Can the mind generate random numbers?

[Ivan Seeking]

A bit off the wall, but anyone who plays with random number generators quickly learns that it is impossible to make one that is truly random, using software alone. Has anyone ever considered whether people can actually generate random numbers? How does the mind produce a number "randomly"? Do we have any idea?

It is pretty easy to imagine analyzing person-generated random numbers and looking for a pattern.

 

[Borg]

I've sometimes wondered about random number generation and have thought that a good one would consist of software that generates numbers starting from user input and the time of the request.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Is asking whether the mind can possibly generate a random number and whether our conscious mind can generate a random number the same or different question?

 

[cesiumfrog]

Has anyone ever considered whether people can actually generate random numbers?

Yes, they can't. (At least, certainly not deliberately.) See, for example, the http://www.neko.co.il/games4rand.pdf" (an article WP cited).

 

[Frame Dragger]

Our brains really aren't very suited to random ANYTHING. We're designed to look for patterns from the limbic system on up to the frontal lobe. Besides, we don't think in large enough terms to be good generators. I would say that our subconscious is too much a pattern-seeker, and our conscious is far too limited by our daily experiences.

Even someone experience a tonic-clonic seizure isn't havig a "random" storm across their neurons. I think our dreams say it all: We put disparate elements together, awake or asleep... that is fundamentally non-random.

Anyway, atmospheric noise, or some other complex natural phenomana are much simpler to use. Using a number of such sources and combining them, then slapping that on a one-time-pad is the essence of security, and also emblamatic of fundamental limitations to any encryption which is not utterly random.

EDIT: By "think in large enough terms", let's say you pick random numbers... how big do you go? A 1-100? 0-1million? 0-1sextilion? Are you drawn to primes, or even numbers, or feel a need to artificially distribute your choices over the whole spectrum, when true random could be "10382429, 5, 289, 043734, 5" do you include fractions?

I can't even think of an agnosia or TBI or any condition which would eliminate patterns from emerging.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

. I think our dreams say it all: We put disparate elements together, awake or asleep... that is fundamentally non-random.

What produces the disparate elements in dreams?

 

[Frame Dragger]

What produces the disparate elements in dreams?

A good question, but one that is clearly NOT random. Dreams are generally not random, but a pastiche of underlying elements which then trigger an internal narrative. It seems to primarily be active in consolidating long term memories, and contain common themes. Dreams are very patterened, and the REM sleep is certainly complex and active, but random?

That said... all of our dreams are subject to the lens of our recall OF them. Our sleep is very cyclical, and the activity during REM doesn't appear random, even on an EEG. The seeming oddity is usually a matter of how our brain forms connections between proximate experiences, thereby trigerring memories which are far older. Understanding those patterns may be impossible, but like the use of the letter "E" in Enlish, themes emerge in dreams which are predictable.

 

[MotoH]

Every number we think of has came from an earlier memory. If I were to think of the number 1, it could be how many hot dogs I ate for lunch, an answer to a math problem or something else.

So no number is truly random when it is thought of, but it is far more random than what a program could make. The programs function could be identified, and any number that is supposedly random, could be predicted. Although the same could be said for a human mind. If you were exposed to sequences of numbers all day, and asked to generate a random number, there would be a high probability of you picking one of the numbers that was shown to you.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Every number we think of has came from an earlier memory. If I were to think of the number 1, it could be how many hot dogs I ate for lunch, an answer to a math problem or something else.

So no number is truly random when it is thought of, but it is far more random than what a program could make. The programs function could be identified, and any number that is supposedly random, could be predicted. Although the same could be said for a human mind. If you were exposed to sequences of numbers all day, and asked to generate a random number, there would be a high probability of you picking one of the numbers that was shown to you.

Yep, and it works the same way with memories... we synthesize, and create new dreams by associating memory "1" with "One" and "Won" and ".1"... etc... suddenly you're dreaming about how one person won the one-on-one by .1 seconds! A good computer with time could crack it.

Michael Shermer has an interesting concept he calls a human tendency towards "Patternicity". A big sophomoric, but still, well taken and a good point. We are pattern seekers, awake, or asleep. To do otherwise would be interesting, but contrary to basic survival.

 

[k_squared]

I know of a programmer who, needing cryptographically secure (y'know, if you encode your message with a series of random characters which all go 123... it might not be hard to decode, so the more random looking the better) had the user click a button a number of times.

