Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
68 online now:
(68 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,326 Year: 5,972/14,102 Month: 120/438 Week: 52/112 Day: 7/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 393 (755134)
04-04-2015 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dubreuil
04-04-2015 4:04 PM


Re: Present the Argument here
The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source.

In plain English and without a reference to the paper: What is the season, and what is the pattern, and how was the fit tested?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dubreuil, posted 04-04-2015 4:04 PM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 6:49 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 9:34 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 393 (755186)
04-06-2015 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 9:34 AM


Re: Present the Argument here
Okay, I think I get it. You've outlines Star Trek episodes with notations, and tested them for a pattern and found one that couldn't have come about by chance. Is that right?

How have you eliminated that you have just found a naturally ocurring unintelligent pattern that did not come about by chance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 9:34 AM Dubreuil has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 60 of 393 (755194)
04-06-2015 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:26 AM


Cat Sci writes:

Okay, I think I get it. You've outlines Star Trek episodes with notations, and tested them for a pattern and found one that couldn't have come about by chance. Is that right?

Yes, mostly.

Cat Sci writes:

How have you eliminated that you have just found a naturally ocurring unintelligent pattern that did not come about by chance?

From Message 31: "The probability, that the pattern is a result of chance was calculated to 1.063*10^-7. Therefore the chance that the pattern occurred naturally is only one to ten million."

Oh, well that's a problem. That's a non sequitur. Just because something is not a result of chance does not mean that it did not occur naturally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:26 AM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 10:09 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 393 (755196)
04-06-2015 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 10:09 AM


That it isn't a result of unconscious human behaviour is explained in Message 39.

I don't see how Message 39 shows that it isn't a result of unconscious human behavior. Can you explain that differently?

Any other ideas for an natural origin?

TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 10:09 AM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 11:18 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 393 (755200)
04-06-2015 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 11:18 AM


Assuming that an unconscious determined mechanism imprints the pattern. Then this mechanism would have an error rate.

What is the error rate of the pattern that you found? Didn't some episodes not fit within the pattern?

The found pattern is a lot more complex than to multiply 11 and 12. It has 15 events, 13 person, 12 additional marks, 4 starting points and at least two patterns within the pattern. Calculating this pattern would demand a lot of brain capacity that would be a selective disadvantage and this unconscious behaviour would disappear fast.

That doesn't make sense.

What I'm asking is how you eliminated the possibility that the pattern that you found was just a result of how TV shows are made?

If there is after all an unconscious pattern-calculating behavior with a low error rate, then the overall error rate would significantly increase if all these persons frequently modified the episodes. Over 100 persons were involved in cutting, directing, editing, filming, producing and writing the different episodes.

All that involvement is just how TV shows are made. I'm saying that its possible that doing all that stuff yields TV shows that have patterns.

I'm not talking about some unconscious pattern-calculating behavior, I'm saying that there's a process to creating TV shows and that process could just end up with shows that have patterns like the one you found.

TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.

From Message 58: "It would take more time to create and incorporate a pattern that contains patterns by its own, than to create a plot."

If the patterns are just the natural result of the process of making TV shows, then it wouldn't take any additional time or effort for it to happen.

It's not only a trivial pattern and every episode is made in an other way. From Message 58: "They are often different and unique: 5 persons appear at the same moment (3x09), an offscreen voice add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearance (1x01, 1x05), three different persons appear repeatedly at the same moment (1x07), and so on. The writers tended to create diverse scripts that are not equal to each other.".

The complexity of the pattern could just be an artifact of the way in which you are notating the conditions compounded with the way that you are looking for the patterns.

Kinda like how numerologists look at the Hebrew words in the Bible and then find all kinds of crazy patterns in there. They're just spinning around in circles into a downward spiral of a more and more complicated calculations that give the appearance of more and more complicated patterns.

Also, it seems like your calculation of the chance of those appearances all happening have them as being totally independent of each other. I don't see any reason to think that.

And the writers are just people with a limited number of ideas. There's no reason to think that they could keep coming up with novel and unique appearances in different episodes. We should expect that there are going to be a lot similar situations across the seasons.

There were 3 other series this pattern was found in.

That adds weight to the idea that these patterns are just a result of how TV shows are made.

It was suggested in Message 52 that all the patterns are equal to each other because it represents the best way to create a popular script. But the quantisations rarely comprised more than the first two minutes

Wait, you were just looking at the first two minutes? That's what is called the "opening scene". Across all genres and cultures, opening scenes are already very familiar. Its no wonder that you'd find patterns in opening scenes.

If you say "TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.", then every different episode would have a different pattern because it was made by different people (USA, England, Japan, India) in different times (1980-2015) in different ways.

Actually, there's a lot of similarity in the way that all TV shows are made, even across different cultures at different times.

Just Google "similarities in TV shows" and you can find all kinds of webpages talking about how different shows are very similar.

http://whatculture.com/...rities-friends-big-bang-theory.php

http://www.buddytv.com/...etween-bones-and-castle-82190.aspx

http://www.anvari.org/...larities-between-some-tv-shows.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 11:18 AM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 393 (755210)
04-06-2015 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 12:38 PM


an unconscious human origin would take additional time and effort (Message 64)

No it wouldn't, how could it? I don't see how Message 64 explains that.

If the producers are just following standard TV show creating processes, and those processes lead to similarities that show up as patterns, then they wouldn't be spending any additional time and effort creating those patterns within their TV shows - it would just be a result of the process of making them.

If it is an natural result without additional time or effort, then it has not a conscious or unconscious human origin

Non sequitur.

Unconsciously making TV shows that are similar to each other takes no additional time or effort. They're not doing anything other than normal TV show making, its just that the way that they make TV shows ends up with episodes that have a lot of similarities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 12:38 PM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 2:11 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 73 of 393 (755214)
04-06-2015 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 2:11 PM


The only similarity would be moving images as result.

No, that's is not true in the slightest.

Different episodes have different script writers.

But they are writing about the same characters in the same situation.

A writer that prefers to let persons appear together would more often write episodes that doesn't fit compared to the previous data source.

Not at all. For example, the Captain of a ship is going to be talking to a Lt. Commander regardless of the writer of the script.

If they were all just writing a bunch of random stuff then it wouldn't be a TV show, it would be a mess.

The genre and setting and characters and all that stuff is going to constrain the ability of the writers to make huge differences between episodes.

Adding the editors, directors, and producers, on top of all that, that are trying to create a cohesive TV show that people will like is going to make for all kinds of similarities that will be found to make all kinds of patterns.

We should expect that patterns will arise, not be surprised by them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 2:11 PM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 3:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 393 (755223)
04-06-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 3:51 PM


Yes, with a probability of 1:10^2, not with 1:10^7.

I doubt your 1:10^7 is either appropriate or correct.

What do you suggest has actually created the pattern? Humans? Rules about how to write a script? Rules about how to film? I already asked this question in Message 61: "Any other ideas for an natural origin?"

All that as well as what I said in the message you just replied to:

quote:
The genre and setting and characters and all that stuff is going to constrain the ability of the writers to make huge differences between episodes.

Adding the editors, directors, and producers, on top of all that, that are trying to create a cohesive TV show that people will like is going to make for all kinds of similarities that will be found to make all kinds of patterns.


.

Just to say "show creating processes" is to unspecific.

Too unspecific for what?

With the hypothesis about the pattern and ID, is ID a part of the "show creating processes". When you say: "the producers are just following standard TV show creating processes, and those processes lead to similarities that show up as patterns." than there is now difference between your hypothesis and my hypothesis.

I don't understand what you are saying there. There's some grammatical errors that are confusing me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 3:51 PM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 4:35 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 393 (755225)
04-06-2015 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 4:35 PM


I corrected the grammatical error.

Were all you doing is pointing out that I think differently on how the patterns emerge?

The genre, setting and charakteres are different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge.

Well, no, not really. Even across genres and settings, TV shows are going to have a lot of similarities. A lot of them are just going to follow a standard three-act structure:

That the similarities can even just be plotted as a graph should make you realize that if you do a bunch of abstract nomenclature and then crunch them through a bunch of math models that you're going to see all kinds of different patterns.

And I doubt you are familiar with basic probability calculation when you can only "doubt" the results.

That's no way to convince someone that your paper has any merit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 4:35 PM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 393 (755229)
04-06-2015 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:09 PM


Only the first minute is quantised mostly. I agree that there are patterns for longer times. But the 1:10^7 probability is only about a pattern in the first one or two minutes.

Even worse, or course there are patterns in the first few moments of almost all television shows.

What does that have to do with ID at all?

And aren't you just basing this on "not chance" = "ID"?

I was sceptical from the beginning how reviews here could have a good quality if no one is familiar with the sciences about the paper.

Well I asked you to explain it in plain English without reference to your paper and you were unable to do that. So apparently even you do not understand the sciences in this paper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:09 PM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 84 of 393 (755231)
04-06-2015 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:40 PM


But not a recurring pattern that appears with a probability of 1:10^7.

But that is the probability that it is solely a result of chance.

We know that isn't true, there's lots of constraints involved in making a successful TV show.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:40 PM Dubreuil has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 393 (755297)
04-07-2015 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
04-07-2015 8:33 AM


Re: Just to be clear
Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show.

I brought that up in Message 65:

quote:
The complexity of the pattern could just be an artifact of the way in which you are notating the conditions compounded with the way that you are looking for the patterns.

I was merely guessing, as I hadn't really dug into the data like you just did.

But thanks for that, 'cause it really looks like I was right.

He didn't respond to that portion of my message...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 8:33 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 393 (755316)
04-07-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Cat Sci writes:

We know that isn't true, there's lots of constraints involved in making a successful TV show.

Please name them. You named previously genre, setting, characters, editors, directors and producers. I explained they can not explain the pattern: Message 78.

The constraints don't explain the pattern, they explain why calculating the probability of the pattern happening solely by chance is not appropriate.

TV shows aren't developed randomly, they follow patterns from the get-go.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 393 (755320)
04-07-2015 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:26 PM


TV shows as whole are developed, but the first few minutes are not developed in the same way for every episode.

Not in the exact same way, but they do follow patterns.

There's no reason to think that the first few minutes should be random so your calculation that is based solely on chance was inappropriate and misplaced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:26 PM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 393 (755323)
04-07-2015 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:49 PM


They would not create a complex pattern with a low residual uncertainty.

Well what do you know? How many TV shows have you produced?

Name an example like this. A pattern that is ubiquitous enough to explain the results in the first few minutes. I can only imagine very simple patterns like:

Regardless, your calculation of the pattern emerging solely by chance is still the wrong calculation to use.

Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:49 PM Dubreuil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021