I want to thank OMagain in advance for doing the heavy lifting required to make my little tool/game sharable. His efforts will not only speed the process up immeasurably they will lend some much needed bipartisanship to this endeavor as we move forward. When he is done I believe we can begin to attempt to use the game/tool to do some real testable science in the area of ID . I’m sure all will agree this will be quite an accomplishment.
Moving forward I would ask that in these discussions we take things slowly doing our best to leave out the usual culture warfare template and try to focus on what is actually being said rather than the motives and implications we think we see behind the words.
I believe now would be a good time for us to do some preliminary definitional housework. That way when OMagain finishes his work on the gizmo I can lay out some proposed Hypotheses and the real fun can hopefully start immediately.
It is always desirable to begin with good operational definitions that are agreeable to everyone and as precise as possible. With that in mind I would like to suggest the following short operational definitions for some terms that will invariably come up in the discussions that follow.
1. Random– exhibiting no discernible pattern , alternatively a numeric string corresponding to the decimal expansion of an irrational number that is unknown to the observer who is evaluating it
2. Computable function– a function with a finite procedure (an algorithm) telling how to compute the function.
3. Artifact– a nonrandom object that is described by a representative string that can’t be explained by a computable function that does not reference the representative string
4. Explanation –a model produced by a alternative method that an observer can’t distinguish from the string being evaluated
5. Designer– a being capable of producing artifacts
6. Observer– a being that with feedback can generally and reliably distinguish between artifacts and models that approximate them
Please take some time to review and let me know if these working definitions are acceptable and clear enough for you all. These are works in progress and I fully expect them to change as you give feedback.
Any suggestions for improvement will be welcomed and as always please forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes.
peace
Honestly, It’s still unclear to me what you mean by non-computable or what does that have to do with any design inference. Can you provide an example for non-computable and explain why it implies design? Maybe an example of a non-computable entity that was designed?
The individual components of the results may be designed (even that is questionable), but the aggregate certainly is not. Consider a rubbish dump: every object making up the dump is designed and manufactured, but the dump itself is happenstance and not designed (note that I am not talking about the location of the dump, or its external shape, but of its internal organisation).
ETA : the internal organisation of a rubbish dump would end up at the Law + Chance prong of the EF.
I am still not quite clear on what the game does and how it does it. As far as I can tell it is going to demonstrate that humans are rather poor at creating random numbers and rather good at spotting non-random patterns. This has of course been known for a long time.
Here is a suggestion to build some more scientific rigour into the game: run each designed string and each fake through a random number test and analyse the results after a number of runs. I suspect that you will find that the designed strings are significantly less random than the fakes. That is why you can tell them apart.
There is an evolutionary explanation for this, by the way.
fG
from my definitions
Quote:
Computable function– a function with a finite procedure (an algorithm) telling how to compute the function.
end quote:
a non-computable entity is an entity that can’t be modeled algorithmicly,
There is simply no way to produce it by just following a recipe.
In the Intention, Intelligence and Teleology thread I asked EL if a computer program could produce an object that was indistinquishable from a real snow flake she said
quote:
I think it would be possible to model the snowflakes so well that they would be indistinguishable from a photograph of the real thing.
I didn’t try that hard – I didn’t attempt to simulate anything much like the actual process, although I could have done. But mine differ from real snowflakes in that they just have hexagonal symmatry. The 60 degree angle isn’t coded into the patterns along the arms, only into the fact that there are six arms 60 degrees apart.
I also picked out the most snowflake ones! And did a bit of post processing as well, to smooth them a bit.
end quote:
It’s those last two sentences that are the hallmark of design!!!!!!!!!
they define and illustrate what a noncomputable process is.
Do you get this ???
peace
Again I would strongly disagree the market is designed to achieve the most fair price for goods and services. Market returns are precisely the artifact of that process
Market returns are not a garbage dump but the deliberate record of millions of transactions each one the result of a conscious decision by an intelligent agent.
peace
Well evidently you don’t have a clear idea of what the game will do, This is understandable since I have not detailed the exact processes involved or the assays that will be conducted at this point.
Perhaps we will just have to wait. Do you see why I’m so anxious to get this out there?