The timing in between clicks, measured at the millisecond level, determined randomness. Therefore, I can think humans can generate at least kinda random numbers, if nothing else through imprecision... or would a human trying to click like a metronome look like a bell curve? (Ie, might his the 'miss', the amount of time he's off, look like a bell curve as it fluctuates) How random IS that?

You could just have some subjects try to generate random numbers and then run a statistical study... even if there no random, is the mind so complex it would be difficult to find a pattern?

 

[Borek]

I know of a programmer who, needing cryptographically secure (y'know, if you encode your message with a series of random characters which all go 123... it might not be hard to decode, so the more random looking the better) had the user click a button a number of times.

Similar idea (keys, not mouse buttons) was used for generation of random primes in PGP version used in early nineties (BBS, Fido time).

--
Borek AKA Top Secret BBS, 2:480/25

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A good question, but one that is clearly NOT random. Dreams are generally not random, but a pastiche of underlying elements which then trigger an internal narrative. It seems to primarily be active in consolidating long term memories, and contain common themes. Dreams are very patterened, and the REM sleep is certainly complex and active, but random?

Do you have any references for this; that they are indeed not random? I have read just the opposite.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Do you have any references for this; that they are indeed not random? I have read just the opposite.

Yes. May I ask where you read "just the opposite"? By any chance, here? http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(05)00114-3/abstract

For every "tit" of this there is a "tat" http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(07)00480-X/abstract

Here is one well accepted view which partially agrees with you: "After a brief period of Stage 4 sleep, and to prevent us from falling into a deep coma, our brain partially arouses us: Our brainstem, the most primitive part of our brain, stimulates the higher levels of our brain with random impulses and returns us to Stage 2 sleep, associated with REM’s and dreams. We stay in the REM dream stage for a while and then again return to deeper stages."

The thing is... you COULD try and measure those random impulses, but while they TRIGGER dreams, they have nothing to do with content. Dreams themselves are highly patterned, much as the response to sensory deprivation is. You can predict many aspects of both, and the brain-stem does seem to be... spastic... during that time. That said, the "random" firings do not result in random dreams. Your dreams are formed from what you experience, what you can imagine, and some would say basic archetypes (I don't necessarily agree with that), and even if the trigger is random, that's it.

I'm not pawing through old JAMA archives to find a dozen studies, each contradicting the other. There are endless examples of studies which contradict each other in this field. I should point out that dreams are not exactly a perfectly understood quantity, nor is sleep in general. I can imagine differing points of view, but I'd be interested to see medical evidence of human random number generation. "Listening" to the brain-stem is not arguably more effective than radioactive decay, or atmospheric noise + keystrokes.

It would seem to be contrary to the nature of human decision making, if we experienced random ANYTHING above the level of the brain-stem. I am yet to see a study which proves that random activity (although it is widely accepted). So, again, I'm curious as to what exactly you've been reading.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What is required of a number that it be considered random?

 

[Borek]

I don't think single number can be considered random, sequence can. For that it must pass statistical tests.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think single number can be considered random, sequence can. For that it must pass statistical tests.

I think a person could come up with a set of numbers that are statistically random, but they wouldn't be logically random in that, in arriving at the set the person would be screening them for fullfillment of the criteria that they be statistically random. In other words, the set would be ultimately non-random in that it had to stick to the rule of being statistically random. Engineered disarray. Intelligently designed pattern deprivation.

 

[imiyakawa]

The solution is quite simple, in my opinion.

Your answer depends on which model is correct. If the ability of the brain to process/generate information is caused by the macro (non-quantum) states of the brain - determined, then your supposed random numbers aren't random.

If something like Penrose's ORCH OR model is correct, then this may allow randomity into the picture when thinking of numbers.

When you answer the question of whether the mind is determined or stochastic (thereby giving you you have "Random will" not no free will), - caused by random quantum events or more macro (potentially) predictable events, you'll have your answer. Until then, you cannot know.

 

[Q_Goest]

There are no such things as numbers. What number is an apple or an I beam? You'll find ink and paper, and flashing billboards with a pattern in this shape: "1". You might find silicon chips that change physical states. You may find protons, electrons or neutrons. But you won't find numbers because numbers are symbolic representations that quantify something. Numbers are concepts.

If there are no conscious living things, numbers cease to exist because concepts can't exist except where conscious things are around to contemplate them.

You will find things that change state; and these things will be made of mass. The particles or groupings of particles will have measurable positions that interact with each other. You'll find quantities of them. You may even assign a numerical value to how many you find. But you won't find numbers.

The question should be, "can the mind generate random EVENTS?"

 

[EnumaElish]

All one needs is a random sequence of 1's and 0's.

