http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo". Hey gary, I posted a comment that includes you on Joe's Tardgasm thread.  Be sure to check it out and reply.  I'm curious as to your thoughts. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=4950#entry221891

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 21 2013,08:51)

Quote (Nomad @ May 21 2013,04:39) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 21 2013,00:01) What was previously linked to did not meet circuit requirements, and like it or not I do not have time to spend a few weeks further investigating cameras too. I'm trying to imagine a molecule having a circuit at all, or being able to depict it with a schematic diagram.  Yet you would have me believe that you apply this kind of reasoning to molecules as well?  Okay then.  What's the circuit of water? You listed no such "circuit requirements".  You listed four basic behavioral requirements, and I explained how the AF system fulfilled each one.  You don't have to investigate them, I explained how it works.  I've given you examples of the way it behaves that demonstrates the underlying logic controlling it.  The real logic is far more complex and makes a difficult task seem comparatively simple, but simplifying it should make it harder to pass as intelligent since I'm eliminating many processes that may present more examples of the required behavior.  It is a simple question.  IF the camera functions in the manner that I described, is it intelligent based on your list of four requirements?  And if it fails to meet one of the requirements, which one?   Quote No, I am again explaining what is needed to reliably qualify anything as "'intelligent". No, you're shifting the goalposts.  You invited me to use your four requirements to test to see if something was intelligence.  You claimed that those were all that was needed to qualify something as intelligent.  Suddenly they're not enough.  Odd, that.   Quote Dwelling on smart-sounding camera terminology that makes them appear to be intelligent is not good enough, for me. I never said it appears to be intelligent.  I'm under no illusions that it should qualify as intelligent.  I'm saying that it seems to fulfill your "four requirements".  I'm doing this to demonstrate that they're far too loosely stated and will result in things that shouldn't be considered intelligent to be considered intelligent.  It's not about appearances, it's about how it works.  I have explained to you, step by step, how it works.  While I do not understand exactly how the underlying logic works, I can see how it functions in practice, and I can see that it's using a very limited number of sensor reading operations.  It is not a constant feedback as you envision.  Now you get to point out which of your requirements is missing from the process that I described.   Quote Without more information I am very skeptical, in part because of a simple servo (with maybe a tweaking algorithm) being all that is needed to make a camera that takes good pictures. Mmhmm.  See, you started off trying to dismiss the example of the AF system by claiming that it fed the sensor data straight into the lens without ever storing it in RAM.  Back then you were actually trying to address your requirements.  If it's "tweaked" by an algorithm, then you acknowledge that it's not directly fed into the motor, and you've accepted that you were wrong on that point.  You have three more requirements that you can contest if you wish. This reminds me of the argument that goes like "If humans evolved from apes then why are there still monkeys?" then it is claimed that evolutionary theory has been proven to be false and scientists have no theory, etc..

You are either the most clueless git on the planet, or are exposing entire new strata of dishonesty.
I'm going for the latter.

Were you not the one who professed to have a 'theory [sic] of intelligence' that applied across all levels?
Were you not the one who laid out the requisites for the existence of (what you call) intelligence?
Has Nomad not taken your criteria and applied them to an area that you do not consider intelligent, and yet obviously should based on your 'across all levels' "theory"?

Your analogy, therefore, ought to be more along the lines of "If apes are evolving then why aren't humans?", which leads to the "they are you dumbfuck moron" response that all of your effluent deserves. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=4950#entry221890 From Stephen Law and appropriate for both Joe and Gary.

Quote

There’s a popular myth about science that if you can make your theory consistent with the evidence, then you have shown that it is confirmed by that evidence – as confirmed as any other theory. Proponents of ludicrous belief systems often exploit this myth. It is exploited by Ken Ham. It may also exploited by those who reinterpret their preferred scripture or prophecy in order to make it “fit”. Of course, achieving “fit” and achieving confirmation are not the same thing.

