Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, the point is that a well designed Turing test should be able to distinguish two different entities from one entity pretending to be two people.

Indeed??

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think I get it now. You and RJ are the same person with different persona's. You talk to each other like a multiple personality, trying to make us think you are passing the Turing test.

That's an interesting theory. So if I understand this, instead of your group being surrounded by and attacked by two people, you are actually only being surrounded by and attacked by one person. Now this is genuinely funny. You made my day... thanks.

More fodder for the humor mill.

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to your theory, googlefudge could be the same person as you, since he agrees with most of the things you say, but just states it in a way that makes him seem more intelligent than you.

The Instructor

This may be self indulgent of us, talking to each other as though we are different people, but I wonder what this Turing test would show if used on twhitehead and humy. From time to time I've wondered if they might be the same person. I actually don't think so, but there are a few pointed similiarities.

How does this Turing test work? Is it a psychological test, or a formula that identifies similarities? Oh well, something new to explore... every day is a new adventure.

Originally posted by lemon lime
This may be self indulgent of us, talking to each other as though we are different people, but I wonder what this Turing test would show if used on twhitehead and humy. From time to time I've wondered if they might be the same person. I actually don't think so, but there are a few pointed similiarities.

How does this Turing test wo ...[text shortened]... at identifies similarities? Oh well, something new to explore... every day is a new adventure.

You could just google it. The Turing test is where you have a person on one end of a computer link, say like at this forum and the other end of the link is a computer. The test is for the computer. If it can fool the human into thinking the other link is a human and not a computer, the computer has passed the turning test, which supposes therefore the computer has human level intelligence.

So a conversation:

Hi, I'm Pete, how are you? Hi Pete, I'm roger. What do you think about when you say you are fine? Hi roger, the onions are particularly sweet this year.
Hey do you have a pair of shoes? I need one to go with my toilet seat.

See? it shows itself to be a computer by context.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You could just google it. The Turing test is where you have a person on one end of a computer link, say like at this forum and the other end of the link is a computer. The test is for the computer. If it can fool the human into thinking the other link is a human and not a computer, the computer has passed the turning test, which supposes therefore the compu ...[text shortened]... es? I need one to go with my toilet seat.

See? it shows itself to be a computer by context.

That does not compute, er, I mean that's hilarious! If a person is clever enough and not too obvious about it, he could be at the computer end of the link and maybe successfully mimic a computer taking the test. A human could probably do a better job of pretending to be a computer than a computer could at pretending to be human.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Indeed??

The Instructor

I'm saying nothing about whether you and lemon lime are the same person, I see no reason to believe that. But a Turing test should be capable of telling a human from a machine even if both are trying to fool the tester. So such a test should also be able to tell the difference between two distinct people and a single person attempting to mimic two different people, especially if they are a machine.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm saying nothing about whether you and lemon lime are the same person, I see no reason to believe that. But a Turing test should be capable of telling a human from a machine even if both are trying to fool the tester. So such a test should also be able to tell the difference between two distinct people and a single person attempting to mimic two different people, especially if they are a machine.

How is that relevant to the topic at hand?

The Instructor

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm saying nothing about whether you and lemon lime are the same person, I see no reason to believe that. But a Turing test should be capable of telling a human from a machine even if both are trying to fool the tester. So such a test should also be able to tell the difference between two distinct people and a single person attempting to mimic two different people, especially if they are a machine.

I don't get how a test that is able to distinguish a machine from a person would also be able to distinguish one person from another, or determine if they are the same person.

I can imagine there might be some other kind of test for that, and I think it would necessarily need to find similarities among many different catagories. Such as similar words and word groupings, similar sentence construction, length of sentences, similar use of personal pronouns, frequency of general words such as it, be, and, there, that, to, etc. As well as frequency of specific words that are not as common. For example, I use the word necessarily fairly often but I don't see it being used much by anyone else. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. And adding more catagories for finding similarities would mean testing samples could yield more accurate results.

I can imagine someone coming up with a program able to find matches like these, and then show a percentage chance of two samples coming from the same person. Or maybe this has already been done?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't get how a test that is able to distinguish a machine from a person would also be able to distinguish one person from another, or determine if they are the same person.

I can imagine there might be some other kind of test for that, and I think it would necessarily need to find similarities among many different catagories. Such as similar words a ...[text shortened]... entage chance of two samples coming from the same person. Or maybe this has already been done?

The game the Turing Test is based on a party game called imitation where a man and a woman write intentionally misleading answers to questions asked by a third person. The tester has to work out which is the man and which is the woman based on their responses. The idea with the Turing Test is that eventually an automaton will give itself away by making stereotypical answers, where a human has more flexibility. The test should be able to distinguish two automata. With two humans it's harder, but since everyone has idiosyncrasies in the way they use language eventually it should be possible to tell them apart (provided they can't communicate with each other with the intention of deceiving us).

I don't think anyone has ever produced a practical Turing Test, I think the idea is more as a theoretical tool to help examine problems in computability. Having said that the methodology you suggested sounds plausible. That kind of analysis is regularly used in cryptography to find patterns in ciphertext, there's the Voynich manuscript where they are using alphabet frequencies and looking at clustering to try to determine if it it's a fake or not - which bears some similarity to the Turing Test.

I follow Richard Dawkins on Facebook. He does not believe in the fallacy of intelligent design.

https://www.facebook.com/index.php?lh=41c8f438c0500d2922b8e0a7b727bca7&eu=pdRF_Uy0Fe3oIaYh1vXS1w#!/RichardDawkinsFoundation?hc_location=stream

Originally posted by woodypusher
I follow Richard Dawkins on Facebook. He does not believe in the fallacy of intelligent design.

https://www.facebook.com/index.php?lh=41c8f438c0500d2922b8e0a7b727bca7&eu=pdRF_Uy0Fe3oIaYh1vXS1w#!/RichardDawkinsFoundation?hc_location=stream

However, he has admitted that intelligent design could be true.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, he has admitted that intelligent design could be true.

The Instructor

He is just being intelligent. Of course Intelligent Design COULD be true. It could also be true that all the molecules in my house can congregate in one corner of the room and causing the house to implode. Both ideas have about the same probability. THAT is what he meant but you want to push the view he admits to intelligent design, which must give you a great belly laugh.

Once again though, the joke's on you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
He is just being intelligent. Of course Intelligent Design COULD be true. It could also be true that all the molecules in my house can congregate in one corner of the room and causing the house to implode. Both ideas have about the same probability. THAT is what he meant but you want to push the view he admits to intelligent design, which must give you a great belly laugh.

Once again though, the joke's on you.

Intelligent Design not only COULD be true, it IS true.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Intelligent Design not only COULD be true, it IS true.

The Instructor

Prove it, without using your favorite ancient book. Show me the peer reviewed scientific studies proving 'intelligent design'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Prove it, without using your favorite ancient book. Show me the peer reviewed scientific studies proving 'intelligent design'.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform.

Richard Dawkins observed that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”

Software contains instructions that direct computers to accomplish various functions. Likewise, DNA contains instructions for the assembly of tiny machines called proteins, which perform vital functions within every cell.

Bill Gates said that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?

So how did the information get into the DNA in the first place? Without it, the first cell wouldn’t have been constructed, and life would not have begun.

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of physics is the concept of cosmic fine tuning of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced for permitting the emergence of complex life.

British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

The Instructor