One can possibly set a decision rule such as "1 if childhood memory, 0 if adulthood memory" or "1 if concrete thought, 0 if abstract thought" then let one's memories/thoughts flow freely; pressing a button every time one remembers or thinks of a certain memory or thought.

It would be interesting to see if the result would pass randomness tests.

 

[EnumaElish]

The following requires a subject and an experimenter. The experimenter asks the subject questions that the subject does not know the answer to, and requests the subject to "guess." Every time the subject guesses correctly, the experimenter records "1," otherwise a "0" is recorded.

 

[Boy@n]

If I give you a piece of white paper full of little black dots on it and ask you to pick one, would your choice be a random one (like quantum fluctuations is), or could it be predicted/calculated even before you chose it (if we assume our brains obey just firm classical laws and that we are capable to calculate everything since the Big Bang)?

 

[mrspeedybob]

The answer might depend on the exact definition of random. If random means that every sequence of numbers is equaly probable then I highly doubt a person could generate random numbers. If random means that the next number in a sequence is unknowable by any knowable algorithm then I would say that a person could generate random numbers.

 

[Chronos]

A prime number does not yield an integer value when divided by any number other than itself or 2. It is that simple. Random numbers are a little more complicated. Testing whether a series of numbers are truly 'random' is difficult. Probability theory is usually applied in these cases, but, you need an enormous data set to make a claim with any mathematical certainty.

 

[Borek]

A prime number does not yield an integer value when divided by any number other than itself or 2.

Sounds like a second number, not prime number.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Ivan Seeking, Please see Dr. S. J. F. Philpott in The British Journal of Psychology this article:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00339.x/abstract?

The subjects in his study were asked to perform repetitive tasks as regularly as possible. The resultant "work curves" showed a periodicy which seemed to correspond to the subjects’ alpha rhythms. This suggests humans cannot generate random numbers because there are repeating periodic processes in our brains.

 

[FlexGunship]

A bit off the wall, but anyone who plays with random number generators quickly learns that it is impossible to make one that is truly random, using software alone. Has anyone ever considered whether people can actually generate random numbers? How does the mind produce a number "randomly"? Do we have any idea?

It is pretty easy to imagine analyzing person-generated random numbers and looking for a pattern.

I can randomly generate a "7" at any given moment. So... yes.

 

[Jobrag]

This might interest you, go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/iots
and scroll down to "Random and Psuedorandom".

 

[AlephZero]

If I give you a piece of white paper full of little black dots on it and ask you to pick one, would your choice be a random one (like quantum fluctuations is), or could it be predicted/calculated even before you chose it (if we assume our brains obey just firm classical laws and that we are capable to calculate everything since the Big Bang)?

It is well known from experiments in marketing that if you put several brands of a product on a supermarket shelf, the brands in the middle of the line sell more than the ones at the end, independent of how you you shuffle the order of the brands on the shelf.

But if you ASK shoppers why they chose a particular brand, they NEVER say "because it was in the middle of the shelf".

If you want to argue that "selecting dots on a piece of paper" is fundamentally different, I think you need a good testable reason why it's differerent

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm skeptical of true randomness in conscious decisions. It's more likely that such sensations felt by humans are still deterministic processes. People often confused chaotic and random in this discussion. Our choice can be very chaotic (sensitive to noise).

there have been free-will experiments that involve "brain-reading machines" that can predict people's choices. The people believed they were making spontaneous choices at the time. It was actually first done quite a while ago, by Libet (surprised his name hasn't come up in this thread yet).

John Dylan Haynes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

Patrick Haggard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ4nwTTmcgs

 

[seofactor]

I've sometimes wondered about random number generation and have thought that a good one would consist of software that generates numbers starting from user input and the time of the request.

From my programming days, this is actually what most languages do (programming languages). For example, I think it is C or C++ that generates random numbers using the computer's clock. Hrm...may have been VB6 though...hard to remember that stuff...so long ago.

 

[Dali]

I think a person could come up with a set of numbers that are statistically random

Actually we humans are generally pretty bad at coming up with sets of random numbers. I heard somewhere about a match teacher who always gave his/her new students an assignment to just throw a dice 100 times and write down the sequence of numbers. I don't know if they also were given the possibility to just make up those 100 numbers, or if there always were students who "cheated" like this any way. Anyhow, the teacher could always spot with certainty which students actually did throw the dice and which ones just made it up. In most cases even by just inspecting the sequence by eye.

