Joined: June 2007
for a sampling of that good tardy flavor, in it's entirety <sorry, suckah>
note that he is shaking his head and sighing BEFORE VERBAGE BOMBING
by the way, don't actually read this horseshit. just an example of how you can say much while saying little
Shaking my head . . . sigh.
It is sadly evident from the above that we have much of straining at gnats while swallowing camels, as well as barking up wrong trees. Etc, etc.
But first, let’s go back a moment to where I left off, on minor issues.
I: More on Q
One of the peculiarities of Weasel algors, is that they halt when they hit home; of course halting being a key property of algorithms. As a result, if they hit home before a generation number G, they do not get to G. Thus, if Q means number of mutants to date, then if size of generation is S, Q = G*S.
Immediately, if a run completes [all L letters correct] at gen G, it cannot have been complete before G.
So, the paper’s p.1055 discussion would on this reading of Q would be of a ratcheted run that shows a march of champions with latching up to G, when it halts: completion AT G. (In an explicitly latched Weasel this would be automatic, in a version that on being tuned and giving a good run latches — as observed [our first swallowed camel . . . ] — this implies that when metric falls to distance to target = 0, there is a latching action imposed.)
And there is also the second camel: debates over the meaning of Q do not affect the OBSERVED FACT of latching (regardless of other runs that may not do so — remember, we are accounting not for typical or overall behaviour but for runs that are showcased c. 1986 that were showcased because of their cumulative progress to target).
And that is camel no 3: implicit latching is an observed phenomenon, one that answers to CRD’s enthusiastic description and showcased printoffs. (The description and printoffs that the objectors above are ever so eager to direct our attention away from.)
2: Camel no 4: distractions over code and algorithms
The primary fact is that Weasel is a confessed, targetted search which makes cumulative progress to target, even through generations championed by “nonsense phrases.” Something which by CRD’s confession is “misleading” due to the long term targetting and associated artificial selection.
Indeed, CRD also highlights that the targetting and artificial selection make a big difference to time to target: tha tis we have a case of active informaiton in action.
This, we can see form BW, and it is apparently necessary to give it again, as last cited at 161:
As such, Weasel c 1986 as presented is “fair game” for an analysis as-is, on the implications of the active information manifested by such cumulative, evidently ratcheted and latched search on mere proximity not relevant complex functionality.
And, since the analysis of ratcheted progress to target does not depend on whether the latching is or is not implicit or explicit — these are mechanisms to get to the observations of evident latched, cumulative, ratcheting progress to target c. 1986 — then, how that latching is achieved is irrelevant to the point that active information is a key reason for the performance above unassisted random search, and to quantify the injected active information.
[ . . . ]
3: Selected bloopers (too many to address one by one . . . :
a: BB@ 168: An explicit, required, latching mechanism is the same as non-explicit, non-required, not-always-latching behaviour
–> Not at all: Strawman. (This, buy one who has already stepped outside the pale of civil discourse.)
–> For the purposes of the M & D analysis, how latching is achieved for showcased runs is irrelevant. (remember, the issue is to account for the SHOWCASED runs, which will not necessarily be typical. [THAT IS PART OF WHY CRD'S CODE C. 1986 WOULD BE HELPFUL.])
–> Once latching evidently exists, the analysis applies.
–> And, let us recall: CRD in 1986 inadvertently admitted that the speedup was due to the targetting on proximity. That is, active information.
b: A mutation rate that has to be between zero and one hundred percent is the same as a mutation rate that has to be either zero or one hundred percent
–> Strawman, again. A caricature loaded with ad hominems is being set up.
–> How latching is achieved is — for the purposes of the actual analysis — irrelevant to that it is achieved.
–> This is now willful obtuseness, as well. [One who is involved in a civil discussion has a duty of care to seek to understand an interlocutor, not to twist words taken out of context to suit one's self. But then, sadly, BillB has long since demonstrated want of civility and a habit of twisting words self-servingly to accuse falsely.]
c: A population of one, where no selection can occur is the same as a population of many from which one is selected
–> Again, it is quite evident from p. 1055 as already analysed, that M & D gave a simplistic pedagogical example of what partitioning looks like. (Of course they did not reckon with the sort of word twisting rhetoric we are seeing in this thread and doubtless elsewhere. I am sure the IEEE engineers looking on are beginning to see what is wrong in the state of Darwinland.)
–> A simple scrollup to 162 will suffice to show that a mutation of five letters going correct at once would only be plausible for a very large population indeed, with an aggressive selection filter. So, the notion of a population of one is read into the example, not drawn out of it and its context.
–> And, the other half of this objection, that Q is number of mutants to date, then runs into the point that as discussed above, we would then have Q = G* S.
–> the rest of BillB’s analysis collapses due to strawman premises.
d: WEASEL is an algorithm defined by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. Many people have written software based on it, and others have made software inspired by it, but which employs different strategies. There is only one WEASEL though and it is described quite clearly by Dawkins.
–> from the above, it is clear that there are many legitimate ALGORITHMS for Weasel that will fit with Dawkins’ description c 1986.