Once again I could share it with you directly if you like. I’d love to get feed back
peace
How do you go about determining whether something can or cannot be modeled algorithmically? You can’t just claim something is non-computable just because there’s no known way to do it. That’s an argument from ignorance (a classic in ID rethoric)
Please give an example of something designed that is not computable. You need to support your claim that non-computable implies design. We as humans happen to design models all the time. That’s how we go about understanding reality. We model it, and I guess those models are all computable under your definition. Nothing we ever design is non-computable, so all you can do at this point is to beg the question that something else (life?) must be non-computable and designed
Did you read the paper? The authors presented mathematical proof that integrating functions are non computable.
The only question is whether or not a particular object was produced by an integrating function. That is the point of the game
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
This has nothing to do with the problem I pointed out with the paper (although that section does have its own set of problems). Here’s the summary of the paper’s argument, again:
1) Conscious observation must be integrated with previous memories, which generats integrated information.
2) Memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would cause them to gradually decay.
3) Lossless information integration cannot be achieved by a computable process.
4) Therefore we have to abandon either the idea that people enjoy genuinely unitary consciousness or that brain processes can be modelled computationally.
The part you quoted is used in conjunction with (2) to support (4). Since (2) is demonstrably false, the conclusion in (4) is not supported.
exactly
No we produce lots of things things that can’t be modeled the can only be copied .
The Mona Lisa is a good example.
Any “fake” painting will be distinguishable from the Mona Lisa. Unless it specifically targets the original and we make “post processing” adjustments.
Get it now?
Peace
fifthmonarchyman,
It doesn’t. That’s the point. As I already quoted from the paper:
The integration of memories is essential to the argument being made in the paper. Unfortunately for the authors, their claim about memories:
has been proven to be incorrect. Memories do change when they are recalled. The “memory function” they talk about is not “vastly non-lossy”.
This makes the conclusion of the paper unsupported.
Again 2 is not demonstrably false.
Each time I recall my phone number the memory does not degrade my impression of it gets stronger.
Think back to when you memorized stuff for school
That whole point was to repeatedly recall the information till it became strongly ingrained in your mind.
If the memory function was lossy each time you recalled a fact it would become more fuzzy in your consciousness not more clear.
Why can you not see this? It is literally elementary school stuff
peace
If the memory function was lossy the way to forget something would be to dwell on it as much as possible.
The whole idea is ludicrous
peace
Everything physical can be modeled, if we don’t require that the model be an exact replica.
Nothing physical can be modeled, if we do require that the model be an exact replica.
That is to say, it is all a nonsense argument that allows you to find a gap where you can put your “god of the gaps” wherever you feel like putting it. It is all about finding ways of deceiving yourself.
Again we are not talking about identical but indistinguishable.
An observer will always be able to tell the difference between the fake and the real thing.
that is what separates true observers from artificial ones
It is not a gap it is the definition of noncomputable
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
You are attempting to counter scientific evidence with anecdote and emotion. The fact is that memory function is not “vastly non-lossy” as claimed and required by the paper you’re touting.
Well we have to agree to disagree. I think it is obvious that nobody designs the shape of the Dow Jones index over time. That does not mean it is random, of course. It will be influenced by many factors. Some of those are by design, many are simply happenstance. What the experiment shows is that people can distinguish more random graphs from less random ones. Interesting, but hardly news.
fG
Your “scientific evidence” is about reminiscence not about data compression and is therefore laughably irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Why you can’t see this is beyond me
peace
I agree,
Teasing out the happenstance (random) and the externally constrained from the design is what modeling is all about.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
No, the scientific evidence is about how memory works and it directly counters the claim made in the paper, upon which the paper’s conclusions depend.
If you aren’t willing to recognize when one of your hypotheses is disconfirmed, you don’t really want to talk about science.
Did anyone answer my question about what makes fake different from real?
What are the rules of the game. Could anyone provide the rules for generating the test strings?
Sorry, this is silly. As Neil pointed out, models are never going to be perfect representations of the object modeled, but you seem to go even further by essentially claiming that whatever the model is, it can at best be a copy of the original. I mean if we could one day replicate the Mona Lisa, molecule by molecule, that still would be a copy right? If you do that, then essentially everything is non computable. One could apply the same reasoning to any other thing, including all sort of naturally produced entities. After all if snowflakes can only be “copied” or modeled, then they’re non-computable and we could therefore infer design don’t you think?
When we are talking about physical things, “identical” and “indistinguishable” are indistinguishable.
The “no true
observerScotsman” argument.actually it is a testable hypothesis. That Patrick said he would falsify with a simple little two week hack.