It turns most of us simply have a very bad intuition for random numbers. For example, most people tend to not want to repeat the same number twice or more in a row. Or they favor some numbers that "feel more random" and avoid others. (When asked for one random number between 1 and 100, apparently "47" is by far more common than any other number! And nobody ever says "50" or "100"... :-) ) In a real sequence of 100 random numbers between 1 and 6 however, it is a very unlikely not to have at least one part-sequence of the same number repeated three (or more) times in a row. So, just by the lack of any number repeated 3 times in a row (or more), one can be pretty certain that the sequence is human-made up. And of course doing real statistical analysis of the sequence usually gives very clear indications if the sequence is truly random or not (=human made up).

Of course, the more we know about statistics, the better random sequences we can come up with. At least if we are allowed to analyze and alter our sequence before "handing it in". But fact remains that we generally are pretty bad at spontaneously generating truly random numbers.

 

[jreelawg]

I agree it all hinges on whether someone can have random brain activity. The brain being something we are still unable to fully understand, I think it is not impossible at this point that this can happen.

In the strictest sense though, a Random number is pretty difficult to come across. I would define a random number as a number that was generated such that no conditions prior to it's generation influenced the outcome. Unless, that condition was randomly generated with the same definition.

Maybe it is possible that the creation of the universe was a truly random even, and everything in this universe that has happened, or come to be has been determined by conditions which were themselves randomly generated. Like randomception. And so the number I am about to type, 923386, is a random number which was ultimately generated via the creation of the known universe.

 

[Chronos]

Keys used in computer security are prime numbers [which is believed to be an infinite set]. It would be interesting to see if prime numbers can be proven random.

 

[Whovian]

Keys used in computer security are prime numbers [which is believed to be an infinite set].

The've actually been proven to be infinite. The proof's relatively basic.

 

[jreelawg]

The've actually been proven to be infinite. The proof's relatively basic.

Euclid proved this more than 2000 years ago.

 

[Whovian]

Yea, thought it was Euclid, but didn't want to say that in case I got the wrong Ancient Greek mathematician.

 

[Chronos]

I believe it was Cantor.

 

[Whovian]

I believe it was Cantor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_theorem]See[/PLAIN] here. Unfortunately, it appears Cantor had nothing to do with this. Maybe you're thinking about his work on Transcendentals?

 

[Brainguy]

Define random. Name something in our universe that is truly random. Its hard for me to answer this question because I don't even know what random is. For example: when you roll dice, you can calculate the friction of the table, force Of the throw, which number is facing up when it's thrown, spin, and many other factors that all loop back to how hard the brain decided to throw the dice, which we have established by now is not random. Think about that.

 

[Pythagorean]

Radioactive decay

 

[RMnumbers]

Okay, preliminary definition of (uniformly) random then: Write down a few hundred 1s or 0s. I don't know how to do the statistics exactly, but I do know that:

0 and 1 should each appear about 50% of the time
01, 10, 00, 11 should each appear about 25% of the time
etc...

It's the "about" part that I don't know how to quantify. I assume that you find the 'degree' of randomness in terms of deviation from this expected distribution, rather than a binary 'is or is not random'. But whatever way you phrase it, no we aren't good at generating random numbers. People tend to swap numbers too often in such situations (so strings like 111 or 0000 almost never occur where they should be more common). It's been shown several times that people aren't good at *consciously* generating random numbers. Whether subconscious ticks and things can is a different story. My guess is that they'd at least be much closer than real attempts, because even when trying to generate random numbers people peg out certain patterns as being more 'random' than others, which doesn't work out properly.

 

[viraltux]

Randomness is nothing more than a useful mathematical concept, just like infinitesimals or infinity.

When you start wondering whether those concepts actually exist this is mathematics no more but philosophy, and when you go philosophy on something then everything goes.

Roger Penrose in his book The Emperor's New Mind set up his mind to disprove a computer scientist statement in TV claiming that it is perfectly possible for machines to think like humans do and be indistinguishable. I really enjoyed this book because you could see how convinced was Sin Roger of his success at the beginning of his journey and how, little by little and being the excellent mathematician Sir Penrose is, he realizes that the computer scientist was actually right.

Yet, at the end of the book Sir Roger resorts to Quantum Mechanics to try to escape the mathematical inevitable conclusion, he knew that if he could prove that any quantum random event takes place in the brain then human thoughts can never be fully replicated by standard computers. Unfortunately for his theory neurologist agreed that no quantum effect might ever have any impact in the human cognitive process.

So do random events exist? does it make any sense to compare infinity cardinalities? do infinitesimals exist? Well, grab a drink and have your go...