–> In short, this is mere caricature.
e: Rob @ 170:That’s a nice theory, but it’s belied by the fact that both Dembski and Marks have stated that this algorithm is, in fact, Dawkins’ WEASEL algorithm. Dembski has been saying it for years, even after correction. The EIL website still says it.
This is what The EIL page linked by Rob says: First, let’s look at partitioned search used by Dr. Dawkins. Assuming uniformity, the probability of successfully identifying a specified letter with sample replacement at least once in Q queries is . . . [leading up to the same summarised math as appears in p. 1055 of the IEEE paper]
–> Of course, the “belying” is based on forcing the observation of partitioning — i.e evident cumulative, ratcheted search that advances to a target on proximity as showcased c 1986 — into a particular algorithm that implements it; and algorithm that does not appear in the IEEE paper, nor for that matter in the EIL page as linked.
–> AND, we note that it is demonstrated that implicit latching is possible, which will produce the same run of champions effect as seen in the 1986 showcased run excerpts. [And if the 1986 run excerpts were ATYPICAL BEHAVIOUR (which is what some above suggest, while claiming that he program did not explicitly latch), then, that raises questions on the integrity of the Weasel program as presented at that time; questions that should be answered by opening to public inspection credible code. Recall, Joseph and I have been trying to account for the observed behaviour c 1986, on the claim that CRD did not explicitly latch his program c 1986. If implicit latching is possible but atypical, that itself raises questions about what was going on in the showcased 1986 runs. ]
–> In short, more word twisting and strawmanising. With some troubling possible implicaitons that call for credible code c 1986.
f: mb, 171: In the Blind Watchmaker video… you do realize that you can see the “correct” letters briefly change, right? . . . Say what you will about the applicability or accuracy of Dawkin’s program, but it obviously doesn’t lock the letters once they’re right.
–> this of course raises the issue of the apparent gap between the showcased runs c 1986 and the video c 1987.
–> the first serious option is that the 1987 video is a detuned run of Weasel that shows unlatched behaviour due to the detuning from the matched pop size, mutation rate and filter in 1986.
–> the second [suggested by an objector to the idea of implicit latching], which does account for the winking effect, is that we are looking not at generation champions, but at the raw members of the population. (This runs into the problem that if MB’s observations are accurate, then mutation per letter rate is rather high — known to lead to one form of detuning and non-latched behaviour.)
g: OS, 176:You seem to think there’s huge value in the cultural war in presenting Dembski as an inerrant genius
–> Where have I ever said or implied such? [I think I am on record that we are all finite, fallible, and indeed fallen.]
–> I happen to think that in this case, the M 7 D analysis — as opposed tot he caricatures presented above — is reasonable, and have given my reasons.
–> And, pardon my suspicions when I see talking points of the now all too familiar form “I am a supporter of X, but I think the supporters of X are idiots or worse . . . “
–> BTW, Weasel c 1986 is admittedly targetted search that rewards mere proximity.
h: Indium, 174: an algorithm that doesn´t protect correct letters in a search is the same as one that does (the famous implicit latching!)
–> Notice how this strawman distortion [cf bloopers a - c supra] has now become a repeated mantra, to be taken as gospel truth on the power of sheer brassy repetition in the teeth of the facts. [I shudder to think of what is going on in Darwinland echo chambers on this . . . ]
–> Indium, in case you don’t recognise the tactic, this one is called the big lie, adn I need not list its well-known exponents — who BTW, projected it unto their intended victims, instead of telling the truth that they were the ones using it [in short, turnabout tactics].
–> Please, don’t be taken in by it.
–> And as for the “lost in the laugh” remark above, that too is a well-known agit-prop tactic. Stop laughing and start reading more carefully to UNDERSTAND before you criticise, please.
[ . . . ]
i: you have redefined “query” to mean the determination of the next parent string. Everybody can look at Atoms GUI to see that you are wrong of course.
–> The problem at root is in the absurdities thrown out by trying to read the didactic example as an algorithm.
–> Where I do have what I think on further thought overnight is an error, is that I have taken Q to be number of generations at the first, in that context. Q is — on second thought — number of generations multiplied by size of generations.
–> And, that makes no difference to the evident pattern of ratcheting from generation to generation in the line of champions [which is what the printoffs c 1986 show; and what it therefore the empirical foundation of all discussion] that is a key part of the analysis, or tot he comparison of effect of active information based vs random search, as Q is in any case consistent across the two.
j: Somehow the paragraph/pictures/formulas in the D+M paper are only a pedagogical something that not criticizes Weasel directly but is somehow relevant anyway
–> Utter misrepresentation, laced with ad hominems. (Advice: If you do not understand, ask, don’t assert. Please.)
–> A reading of 161 ff, for instance [not to mention all the way back to the always linked app 7] will easily and clearly show that I have said that the didactic example presented of what partitioning of a search looks like, is not a realistic representation of an algorithm, but a simple illustration of a behaviour of observed outputs: in ratcheted searches, once letters go correct they are preserved correct, and more and more letters go correct and are preserved until the target phrase is complete. [And, M & D say just about as much in pretty close words to what I have just said.]