That was several months ago
peace
QM insures that this will never happen
Snowflakes are designed
peace
Are you aware of the progress that has been made by computerised music composing? There are now many compositions that listeners cannot tell apart from ones composed by humans. Some have even been performed by top orchestras like the LSO.
Have a read and listen here.
Interestingly, this particular program, Iamus, uses evolutionary algorithms to compose its music!
fG
fifthmonarchyman,
Do you have any objective, empirical evidence to support that claim?
Non-lossy compression: it is possible to extract the original (identically).
Lossy compression: it is possible to extract something which the human mind cannot easily distinguish from the original.
The human mind is pretty much the paradigm example of lossy.
FFM’s say so seems to be what makes the difference.
This entire thread is a comedy routine.
The way I understand it is that a fake is a perturbed copy of the original. I suspect that in the process it becomes somewhat more random, which is why observers can tell the difference.
But I may be wrong. I think it is about time for fmm to stop being coy and show us their work.
fG
I don’t understand the observer thing. There are lots of claims being made about the abilities of observers and fakes and such that to my simple mind appear to be untrue.
Lots of things have been counterfeited.
I would like some clarification here that isn’t simply assertion.
Simple case in point. A number of consumer testing labs have tried to do blind taste and smell tests on brands of vanilla. Some have rated artificial vanilla higher than natural, even though instruments can detect that the artificial is simpler chemically. The trained human nose can’t reliably distinguish them.
Can anyone provide an operational definition of original and perturbed?
QM apply to the subatomic level, not the molecular level
…and snowflakes designed? WTF? LOL
And you know that because they’re non-computable, and you know they’re non-computable because that means they’re designed, right?
No I know they are noncomputable because they pass the test of the game.
I know they are designed because their ability to pass the test of the game makes them an artifact according to the definitions we are using here.
peace
Guys,
I’d like to point out that EL claims that she can algorithmicly model a fake that is indistinguishable from an artifact and Patrick claims that he can build software that will be able to generally and reliably distinguish fakes from artifacts.
I contend that they will not be able to do what they claim they can do.
regardless of anything else this is a profound development
We have at least two ID Hypotheses and a means to test them and folks with motivation to do so
I love science
peace
Yes. That is what the game does
peace
Why go through so much trouble then, when you can simply define whatever you want to be designed?
Can’t you see this is useless and proves absolutely nothing?
Yes.
It is my hypothesis that as cool and interesting and these models are they will never be indistinguishable from the original that they are modeling unless the algroythym targets the actual specific information the artifact contains
peace
fifthmvonarchyman,
How exactly does your game provide objective, empirical evidence that snowflakes are designed?
Science can not prove anything it can only falsify a hypothesis
because I don’t want to “define what ever I want to be designed” I want a tool to use to help me objectively determine if an object is designed.
I believe I might have one
time will tell
peace
It provides objective empirical evidence that a snowflake is nonrandom and noncomputable.
That according to our definition is what an artifact is
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
You’ve left out a lot of steps between the observation that “snowflakes exist”, some as yet poorly defined game, and the conclusion that snowflakes are designed. Please fill in the blanks with a rational argument supported by objective, empirical evidence.
oh contraire
The original in this case is the image in the human mind not the actual phyisical thing itself.
We can easily extract that or things like computer passwords and phone numbers would be impossible
peace
Be patient or jump in and give OMagain a hand
peace
So the “original” is dynamic, constantly changing and fading. You are using a moving target.
No the original is static, I’ve had the same phone number for decades
peace
In fact some of this music is already indistinguishable from the original (qua style) – the software does not aim to produce exact copies of already existing music but rather new music in a certain style. People familiar with that style of music can in many cases not distinguish the copy from an original.
You now seem to add a new requirement: unless the algroythym targets the actual specific information the artifact contains
If music is composed using EA’s it will be constrained by fitness functions which will presumably reflect the rules and conventions of the style of music it is aiming at. This is necessary because music is not just random sound patterns. Likewise, a human composer will be constrained in similar ways when she produces an original. I don’t see a reason why such a requirement would be a problem for artefacts and not for originals. Mona Lisa has been painted using rules and information from the environment as well.
fG
1) a “fake” model must be algorithmic and it must not target the actual specific digits of the real string
2) a “fake” random string can be produced by any of the generally accepted randomization processes
3) a “real” string is simply a numeric representation of some object or phenomena
peace
A perfect illustration of the lossiness of fifth’s memory. No matter how many times we correct him, he continues to misspell ‘algorithm.’