans and it’s not an argument about dualism or AI. It’s about algorithmic process verses non algorithmic process.
Humans and computers both often use algorithms.
If I’m correct cognition is non algorithmic and design is the inverse of cognition
that is all
peace
Hey OMagain,
Here is an update on your strings.
One down
I could not reject the null on the first string (the one that started with a K) In other words I assume it is effectively random to the observer at this resolution.
The second string (the one that started with an L) is not random. I can easily distinguish it from a randomized string.
The next step is to run the randomized copy through an EA until it is close to the original (R squared 80%).
Then I’ll repeat the process to see if I can distinguish the original from the algrorthymicly produced model that is close to it.
I’ll keep you posted.
peace
fifth,
The algorithm never halts. The million and first digit of the expansion will match the million and first digit of pi. You will never be able to identify a digit position at which the expansion differs from the “real” pi.
fifth:
keiths:
fifth:
Your method concludes that every finite string is designed, which renders it useless.
I know you recognize the problem. It’s why you keep adding the “at this resolution” qualifier to your statements.
I repeat:
There is always a level of resolution at which the differences can be detected. Therefore your method will always indicate design.
By the way, I notice that you’re trying to make yet another change:
What’s that about?
Nothing much, It’s been implicit all along. I’ve made it clear very early in this discussion that I think randomness is an illusion that basically means “we don’t know”.
If I’m correct my method will separate strings into three buckets.
algorithmic
non algorithmic
and random which is equivalent in my worldview to “we don’t know”
That is what the “at this resolution” talk is all about. My worldview holds that if we were omniscient randomness would not exist.
But we are not omniscient so ruling out design entirely will always be just out of our grasp.
That is OK though because there is an ocean of room between absolute and practical certainty. and science deals in the practical.
peace
Keiths says,
I say,
Then we wait.
The universe won’t last forever
peace
Keiths says,
I say,
That is demonstrably false, I just posted an update in which I reported that OMagain’s first string was effectively random at this resolution and we could not reject the null hypothesis that it was not designed
peace