In other words Joe and Gary, you can make your cute little notions about math, computer science, intelligence, ID, information science, etc.  Your notions may even match what we see in the real world.

It still doesn't mean that your notions are correct.  For that, you have to actually do the science and confirm that your notion and only your notion is the cause of the phenomenon. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=6510#entry221889

Quote (Nomad @ May 21 2013,04:39)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 21 2013,00:01) What was previously linked to did not meet circuit requirements, and like it or not I do not have time to spend a few weeks further investigating cameras too. I'm trying to imagine a molecule having a circuit at all, or being able to depict it with a schematic diagram.  Yet you would have me believe that you apply this kind of reasoning to molecules as well?  Okay then.  What's the circuit of water? You listed no such "circuit requirements".  You listed four basic behavioral requirements, and I explained how the AF system fulfilled each one.  You don't have to investigate them, I explained how it works.  I've given you examples of the way it behaves that demonstrates the underlying logic controlling it.  The real logic is far more complex and makes a difficult task seem comparatively simple, but simplifying it should make it harder to pass as intelligent since I'm eliminating many processes that may present more examples of the required behavior.  It is a simple question.  IF the camera functions in the manner that I described, is it intelligent based on your list of four requirements?  And if it fails to meet one of the requirements, which one?   Quote No, I am again explaining what is needed to reliably qualify anything as "'intelligent". No, you're shifting the goalposts.  You invited me to use your four requirements to test to see if something was intelligence.  You claimed that those were all that was needed to qualify something as intelligent.  Suddenly they're not enough.  Odd, that.   Quote Dwelling on smart-sounding camera terminology that makes them appear to be intelligent is not good enough, for me. I never said it appears to be intelligent.  I'm under no illusions that it should qualify as intelligent.  I'm saying that it seems to fulfill your "four requirements".  I'm doing this to demonstrate that they're far too loosely stated and will result in things that shouldn't be considered intelligent to be considered intelligent.  It's not about appearances, it's about how it works.  I have explained to you, step by step, how it works.  While I do not understand exactly how the underlying logic works, I can see how it functions in practice, and I can see that it's using a very limited number of sensor reading operations.  It is not a constant feedback as you envision.  Now you get to point out which of your requirements is missing from the process that I described.   Quote Without more information I am very skeptical, in part because of a simple servo (with maybe a tweaking algorithm) being all that is needed to make a camera that takes good pictures. Mmhmm.  See, you started off trying to dismiss the example of the AF system by claiming that it fed the sensor data straight into the lens without ever storing it in RAM.  Back then you were actually trying to address your requirements.  If it's "tweaked" by an algorithm, then you acknowledge that it's not directly fed into the motor, and you've accepted that you were wrong on that point.  You have three more requirements that you can contest if you wish.

This reminds me of the argument that goes like "If humans evolved from apes then why are there still monkeys?" then it is claimed that evolutionary theory has been proven to be false and scientists have no theory, etc.. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=4920#entry221888

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2013,08:25)

That's the stuff. Tard doesn't like math, so invents his own in an afternoon. Go team ID!

You know, I will never understand this.  Someone with no training in math... probably equivalent to college algebra, thinks that they will change the way math works with their new notions.  This is the ultimate expression of Krueger-Dunning.  

When I was a kid, I liked to draw airplanes.  That doesn't mean that I'm a capable aeronautical engineer and that super cool space/jet fighter I drew will change the way that engineers think about aircraft and spacecraft.