 

[Borek]

Unfortunately for his theory neurologist agreed that no quantum effect might ever have any impact in the human cognitive process.

Did they? I was under - perhaps false - impression that he was criticized for his statements that consciousness can't be explained by the known physics and for his way of incorporating randomly selected anatomical features to speculate about "quantum engine" present in our brains. But just because he is wrong doesn't mean quantum effects can't have any impact. that's a logical fallacy.

Rested eye can record single photons. I suppose at this level of sensitivity now and then eye will "detect" photons that don't exist - after all that's just a sensor and a noise. Such a signal can trigger some thought process ("wow, light, there must be an exit there!"). That would be an impact of quantum effects on the cognitive process, wouldn't it?

 

[viraltux]

Did they? I was under - perhaps false - impression that he was criticized for his statements that consciousness can't be explained by the known physics and for his way of incorporating randomly selected anatomical features to speculate about "quantum engine" present in our brains. But just because he is wrong doesn't mean quantum effects can't have any impact. that's a logical fallacy.

Implying that I imply that something is wrong because Sir Roger Penrose might be wrong in other subject probably has a name too... and probably it's a very meanie one...

Rested eye can record single photons. I suppose at this level of sensitivity now and then eye will "detect" photons that don't exist - after all that's just a sensor and a noise. Such a signal can trigger some thought process ("wow, light, there must be an exit there!"). That would be an impact of quantum effects on the cognitive process, wouldn't it?

Well, you could integrate every quantum effect detector known to mankind into someone's brain and the way the brain process information will still be completely unaffected by quantum events.

But even if it was so, which neurologist claim it is not, it would be the same that saying a quantum effect can flip a bit in a computer and that we need to take into account those "random" flips to understand how a computer works, and, in this scenario, since both brain and computer might be altered by "random" events they both might again be considered equivalent.

After reading Sir Roger Penrose's book I am quite convinced that his passion trying to differentiate humans from machines is rooted in the same feelings scientist had when Darwin postulated "we are monkeys". We want to be special, but the more we know the less that seems to be so... And this is a hard thing to accept.

And by the way, to see how hard is to let go this "human mind is special" feeling it is quite interesting to check the statements people made through history about the capabilities of computers to play chess game against humans... They went from "Impossible to beat a any human" to "My cellphone can beat a World's Chess Champion". The reading is interesting because you can see the titanic resistance some offered to believe such thing was possible and only accepting it when they themselves were beaten by a machine.

I think Sir Roger's arguments, though really interesting, are nurtured by this dismay and denial feelings about human nature.

 

[atyy]

Keys used in computer security are prime numbers [which is believed to be an infinite set]. It would be interesting to see if prime numbers can be proven random.

Terence Tao: Structure and Randomness in the Prime Numbers
slides available

 

[Farahday]

The set of all possible integers is infinite. For a number to be truly random, it must include all of them - else the range of the set is predictable. The VAST majority of numbers have more digits than a human could possibly conceive in a million lifetimes. If you add decimals...well the probability is infinitesimal.

 

[ThomasT]

A bit off the wall, but anyone who plays with random number generators quickly learns that it is impossible to make one that is truly random, using software alone. Has anyone ever considered whether people can actually generate random numbers? How does the mind produce a number "randomly"? Do we have any idea?

It is pretty easy to imagine analyzing person-generated random numbers and looking for a pattern.

I'm pretty sure that I can generate lists of, say, 10 numbers, that you can't predict. Or even one number. Given that, am I producing truly random numbers?

Wrt software random number generators, if you know the algorithm, then you can predict the numbers. Not random. But if you don't, then you can't. Random.

So, what's the difference between a random number and a truly random number.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm pretty sure that I can generate lists of, say, 10 numbers, that you can't predict. Or even one number. Given that, am I producing truly random numbers?

Not necessarily; a sequence of numbers can be non-random but not predictable. The question is, does a pattern emerge given a large set of selected numbers?

 

[ThomasT]

Not necessarily ...

Yes, necessarily. I can generate lists of numbers, independent of any discernable algorithm, that you can't predict.

Are they random? Are they truly random? What's the difference?

What does the word random refer to?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, necessarily. I can generate lists of numbers, independent of any discernable algorithm, that you can't predict.

Are they random? Are they truly random? What's the difference?

What does the word random refer to?

How do you know your list of numbers is random?

If there is a pattern, after enough numbers we could in principle predict your next choice. But it may require an extraordinarily large set of numbers before a pattern emerges.