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
Gregory said,
If you are a Christian, as you said above, then why don’t you capitalise the ‘Designer’
I say
1) If you follow me much you will find that capitals come and go pretty much at random along with punctuation. I wish a had a syndrome to blame it on but it’s pretty much laziness and habit.
2) My approach is not about finding “the” designer it’s about detecting design. It works just as well if you or me are the designer and it works just as well if the design is a lame pop tune or a pika larynx.
3) Is there any way we can have a discussion about this stuff with out getting into the same old culture war rut?
peace
OMagain said.
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.
I say,
OK
represent your “object” as a numeric string post it here and I’ll give it a go. The longer the sting the better. The result is only as good as the resolution of the measurement.
If that request does not make sense to you sorry perhaps you need a little background first.
peace
fifth,
A worked-out example would be great. However, you’ll need to revise your methodology beforehand, because even with your latest modification, your procedure flags a sonnet as not being designed.
Can anyone explain to me what keiths is trying to say?
I don’t get it
peace
I haven’t figured out what you are saying. A worked out example of detecting design in an otherwise unknown object would help. Then we could judge whether keiths’ objection applies.
petrushka says
A worked out example of detecting design in an otherwise unknown object would help.
I say,
At this point I don’t think it will.
All my method does is try to determine if an object can be explained by algorithmic processes.
No one has agreed to go along with this as a reliable criteria even for the sake of argument.
What we will end up with is me saying “see this object is not explained by algorithmic processes” to which you will reply “so what?”
Am I wrong?
peace
A worked out example of determining if an object can be produced by an algorithmic process.
Is that a question or a request? Any finite string can be produced by an algroythym that says “print string x”.
Did you read the OP?
We are talking about whether or not an object can be explained by algorithmic processes.
petrushka,
Or better still, a worked-out example showing that a particular object can’t be produced by an algorithmic process, and therefore must be designed.
If fifth is merely saying we should conclude that X is designed if we can’t come up with an algorithmic process capable of producing X, then his argument is nothing more than the standard ID argument from ignorance.
fifth,
It’s “algorithm”, not “algroythym”.
Just remove the “ic” from “algorithmic”.
keiths says
If fifth is merely saying we should conclude that X is designed if we can’t come up with an algorithmic process capable of producing X, then his argument is nothing more than the standard ID argument from ignorance.
I say
I assure you that is not what I’m saying
peace
keiths says
Just remove the “ic” from “algorithmic”.
I say,
anal retentive much?
Then you can provide the following, correct?
No, just considerate of the readers.
Everything finite can be explained by an algorithm.
I’m rapidly getting bored here.
Perhaps I was right and this is not the place to flesh out ideas. Is there any constructive criticism at all to be found here?
lots of folks asked for the OP has anyone read it?
Maybe I’ll just wait for OMagain’s string and look elsewhere for someone who is actually interested in this stuff.
Neil Rickert says
Everything finite can be explained by an algorithm.
I say
At last a relevant comment. Thank you so much.
Let me think about my response and get back to you
Again thank you
peace
fifth,
I repeat:
Then you can provide the following, correct?
keiths said
Or better still, a worked-out example showing that a particular object can’t be produced by an algorithmic process, and therefore must be designed.
I say,
check this out from the OP
quote:
Simply put if an algorithmic process can fully explain an object then it is not designed.
end quote:
Produce—- to make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
Explain——to account for (an action or event) by giving a reason as excuse or justification.
peace
This is from your OP.
How do you determine this?
petrushka says.
How do you determine this?
I say,
I don’t determine this Mcguire did. Did you read the paper?
Am I the only one who is interested in discussion here? Perhaps we should talk about the problem of evil or those damned creationists trying create a theocracy.
Geez
peace
A statement.
Yes, that’s my point about strings.
In a era of 3D printers, we can say about the same on objects that we can say on strings.
My point is that everything that you will ever encounter in your finite life will be something that could be explained algorithmically.
Let me explain my position a little better. You have described a hidden process for which no detailed history is available. It is possible that there is, in principle, no way to discover the history.
this is not the same thing as saying the process is not algorithmic. I suppose it could be, but I don’t see that it’s axiomatic. I don’t even think it’s likely.
The same thing can be said about the history of life. Most of the history is unavailable. It does not make sense to fill in an unknown history with supernatural or extranatural causes.
fifth,
You don’t appear to have a lot of confidence in your design detection methodology.
