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
How exactly do we determine if something is the result of a non-computable function?
Tom English says,
By the way, your responses would be much more readable if you used
I say,
I disagree I find block quotes to be distracting and a hassle. However I know that keiths likes them so if a few of the other regulars express a desire I will submit.
Whatever it takes to appease the natives 😉
Keiths says
Set the target equal to a specific Shakespearean sonnet. Then the algorithm “Print target” successfully produces a string matching the target.
I say,
exactly as I said.
peace
TristanM asks,
How exactly do we determine if something is the result of a non-computable function?
I say,
one way is to prove it Mathematically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindemann%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem
Don’t be expecting that kind of proof from me. It’s above my pay grade but perhaps others will be of service in the future.
another way is to determine if the knowledge of m(z)does not help to describe m(z′), when z and z′are close.
you might want to check out the paper for a better understanding of that one.
Peace
Tom English says:
I recommend that you go with a post, “What Is Integrated Information Theory?”
I say
That is not going to happen.
It was quite a thing to post an OP at all I’m certenly not going to play the role of Professor here. You are all capable of researching IIT on your own.
Don’t expect me to post unless it is concerning my own ideas
peace
Do you have a reference to a definition then, as you did raise it after all! 🙂
OMagain asks,
Do you have a reference to a definition then, as you did raise it after all!
I say
http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.full
and cliff notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
peace
I would like to invoke a distinction here similar to the distinction between quantum theory and quantum woo. Theories of consciousness are fascinating, but I’m not sure how they relate to biological evolution.
I think it is clear that humans can “foresee”. They can anticipate need and plan for contingencies. So whether or not we have a design detection formula, we can examine a sequence of phenomena for evidence of foresight.
i assume this is why we have god of the gaps arguments. Darwin was aware of the gaps argument and considered it a valid line of criticism.
But it cuts both ways. When gaps are repeatedly invoked and repeatedly filled, we have boy-cry-wolf. After 155 years of boy-cry-wolf, it might be time to say to the Demskis of the wotld, show me the pathetic level of detail. Show me a before and after snapshot of a reproductive discontinuity.
What Tom English actually said was pretty much the opposite of what you’re suggesting:
I’ll attribute the discrepancy to lossy short-term memory. 😉
fifth,
By your own logic, a sonnet is not designed.
You write:
And:
keiths:
fifth:
By your criteria, a sonnet can be explained by an algorithmic process. Therefore, by your logic, it is not designed.
Reading through the paper on IIT, I fail to see that anything is happening in brains that cannot be described as algorithmic. I would argue that we do not understand the algorithms and do not yet have any hardware that can emulate a large brain, but AI is in its infancy. Sometimes you have to roll balls down an inclined plane before going to the moon. There is a difference between can’t be done and can’t be done in principle.
Again, I do not see the tie-in to a discussion of evolution.
Keiths said,
By your criteria, a sonnet can be explained by an algorithmic process. Therefore, by your logic, it is not designed.
I say,
No in order to explain a sonnet you need an approximating algroythym —and—- a target. The algroythym alone is not enough. This is the take home message of DEM. You admitted as much
quote:
Set the target equal to a specific Shakespearean sonnet. Then the algorithm “Print target” successfully produces a string matching the target.
end quote:
not sure how you can miss that it is right in front of your nose. Heck you wrote it
peace
Tom English says
You do not understand IIT.
I say,
Fine show me how the background portion of the OP contradicts Mcguire’s paper. I would happy to be shown my mistake. I wouldn’t expect Mcguire to agree with my argument I’m not even sure I so as of yet.
peace
petrushka says,
Reading through the paper on IIT, I fail to see that anything is happening in brains that cannot be described as algorithmic.
I say,
I really would like to avoid the question of whether or not the paper adequately proves that consciousness in nonalgyrothymic for the time being.
I was hoping we could treat the paper’s conclusion as axiomatic for the sake of argument. I have a lot I’d like to discuss and would hate to get bogged down before we even start.
you say,
Again, I do not see the tie-in to a discussion of evolution.
I say,
The discussion will be about design detection I hope. Evolution is relevant only because it is an Algorithmic process
peace
petrushka says,
When gaps are repeatedly invoked and repeatedly filled, we have boy-cry-wolf.
I say,
My approach if correct shows that it is mathematically certain that there will always be gaps.
If fact if I’m correct it changes “the gaps” from a defensive measure to a way to positively detect design in other places besides just biology SETI and Cryptology for example. .
Peace
I also hope this. I also hope there will be demonstrations of said detection in action. Worked examples, if you will. I realize that you may not be ready to do that, but nonetheless it remains a hope.
Whose designs is also a pertinent question. Who or what (and when and how it happens) is designing and how you can tell might also be worth asking.