–> once that is seen, we can see the relevance and accuracy of the basic analysis of what such a ratcheted search looks like probabilistically, on the mere fact of ratcheting. (Which raises no commitments on what the ratcheting comes from, whether explicit or implicit.)
–> And, I have said precisely nothing about the onward analysis in the IEEE paper, as this has not come up, i.e you are putting words in my mouth above, words that simply do not belong there.
k: TA, 175: How about this then: Latching occurs when the probability of moving “up” the gradient is greater than the probability of moving down. This would again seem to include any search other than a blind random walk.
–> Remember, we are starting form observing an evident o/p pattern, per showcased examples of “cumulative selection” in action.
–> in those examples, for 200 cases were letters go correct, and can revert, the excerpts never show a reversion. And since listing every 10th generation’s champion is unlikely to correlate with the search process, then we can infer that the description and the showcased runs coincide: there is ratcheted progress to target.
–> After that, we look a the “occasional slips” case; one that is also observed on producing a program capable with certain parameters being matched, of latching. this makes sense,a s probabilistic barriers are not absolute. [All the oxygen molecules in the room where you sit can conceivably rush to one end, leaving you choking; no physical barrier absolutely forbids that. But, that is rather unlikely, and unobserved.]
–> And a third case is possible, where there is no evident ratcheting.
l: YD, 179: RD says he no longer has the original program but that it did not “latch”. Not that latching vs. nonlatching is that important in the grand scheme of things, but it’s helpful to get confirmation of this detail from the source.
–> And how did CRD explain the showcased runs and gushing remarks on the wonderful power of cumulative selection c 1986?
–> Other than, that he is claiming that he did not EXPLICITLY latch the program, which would be the same thing he is reported to have said c 2000. [In short, the issue of implicit latching is still very much on the table, and recall, such behaviour on "good runs" is DEMONSTRATED. If CRD's actual o/p's on the showcased runs did not latch, implicitly or explicitly, then to present them as if they did while gushing on the power of cumulative selection will require a bit of explaining on how the results and remarks were not presented in a misleading manner.]
–> In any case we have it that no credible code will be forthcoming. Contest over, unless someone can dig up a credible copy from somewhere that has a reasonable chain of custody.
m: OS, 180:Dembski, observing that something possible in execution of the algorithm was not evidenced in the sample, inferred that the program did not implement the stated algorithm
–> Bold denial of stated facts on the record.
–> the claim by Dawkins p 48 ff of BW, was that Weasel exhibited “cumulative [and targetted] selection,” based on proximity to target, which conferred a major advantage over “single step selection.” Where, cumulative NORMALLY means: Increasing or enlarging by successive addition. [1st meaning AmHD.]
–> in support of this, he produced listings c 1986 in BW and NewScientist, that showed over 200 cases of letters going correct and then open to reversion, without a single reversion in evidence; on two runs, one of 40+ and one of 60+ generations. [That OS thinks there was only one published run shows that he has not investigated carefully before commenting adversely.]
–> On such — multiplying the two lines of evidence together — it is evident beyond reasonable dispute that Weasel c 1986 generational champions ratcheted to target with associated latching of successful to date letters on “good” runs.
–> on “forensically” reconstructing the algorithm to do that, two main approaches are possible: explicit latching and implicit where the pop per gen, mut per letter rate and filter interact to at least some of the time give runs that ratchet. Both have been demonstrated and are legitimate readings on the evidence of 1986.
–> on subsequent statements (and possibly the 1987 video] the latter is the — on balance of evidence — best explanation for the observed published runs and descriptions c 1986.
–> the rest of OS’s case foes downhill from there, repeating a now familiar line of talking points.
After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
GEM of TKI
PS: OS, If you rake time to look at my characteristic thought on ID [e.g through the always linked] in terms of functionally specific, complex information and its roots in thermodynamical and informational thinking (which trace back through Thaxton et al, not Dembski), as well as my related look at the Caputo case, you will see that my thought is significantly independent from that of Mr Dembski. I happen to think that Mr Dembski — though finite, fallible and fallen as we all are — has got some things right, things that are too often caricatured and wrenched by objectors to improperly dismiss them through strawman fallacies. And the habit of such strawmannising by denizens of Darwinland is I believe abundantly evident above.
PPS: I also happen to think his partnership with Dr Marks has enriched his work. And, that on a topic known for months to be controversial, there would have been significant cross-checking before publication. Now, compare that with the sort of srtrawmannising above, and it should be evident why I draw the conclusions I do on who is more likely to be correct in this case. then, multiply by the obvious didactic example context of the alleged algorithm that they are being castigated for. And mix in the fact that explicitly AND implicitly latched weasel programs have been demonstrated on actual runs — programs sponsored on the web by the same EIL. After such factors are in evidence, what makes the best overall explanation? On what grounds?
I am getting a humongous kick out of his contorting shucking and jiving. Gordon Mullings is getting that ass KICKED, because there is finally a quorum and the empty chairs keep getting replaced. Tranmaw and Clive,baby can't get rid of them all at once.
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles