Ghosts in the machine

[Ed]

In this thread

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58051

over in computers, Ian was having some rather unpleasent and inexplicable problems with his machine.

At one point he said

Edited to add: This is now getting seriously weird. Just edited my message and when I clicked send the page simply disappeared, and it never edited.

I asked, a bit sarcastically, why ask nerds, get it exorcised or somesuch. Which brings me to my question. Why would Ian or any other person that has a non-materialist bent not seriously explore non-materialist explanations for computer problems? If the law a parsimony is not really a law at all it seems to me that computer problems should be viewed with the "open mind" that sceptics are always being accused of not having. After all, these problems fit to a tee the basic characteristics of many paranormal events:

-they are not predictable
-they (notoriously) cannot be made to happen "on demand"
-they can spontainously dissappear
-they can happen with stable machines (ie. "control" is present)
-they can sometimes be solved with ritual (the "reboot")

So why is this? I suspect that often belief is an affectation and computers are often part of one's livlihood so that harsh practicality trumps paranormal romance. Also, I suspect that folks like Ian (I am not picking on him, he just gave me the idea) know one hell of a lot more about machines than they do science so that They are far more likely to know that a machine manifestation is likely due to a port conflict than to understand retinal afterimages.

Anyhoo, I thought that this was interesting. If, like many other things that I find interesting, no one else does, this merry little thread will die quickly. But I do think that this phenomenon (computer rationality) does serve as a way of understanding belief.

Thoughts?

 

[jmercer]

Some people do believe their computer's are possessed or have an intelligence of their own. Most say it jokingly... but with an undercurrent of uncertainty. Some that I've known have gone as far as having their computers blessed by clergy to help prevent problems. (True, I swear it is!)

It's utterly exasperating to me when this happens... as an IT professional with 25 years of experience... who builds his own PC's for fun, and installs operating systems routinely... I find it increasingly difficult to hide the look of disgust on my face when people assign "mystery" to "technology".

It drives me nuts. Especially since - like the proverbial guy with the pickup truck - everybody just assumes that I'll help them out just because I can.

 

[Ashles]

It is an interesting point.

Beliefs are sometimes seen as gaining a level of control over the unpredictable. We can't see the future so believing in Astrology or Tarot etc. allows us the illusion that we can.

Sometimes we have low self-esteem and fel irrelevent to the world - believing we can move a pendulum and detect things makes us feel special. Especially if we go on and on about how the ability is no big deal, we 'thought everyone could do it' - that gives us the bonus of now suddenly feeling superior to those who claim openly they don't have the ability.
Self-esteem restored (albeit on a shaky platform)

We cannot affect how others perceive us, or how they behave, but casting spells or wearing talsmans etc. allows us to believe that we suddenly can.

We don't want to think that when we die that's it, and also we want to believe that we'll be rewarded for being good and other people will be punished for being bad - so we invent religion.

All these beliefs serve a practical function in allowing us the illusion of a measure of control over things that we can't control in reality.

And our methods of judging whether our beliefs are actually allowing us that control are highly flawed - we remember hits, forget misses, misperceive behaviours, misinterpret causal events etc.

However we know from bitter experience that a broken comuter is a broken computer. But even here an element of superstitious behaviour comes into play.
If your computer sometimes works and sometimes doesn't then whenever it does work we often tend to remember the sequence of events that led up to this, even if it is not related. We might open the packages in the same order, arange wires in a particular way, even leave a specific CD in the tray.

But it is basically impossible to pretend to ourselves that willing a comuter to do something will make it happen. We get feedabck from a computer almost instantly - and it either works or it doesn't, so there is no room for 'the power of the mind' in a scenario where instant and repeated negative feedback is provided.

Basically computers and their functioning don't allow us to deceive ourselves in the ways many other more complex situations do.

But that's just what I reckon.

 

[Donks]

Some might not do it because they recognize that computers are a fully understood technology. There are no black boxes inside, where human understanding is incomplete. We desing them and build them from scratch. We write the OS and the applications. We know how they work, from the transistor level all the way up. This is not the case with things that are not man made. The brain is particularly misterious. So I guess it's a god of the gaps type of thing. There just aren't any gaps in the computer.
Then again, as jmercer says, there are folks who believe paranormal phenomena occur in computers.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Some might not do it because they recognize that computers are a fully understood technology. There are no black boxes inside, where human understanding is incomplete. We desing them and build them from scratch. We write the OS and the applications. We know how they work, from the transistor level all the way up. This is not the case with things that are not man made. The brain is particularly misterious. So I guess it's a god of the gaps type of thing. There just aren't any gaps in the computer.
Then again, as jmercer says, there are folks who believe paranormal phenomena occur in computers.

In my experience, this is because computers are what I call “very complex systems.” Certainly we designed and built the things but users almost certainly did not. Even OS programmers can’t predict exactly how a piece of code will interact with thousands of other pieces of code not written by them. We may know how they work but no one person could predict with utter certainty every quirk in even a modest desktop computer.

However; when I work with computers I find that if I’m in a bad mood; my machines tend to be quirkier. Anyone know why? (I have a pretty good idea but I’m curious if anyone else will come up with the same idea.)

 

[Ed]

Some might not do it because they recognize that computers are a fully understood technology. There are no black boxes inside, where human understanding is incomplete. We desing them and build them from scratch. We write the OS and the applications. We know how they work, from the transistor level all the way up. This is not the case with things that are not man made. The brain is particularly misterious. So I guess it's a god of the gaps type of thing. There just aren't any gaps in the computer.
Then again, as jmercer says, there are folks who believe paranormal phenomena occur in computers.

Which begs the question of why they would, given this clear example of knowledge driving out superstition, not crack open a stats and basic sensory psych text (an abnormal psych text might be a good choice too). Why does knowledge exorcise computers but not other, more hip, frauds?

 

[Donks]

In my experience, this is because computers are what I call “very complex systems.” Certainly we designed and built the things but users almost certainly did not. Even OS programmers can’t predict exactly how a piece of code will interact with thousands of other pieces of code not written by them. We may know how they work but no one person could predict with utter certainty every quirk in even a modest desktop computer.

Yes, you're right, no one person can. But that doesn't mean that there are things that are not understood about computers. Look at the research, it's either how to build better computers, or how to use them more efficiently. The most far out research is how to make them do new things, like AI research. When you talk about medical research, for instance, not only are better medicines being researched, but also how things work, how and why things go wrong. Then you have the alt-med crowd slinging "arguments" like "well, not everything is know, so everything is possible."

 

[Frinkiak7]

Especially since - like the proverbial guy with the pickup truck - everybody just assumes that I'll help them out just because I can.

Like you, I build and repair PCs on the side. I also happen to drive a pickup.

More accurate words were never spoken, sir.

 

[jmercer]

Like you, I build and repair PCs on the side. I also happen to drive a pickup.

More accurate words were never spoken, sir.

OMG... you poor soul! Double hit!

 

[jmercer]

However; when I work with computers I find that if I’m in a bad mood; my machines tend to be quirkier. Anyone know why? (I have a pretty good idea but I’m curious if anyone else will come up with the same idea.)

Because when you're in a good mood, it's a minor annoyance - so you get past it and forget it. When you're in a bad mood it's a $#*@#$%# obstacle, and you remember it for weeks. Same reason it always seems the lights are against you if you're in a rush - or you end up behind a slow vehicle in a no-passing lane - the the #*#$@# elevator takes FOREVER when you need to get to your next meeting.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Yes, you're right, no one person can. But that doesn't mean that there are things that are not understood about computers. Look at the research, it's either how to build better computers, or how to use them more efficiently. The most far out research is how to make them do new things, like AI research. When you talk about medical research, for instance, not only are better medicines being researched, but also how things work, how and why things go wrong. Then you have the alt-med crowd slinging "arguments" like "well, not everything is know, so everything is possible."

You’re quite correct but that’s not exactly what I said.

No *one operator* at a consol could conceivably predict every conceivable output of a specific machine (at some level of complexity, somewhere below that of a common desktop machine IMO. ) And I’m assuming we are performing some ordinary task like reading email not poking in 1+1=? Or the like

This does not mean that the machine is not predictable or something supernatural is happening. The machine is tossing numbers around very quickly, it’s responding to a command set that is *to the operator* not completely quantifiable (because it’s very fast.) Also ;the command set of a common desktop PC was written by many thousands of people. Writing code is not an exact science.

Therefore the machine will probably return output which is not expected by the operator simply because the operator is human and cannot follow the command sequence of the machine in real time.

Ergo, machines which behave in ways that are not expected.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Because when you're in a good mood, it's a minor annoyance - so you get past it and forget it. When you're in a bad mood it's a $#*@#$%# obstacle, and you remember it for weeks.

Close, not exactly what I had in mind.

BTW; this happens more often when I’m troubleshooting.

 

[Donks]

You’re quite correct but that’s not exactly what I said.
...snip...
Ergo, machines which behave in ways that are not expected.

My whole point is that, while the operater might not know what is happening and to *him* the computer is one big black box, he knows that that is not the case for everyone. He knows that people just like him designed, wrote and built every last chip and line of code in his machine. With natural sciences, there are still holes in our knowledge. Big holes in some areas, small ones in others. A non-materialist has a lot of room to maneuver in these holes, to invent paranormal explanations while science catches up.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

My whole point is that, while the operater might not know what is happening and to *him* the computer is one big black box, he knows that that is not the case for everyone. He knows that people just like him designed, wrote and built every last chip and line of code in his machine. With natural sciences, there are still holes in our knowledge. Big holes in some areas, small ones in others. A non-materialist has a lot of room to maneuver in these holes, to invent paranormal explanations while science catches up.

Sure-sure, there is nothing mysterious about complex machines. If they did not behave in a predictable manner they would not be very useful.

A non-materialist might ascribe some paranormal aspect to such machines (and often do much to my amusement) but the bottom line is, they are indeed machines. At some level they must return a predictable output for any discrete function. Simply that we as operators can’t really predict what that will be because computers can do math superhumanly quickly.

 

[Donks]

Simply that we as operators can’t really predict what that will be because computers can do math superhumanly quickly.

Depends how you define math. You can do all the operations required for visual pattern recognition orders of magnitude faster than Blue Gene/L.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In my experience, this is because computers are what I call “very complex systems.” Certainly we designed and built the things but users almost certainly did not. Even OS programmers can’t predict exactly how a piece of code will interact with thousands of other pieces of code not written by them. We may know how they work but no one person could predict with utter certainty every quirk in even a modest desktop computer.

However; when I work with computers I find that if I’m in a bad mood; my machines tend to be quirkier. Anyone know why? (I have a pretty good idea but I’m curious if anyone else will come up with the same idea.)

I wrote an article for Skeptic Report along these lines about a year ago -- it's at http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/xmasvirus.htm, if anyone's interested.

 

[Alkatran]

I think your computer messes up more when your in a bad mood because you end up in a bad mood when your computer doesn't work.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Depends how you define math. You can do all the operations required for visual pattern recognition orders of magnitude faster than Blue Gene/L.

That’s quite true. I’ve always been fascinated how much non-linier processing is done in the human brain. I read a good article once which suggested human brains were really designed to throw things accurately. A male who could throw a rock better could bring down more meat, attract more females and thus breed more. Language art and all that other rot were just accidents.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

I think your computer messes up more when your in a bad mood because you end up in a bad mood when your computer doesn't work.

But the causality!

If I were in a good mood the computer would not give me so many problems and it would not follow that I’d be in a bad mood at all. Why is it that computers tend to give me more problems when I’m in a bad mood due to other circumstances?

 

[Beanbag]

As a watchmaker, I can tell you that ANY mechanism with more than ten moving or interconnected parts has a personality, and usually not a good one. That includes computers, where the parts may not exactly move, but they interact. Many are the times that I've been made to look like a complete idiot by a cranky watch that for all appearances and efforts should function correctly, but chooses not to.

Beanbag