Hey OMagain,
Do you understand my claim that designed entities can not be fully explained by algorithmic processes. If so are you willing to go along with it for the sake of argument? If a couple of you guys will give me the thumbs up I will get to work on step two and I suppose put it in a OP if I’m still able
you said,
I also hope this. I also hope there will be demonstrations of said detection in action. Worked examples
I say,
I think I can do that. I’m not sure if they meet rigorous snuff but you will definitely get the feel for how all this works if we make it that far.
peace
fifth,
Slow down and think this through.
1. Set the target to a specific sonnet — say, the Browning sonnet that begins “How do I love thee?”
2. Write a program that prints out the target. It could even be done with a single print statement.
Does the program “explain” the sonnet? Yes, by your criterion:
We have both the target and the “algroythym”, so the sonnet has been “algroythymically” explained.
What can we conclude? According to you:
So by your logic, the sonnet was not designed. Yet we know that Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote it.
Your methodology is broken. How are you going to fix it?
Alan Fox asks,
Whose designs is also a pertinent question. Who or what (and when and how it happens) is designing and how you can tell might also be worth asking.
I say,
I agree but I’m sorry to say my approach will not be of much help in that regard.
peace
Hey keiths.
I want to understand you.
Are you saying that the target and the algroythym together become one new algroythym?
IOW do you mean that an if I put the Mona Lisa into an algorithmic machine that cleaned paintings that I could then claim the machine completely explained the Mona Lisa afterward?
Peace
keiths just to be clear
Do you think printing presses explain Shakespeare?
peace
fifth,
I’m saying that if I go by your words — words that you yourself have written — then I reach the erroneous conclusion that Browning’s sonnet was not designed.
Your methodology, as you have expressed it, is broken. It leads to a false conclusion.
Read my comment again.
Keiths said,
Your methodology, as you have expressed it, is broken. It leads to a false conclusion.
I say,
I understand what you said I want to know what you mean.
Are you saying that the sentence “his truck carried him” completely explains Bubba’s trip to the Walmart because he was in his truck?
or are you just saying that the term “explain” is a poor word choice on my part?
peace
hey keiths.
I did a quick check to see if my word usage was in order
From here
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/algorithm
quote:
: a set of steps that are followed in order to solve a mathematical problem or to complete a computer process
end quote:
The algroythym is just the steps involved in the process and does not include inputs as far as I can tell. The same program can have various inputs.
but if you’d like I could rephrase my claim to
“Simply put if an algorithmic process alone (not including non algorithmically derived inputs) can fully explain an object then it is not designed.”
Does that work for you?
I want to go the extra mile to make sure I’m not misunderstood
peace
Does an information integrator not have inputs?
No, that’s by your logic. You’ve been corrected at least four times now. Time to try something new. Here’s a suggestion. Read the OP.
fifth,
I’m going by what you wrote. Specifically, these two statements:
Statement #1:
Statement #2:
In my example, we have both a target — the Browning sonnet — and an algorithm. Therefore, according to your statement #1, we have “explained” the sonnet.
Since an algorithmic process can explain the sonnet, then by your statement #2, we conclude that the sonnet is not designed.
The conclusion is incorrect. Your methodology is faulty.
petrushka asks,
Does an information integrator not have inputs?
I say,
I really appreciate this sort of questioning. It means you are getting what I’m talking bout
It also demonstrates that this if sort of inquiry taken to it’s ultimate level becomes a question of cosmic origins. Is the universe as a whole the product of mind or not.
However it’s important to know we don’t have to go to that level if we don’t want to with this approach.
For instance I can integrate the information in the number string 8675309 to the target j#.
Now can the input integer “8” be explained by algorithmic processes? Perhaps not technically but since it’s not very informationally complex we can treat it as if it was just the result of chance.
Any way you have definitely hit on something that needs further exploration.
peace
Keiths said,
Since an algorithmic process can explain the sonnet
I say,
but it can’t
the sonnet can however be explained by an algorithmic process acting on a non algorithmically derived input (the Target),
not sure how I can explain it any more clearly.
peace
fifth,
I understand you. The problem is that your methodology doesn’t work — not even after your proposed modification.
You propose changing this…
…to this:
But that doesn’t help. It just creates an infinite regress:
1. We want to know if the sonnet is designed.
2. We ask whether it can be “explained” according to your criterion:
3. We have the target (the sonnet itself) and the algorithm (the program that prints the target). Therefore we can “explain” the sonnet with an “algorithmic process”.
4. We move on to your (modified) second criterion:
5. We need to decide whether the target qualifies as a “non-algorithmically derived input”. But the target is just the sonnet itself, so we ask whether the sonnet is designed, which is just step 1 all over again. The process repeats indefinitely.
keiths says,
The process repeats indefinitely.
I say,
Actually it ends eventually with the universe itself as the input.
But it does not have too. We can examine at any step in the chain. It’s up to the observer when we halt
Did you see my post to petrushka? an apparent random or non-complex input can serve as a place to stop the process.
Most folks would be satisfied with randomness plus an algorithmic processes to explain the roll of a die. Only strict determinists like me would want to push beyond that.
peace
fifth:
No, it repeats indefinitely. We end up asking “Is the sonnet designed?” over and over. Did you read my comment?