People who are capable (knowledge, skills, and abilities) of fundamentally changing the way we think about math, science, physics, and engineering are rare... and I guarantee you they have better things to do than sitting on the internet arguing on forums.*


* That says some pretty uncomfortable things about myself, but I can live with it. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=6510#entry221887

Quote (Freddie @ May 20 2013,16:16)

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ May 20 2013,15:46) Joe's inability to realize that the set of all whole numbers, the set of all positive numbers, and the set of all rational numbers have the same cardinality is the best example I've seen yet of a more general cognitive deficiency of his: he has great difficulty comprehending abstract concepts.   If he can't make sense of it in concrete terms, then he can't understand it.  (That's why he insists that the only thing that would convince him of macroevolution is a step-by-step specification of each and every nucleotide change in the speciation event.  And of course that level of detail is far beyond any present science.)   Philip is much the same, and I suspect that part of what drives it in both of them is that they don't read very much.  Philip's "contributions" to UD mostly consist of videos, not articles or books.  And there's a big difference in the kind of cognitive processing that's going on with reading and writing and with watching a video. Joe fails to comprehend the 'joke' ... Remember the UD motto 'Numquam iniuriam' !!

That's the stuff. Tard doesn't like math, so invents his own in an afternoon. Go team ID! ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=6510#entry221886

Quote (OgreMkV @ May 20 2013,06:48)

Quote (Febble @ May 20 2013,08:35) Or, depending on your definition, it doesn't have CSI, because 24 is less than 500. But its Specified Complexity is 24 in bits. *needs to get a life* {You aren't the only one who needs to get a life... I'm referring to myself here.} OK, but that still doesn't include the meaning, right? Does the anagram finder only look for English language words?  What about other languages? Would someone who isn't familiar with modern music be aware that DAFT PUNK has a very specific meaning... or would the meaning be missed by them because they don't have the cultural knowledge to realize it. Which brings up an interesting question of CSI.  If meaning is a part of it (and Joe hasn't shown that to be true at all), then what if WE DON'T KNOW THE MEANING?!?!?!?!? Of course, I guess that's why Joey et. al. always ask where the sequence came from.   CSI is, apparently, incapable of determining if something is designed in a vacuum.  One must know that something is designed in order to determine (via CSI) if it is designed or not. Which, as we've said all along, means that CSI is utterly and completely useless.

Ogre said:

"CSI is, apparently, incapable of determining if something is designed in a vacuum.  One must know that something is designed in order to determine (via CSI) if it is designed or not.

Which, as we've said all along, means that CSI is utterly and completely useless."

Exactly.

Hey joey, besides answering all of the questions that have already been put to you, answer these questions:

How many bits of 'CSI' are there in each of these strings? How many bits of Shannon information are there in each of these strings?

The sword swallower swallowed the sword.

drows eht dewollaws rewollaws drows ehT.

I

me

you

Bob

Amy

chimpanzee

human

Is one of these strings more complex and/or more specified than the other? Is one of these strings more meaningful/functional than the other?

King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

Hunterdon County Courthouse
65 Park Avenue
Flemington, NJ 08822 ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=6510#entry221885

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2013,03:57)

Quote (Driver @ May 20 2013,14:33) Two wordclouds of UD commenters. The first one is easy. Slightly more difficult: 1. batshit 2. ?????

I'd say the second is Byers, but I don't think he comments at UD. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7305;st=8880#entry221884 Not to monkey wrench this, but my new webcam not only autofocuses, but also follows faces. Many cameras can pick out faces and focus on them.

A lot of recent TVs can figure out the objects in a video stream and simulate a 3D effect. I've heard it can be pretty good. Of course it's just a simplified version of the process used to make 3D movies from 2D originals. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=4920#entry221883

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 14 2013,09:40)

I get the same kind of service from the FCC. Someone in my neighborhood has a rogue transmitter that intermittently blocks TV reception. There's no one left in the industry who can even read my complaint.

Suggest you get in touch with ARRL. Or, if it is an amateur station, any decent ham will do his best to help you. Or that's what I think, that's the way we do it here.

Sometimes the problem may have to be solved at the troubled site, even if the offending xmitter is ok. ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7304;st=330#entry221882 Dr Elizabeth

Every attempt I make to log into TSZ (required to make a comment) is met with a login box that says I have to provide a username, password AND match a CATCHA pattern.

The problem is that no CAPTCHA pattern is displayed for me to attempt. Am I doing something wrong? ]]> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7304;st=330#entry221881