If you did, you would happily demonstrate it to us.
Perhaps Mcguire is either wrong or using the word in a sense that doesn’t support your inference. There are people who speak to the issue he raises in terms of better algorithms.
It’s really quite simple. keiths has erected a straw man and is simply inviting you to join him in beating on it.
If you want to have some fun join right in, but be sure to use your own stick.
petrushka asks,
this is not the same thing as saying the process is not algorithmic. I suppose it could be, but I don’t see that it’s axiomatic.
I say,
from the paper
quote:
Theorem 3
No integrating function is computable.
Proof
. Suppose m is a computable integrating function. Let z be a random string, i.e. such that C(z)≥ |z|. Let z′ be the string obtained by flipping the first bit of z. We have C(z′|z) =O(1).
Consider the following program for ̄z′given z: Cycle through all strings until the unique z is found such that m (z) =z. Compute z′ by flipping the first bit of z. Compute ̄z′=m(z′).Since m is computable, the program above is of constant size i.e.,C(z′|z) =O(1). Also C(z′) =+C(z′) =+C(z)≥ |z| because mis computable, 1-1 and by choice of z.Because m is integrating, we have C(z′|z)≥C(z′)−C(z′|z) =|z|−O(1), a contradiction.
end quote:
Can you show me where the proof is invalid? If you can’t can you show me where the paper minus the math is faulty?
If you can’t can you tell me why you can not treat the results as axiomatic simply for the sake of argument and brevity?
why do you feel it necessary to go down this road?
peace
That made me smile.
I did. But I’m not interested in trying to tear it to shreds. That’s why you were asked to start an OP you know. Common tactic of the “skeptics” here.
See how poor keiths is stuck in a rut? That’s because he has a one-track mind.
Mung:
If I’ve erected a straw man, then by all means, Mung, describe fifth’s actual procedure for detecting design and demonstrate it for us.
Or what? Your false claims become true? Your straw man becomes Zeus?
You’ve been repeatedly corrected, and yet you insist on continuing in your error.
That’s irrational.
Mung runs away from another challenge.
fifth,
I am quite happy to assume, for the sake of argument, that Maguire’s argument is correct.
Show us a worked-out, step-by-step example in which you use Maguire’s result to demonstrate that a novel, or a sonnet, or something like that is designed.
If you succeed, then we can take a closer look at Maguire’s argument. If you don’t succeed, then the correctness of Maguire’s argument won’t matter.
No one who writes something as outrageous as
can explain the theorem. He’s just riffing on his vague notion of what the paper means. No one should take it as axiomatic that platonic concepts come from integrated information theory. He’s complaining that folks won’t let him move beyond step one when he’s actually skipped it.
No, please don’t use the phrase “runs away from”.
That’s guano-worthy.
And I’m saying that as a person who probably should have had one or two of my comments today moved …
I didn’t see any clothes, but I have cataracts.
keiths:
hotshoe:
Shrug. I don’t think any comments should be guano’ed, much less true ones.
well, I’m not the boss of you (or of TSZ) but I have truly always hated that “he couldn’t answer so he ran away” trope. When it’s used, it’s mostly just stupid internet dickwaving which gives me a bad feeling — I dunno whether it is in this case, or not — and I truly would prefer if you (and everyone at TSZ) avoided that particular phrase.
We all know there are plenty of other reasons for not answering/responding to an internet question:
Had to leave for work; wanted to eat dinner without spilling on the keyboard; had to take the dog for a walk; lost interest in the question by the time you got back to the thread …
Didn’t mind the question but got tired of the personality of the questioner; had an answer in mind but couldn’t figure out a way to express it clearly enough to make it worth the effort; started to type but got too swear-y to continue; chose to spend the few minutes you could allocate this time with a couple smart ass remarks rather than a serious answer …
I’m not saying you should give Mung a charitable reading. I’m the last person who could say that. Jeez, look at my comments at TSZ: I hate everybody and I’m never charitable to anyone. I’m just saying that — even if balance of probabilities based on your long experience with Mung is that he’s ignoring a specific question because he doesn’t have an answer — you don’t actually know that’s true, so you’d probably be doing a good thing if you held back on the “he runs away” remarks.
And I repeat my Please from earlier. Please; it’s worth it to me to ask; I hope it’s worth it to you to consider refraining.
ok, I will put something together.