The more it is explained the less I understand.
Keiths,
the sonnet in it’s purest form exists in my mind and the mind of the author that’s what we mean when we call it a “target”. The question does not continue indefinitely because we take it as an axiom that targets are the result of non-algorithmic processes
Did you read the OP?
peace
fifth,
The point of the exercise is to identify something as designed (or not designed) when we don’t know how it originated.
If you already know that the sonnet was written by a poet, you don’t need to ask if it was designed.
keiths: The algorithm explains the sonnet.
fifthmonarchyman: Does not.
keiths: But you said the algorithm explains the sonnet.
fifthmonarchyman: Did not.
keiths: But if the algorithm does not explain the sonnet then we are left with an infinite regress, therefore the algorithm must explain the sonnet.
fifthmonarchyman: Did you read the OP?
keiths: If you already know that the sonnet was written by a poet, you don’t need to ask if it was designed.
Mung: So your entire argument about an algorithm being able to generate [read explain] the sonnet if it is informed by a designer of the content of the admittedly designed sonnet is just so much what?
This does sound a bit like Dembski’s explanatory filter, in which to reach th conclusion of design, one must first rule out all possible natural explanations.
I think we could improve the discussion by dropping examples of known human products and concentrating on objects that are interesting because we do not know their exact history.
fifthmonarchyman,
So there can be consciousness within the universe only if the universe is consciously designed?
Or the universe itself is conscious.
Sensible response, so I’ll assume charitably that you’ve read the thread, but don’t know the meaning of panpsychism.
I asked about panpsychism because leading proponents of integrated information theory accept that it’s implied by the theory. Fifthmonarchman explained that he rejects it because he’s a Christian. He also explained, somewhere or another, that he’s a determinist because of his Christian theology. He’s placed severe constraints on how he might answer my question.
Ah, so it’s an in-principle design detection method that can’t actually be used to detect design?
OK, that’s enough to put it in the pile of similar things that would be possible in theory (according to some) but not in practice.
Tom English says.
He’s placed severe constraints on how he might answer my question.
In say,
I’m constrained in how I would answer due to my personal relationship with the designer I assume you are not so constrained.
One interesting thing about my approach is that “the universe is conscious” is an acceptable conclusion when the question is asked at the cosmic scale. So by definition this is not about Christian apologetics.
peace
Why not just say ‘god’?
OMagain says,
Ah, so it’s an in-principle design detection method that can’t actually be used to detect design?
I say,
I think that when it comes to the cosmic scale Godels incompleteness theorem will offer an escape hatch for folks like me and the problem of other minds will do the same for skeptics.
you say,
OK, that’s enough to put it in the pile of similar things that would be possible in theory (according to some) but not in practice.
I say,
On the contrary I believe my approach works very well on the practical level of determining if a particular object is designed, It just does not compel an answer when we get to the level of the universe.
Modern physics has the same problem. Don’t you agree?
peace
OMagain asks,
Why not just say ‘god’?
I say,
Because god is not his name but a generic term and we are talking about his role as a designer,
I don’t call you man and when I’m talking about your role in my approach to design detection I will probably call you “the observer”
peace
Could you demonstrate it then? On something that we know is designed and something we know is not, showing each step along the way.
As far as I’m aware, physics does not attempt to determine design.
I’m interested in problem domains that can be represented by computer programs, primarily. Can your method be so represented? If so, and you can provide a sufficiently detailed specification I can make that happen in the browser. Of course, that’ll only happen if you’ve provided the needed demonstration.
As far as I’m aware, the determination of who or what implemented the claimed design has not been made.
OMagain asks,
Could you demonstrate it then? On something that we know is designed and something we know is not, showing each step along the way.
I say
Is there a way I can reach you by email? It will take some more explaining and no one has said they are willing to go along even past the first step. I’m afraid it will just sound like so much gibberish as this point.
you say,
As far as I’m aware, the determination of who or what implemented the claimed design has not been made.
I say,
If I understand you correctly and we are talking about the universe It has for me I met the guy after all.
I understand if you are not in the same position. That is cool you don’t need to know in advance for my approach. But as I said when it comes to the universe their will be a escape hatch either way.
PS don’t expect an answer of who or what just a “is it designed or no”.
PPSS
I don’t want to be seen as teasing here.
It’s possible I’m all wet and the whole thing is bogus that is why I’m taking the time to explore this here. For the conclusion to be valid the premises need to be solid.
peace
Well, whatever the method, if it can distinguish design from non-design that will speak for itself. I don’t see how me understanding your method changes the determination – it has either detected design or not, regardless of my understanding of your method.
Well, one way to go to get there might be to demonstrate your method, step by step and allow others to critique it.
That way the results speak for themselves
That’s all I’m expecting. And that’s an excellent first step.
A worked out example would be nice.
If you are a Christian, as you said above, then why don’t you capitalise the ‘Designer’, when “I met the Guy after all” is what you mean?