Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
What Gary didn't bother to note as context:
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 05 2013,00:53) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 04 2013,15:32) |
Saying "one can research intelligent systems in an evolutionary computation framework" does not help your case either, that's what I have been saying! And you are in fact influencing the molecular behavior of imaginary cells that in turn influences the behavior of your imaginary virtual critter. Apparently when you say that it's science it's science, but when I do (along with even more detail than you can provide) it's religion.
In this paper you are one of 4 authors who only experimented with GA software called the "Avida digital evolution research platform" which was developed by someone else, not by you. I also experimented with Avida, and would be ashamed of myself for thinking that my playing with it was worth writing a paper for. But seeing a sciency looking abstract in a science journal does look highly scientific and very impressive to someone who does not know what it actually is, like Texas Teach and other gullible science teachers.
In looking at the number of citations (by which the success of a science paper is judged) there were none listed. I expect that is because the scientific community found the "research" as much of a yawn as I do.
And the metrics were quite revealing!
Metrics: 17 Total downloads since Feb. 2011
With only 17 downloads someone like myself has to wonder why you would even bother to publish science papers at all, except of course to advance a career that requires smoke and mirrors to make the big-bucks, and control others who don't know your trick. |
Gary does not even attempt to critique the content of the paper. Gary instead attempts, and fails, to critique meta-data about the paper.
For instance, here's the author list:
Author(s)
Elsberry, W.R.
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI
Grabowski, L.M. ; Ofria, C. ; Pennock, R.T.
"Ofria, C." is Charles Ofria.
Wikipedia:
| Quote |
Avida is under active development by Charles Ofria's Digital Evolution Lab at Michigan State University and was originally designed by Ofria, Chris Adami and C. Titus Brown at Caltech in 1993.
|
If there is any one person who could be said to have written Avida, Prof. Ofria would have the best claim to that. Nor is the paper about use of unaltered Avida, as any competent reader looking at the Methods section would have learned. Most of the coding for the additional instructions and integration of them into Avida was mine.
The IEEE site apparently doesn't do meta-data well. Google Scholar knows of three citations of the paper; not stunning, but not non-existent, either. And the number of downloads at the IEEE site is a count of people who paid either $31 or $13 for the privilege. I don't know how many people downloaded the PDF for free from Charles Ofria's website instead. At a rough valuation, then, the IEEE has realized between $221 and $527 from sales of my paper. Gary said that he had seen the paper before; I wonder whether he paid the IEEE or downloaded it for free from another source. If he didn't buy my paper from the IEEE, then Gary knew that it was not only available from IEEE and therefore whatever download count they had was meaningless as a measure of community interest, and would have made his claim with intentional malice. If Gary did buy the paper from the IEEE, then he knew that the download figure had a real cost associated with it and was not a simple measure of unhindered community interest as his statement implies; again, it is difficult to see how one could posit Gary making that statement without actual malice. Gary has previously claimed to have superior habits in paying attention to detail. Here's a detail from the IEEE "Metrics" tab that gives the download number Gary uses and quotes above; I'll provide it again here:
| Quote |
17
Total downloads since Feb. 2011
|
However, the paper was published in 2009. The IEEE site doesn't have download data for the period of time closest to publication, which is when most interest in papers is expressed. If Gary didn't notice the mismatch between the publication date and the download statistics date, it argues that Gary has sub-standard attention to detail, contrary to his previous claims. If Gary, on the other hand, did notice the mismatch in dates and chose to make the argument seen above, he was deliberately misleading readers as to the truth of the situation. Again, Gary's handling of meta-data shows near-total incompetence or actual malice.
Gary:
| Quote |
Saying "one can research intelligent systems in an evolutionary computation framework" does not help your case either, that's what I have been saying! And you are in fact influencing the molecular behavior of imaginary cells that in turn influences the behavior of your imaginary virtual critter. Apparently when you say that it's science it's science, but when I do (along with even more detail than you can provide) it's religion.
|
Gary has previously stipulated that his PSC VB code contains no evolutionary computation component. Then there is this from Gary:
| Quote |
As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an 'origin of life'¯ theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.
|
So the above is once again a blatant falsehood by Gary; Gary has explicitly stated exactly the opposite of what he claims now. Does Gary think that his past words can't be consulted?
The stuff about "molecular behavior" as a component of our paper is a bizarre invention on Gary's part. It seems unlikely that Gary has read the paper; at the least, his strange statements about it indicate that he did not comprehend it even if his eyes were exposed to reflected light from its pages.
The question of why Gary goes for false, provocative, and malicious statements when replying to me does have an answer. Gary thinks that 1) I have "big-bucks" and 2) if I say something actionable, Gary could sue me and get them. We know this from Gary himself. He refers to "big-bucks" in his reply quoted above. And Gary previously revealed his premeditated approach and strategy for using the legal system to enrich himself:
| Quote |
And before I came to this forum Casey gave me free legal advice in regard to what is legally over the line enough to easily win a case for that can come at me from places like this. Where reversed upon Wesley, it would be like someone anonymously calling campus security where they are working to report that their loss of mind is endangering the lives of all in the building they are in, when the truth that was stretched out of proportion is that they needed to use a small amount of flammable liquid to patch around the air conditioning unit that let water pour in every time it rained.
|
Unfortunately for Gary, he will not be able to provoke me into actionable statements, and even if such were the case, my career choices have tended toward more interesting but lower-paying jobs, and thus there just isn't much there to get. Sorry, there's no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow; Gary's delusions about me personally extend into the financial realm. |
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 05 2013,08:44) |
Wesley. All I can say is: Have fun with your old-fashioned toy, in a mud-slinging pit, where you need to put on an act, just to preach to your choir, that won’t even carry your tune… |
Adding more insults to false, provocative, and malicious statements is not all that Gary can say; it is rather all that we have come to expect Gary to say.
In my opinion, someone with a shred of integrity would say something different when their statements were documented to be misleading, inconsistent, contradictory, or blatant falsehoods.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