Tom english says.
He’s just riffing on his vague notion of what the paper means.
I say
Perhaps you are right. Can you tell me how my conclusions are not warnted? I’d love to understand where I got off on the wrong track.
As to not being able to explain the theorem that would not surprise me.
The comments here have demonstrated that I’m having a hard time explaining what “explain” means so there you go.
peace
Neil Rickert said,
My point is that everything that you will ever encounter in your finite life will be something that could be explained algorithmically.
I say,
Do you think that “his truck carried him” is a satisfying explanation for Bubba’s trip to the Wallmart,?
I must say a big part of my project will depend on exactly what it means to explain something.
I’m still working it out but I’m leaning on toward something like this also from the paper.
quote:
The knowledge of m(z)does not help to describe m(z′),when z and z′ are close.
end quote:
In other words something like “Bubba’s trip to Walmart” does not help to describe “Bubba’s trip to Piggly Wiggly”.
There is definitely a lot of work to be done here and I appreciate your comments.
peace
That depends on what you are looking for. It is an adequate explanation of the transportation.
I can’t help you with that. I have been saying for years, that explanations don’t explain.
Is explanation an answer to a why question or a how question?
Neil Rickert
That depends on what you are looking for. It is an adequate explanation of the transportation.
I say,
I agree but in this case we are looking for an explanation of the event. “The trip to Walmart”
petrushka asks,
Is explanation an answer to a why question or a how question?
I say,
I don’t see it as an answer to any question at all it’s more like a description.
Think about the sonnet again. The explanation is what it is that makes this particular sonnet different than any other set of pixels on my computer screen.
Peace
fifth,
How do you determine that the sonnet is not “explained” by an algorithmic process?
All,
Just so you don’t think this has been all some sort of bluff below is the method I will use to evaluate OMagain’s string when I see it. Remember this is not rocket science it’s just a tool I’ve been using at work that I think might be of some value generally with some tightening up.
It’s all based on the idea that algorithmic process can’t explain designed objects
1. Represent an object to be evaluated as a numeric string
2. Create a randomized copy of the string
3. Run it through the “line graph game” to see if the observer can consistently identify the original string with feed back
a. If no we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the object is effectively random at this measurement resolution
b. If yes continue to step four
4. Run the random string through a simple EA until the R squared is above a predetermined threshold (usually 80%)
5. Repeat step 3 and see if the observer can consistently identify the original string with feed back.
a. If no we cannot reject the null hypotheses that the object is not designed at this measurement resolution
b. If yes we can reject the null hypothesis.
Pretty simple right
AT this point There are lots of questions still to be worked out with this approach such as What are reasonable number of trials before we declare defeat? What is a reasonable “closeness” threshold. How do we resolve the subjectivity issue satisfactorily.
If anyone is still paying attention I’m sure that the responses will fall into 3 groups
1) So what, I still hate the baby Jesus?
2) What the heck are you talking about?
3) This does not prove anything except that Humans are good at recognizing patterns.
I was hoping to assuage the first two responses by some back and forth before we got to the meat of the issue which is number 3. I’m really interested in tightening this all up. I’m holding on to the very small hope that this will be a good place to get it done.
peace
Keiths asks
How do you determine that the sonnet is not “explained” by an algorithmic process?
I say,
When we are talking about the “target” in the author’s mind It is taken as axiomatic that it can’t be explained by an algorithmic process.
Did you even read the OP?
Peace
fifth,
Yes.
Do you even read my comments? I’ve already addressed your point about the author of the sonnet:
Given a sonnet of unknown provenance, how do you determine that the sonnet is not “explained” by an algorithmic process?
keiths says.
Given a sonnet of unknown provenance, how do you determine that the sonnet is not “explained” by an algorithmic process?
I say.
did you read my post on May 21, 2015 at 9:45 pm ?
peace
fifth,
Yes, but it doesn’t answer my question:
Given a sonnet of unknown provenance, how do you determine that the sonnet is not “explained” by an algorithmic process?
keiths said.
Given a sonnet of unknown provenance, how do you determine that the sonnet is not “explained” by an algorithmic process?
I say,
OK
you see if the knowledge of m(z)does not help to describe m(z′),when z and z′ are close.
If an algorithmic process explains the sonnet then a model that is close to the sonnet will be difficult to distinguish from the sonnet itself.
Peace