RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (618) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 5347
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,12:10   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,06:12)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.

The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed. 

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.

We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:

And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:

Do you see the very major differences?

Well, I see a difference between the way you presented your "theory" and the "Darwinian theory model", but I can't say that I fully understand your "theory" and I don't think that the wording you used for the "Darwinian theory model" is accurate.

Trying to briefly word the concept of "Darwinian theory model" was never easy. In more detail: Even though Charles Darwin did not show a flowchart of the logic he was describing the theory he proposed had a "model" in it. From that came EA computer models with the GA computer model most representative of what he explained. There are Mutation and Selection variables, along with additional knowledge of genes and how they can be randomly mutated which Charles did not know about.

The text of a theory should have a "model" in it, which can next be coded to make a "computer model". If there is no model in the theory there is no computer model possible from it. I would then question whether it was really a theory. Could instead be a hypothesis therefore simply true/false with an experiment where results are best shown with something like a chart, not computer model. The theory the Discovery Institute long ago presented to Kathy Martin then later Judge Jones did not have a model in it, but that was then and this is now...

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
What I find myself thinking when I look at your "theory" is pretty much what I said before: That you're kinda sorta describing evolution, with intelligent thought and action thrown in, for example a feedback loop between the processes and results of adaptation/evolution (mutation, drift, variation, speciation, etc.) and environmental pressures/natural selection, but instead of it all being 'natural' or any of it being 'non-deterministic', 'random', or by 'chance' you're saying that it's guided by intelligence and deliberate actions (including or solely by guesses) within molecules and cells (and atoms?). Am I close?

In this theory, intelligence always has the ability to self-learn.  From the human brain to molecular intelligence (source of what you call "evolution") there is a learning curve, biologically physically "develops", but that's it.

Evolution is a concept from another model that makes even me dizzy trying to compare their variables. I once read (not sure where likely Wikipedia) that paradigms of theories are supposed to be this way, makes sense that they are.

You're here best off not to try making the other paradigm fit this one. You end up with generalizations for what might be seen happening in an intelligent population in an Intelligence Design Lab of the future but that still does not help explain how the model works, only complicates it.

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
I have another question:

How does extinction or extirpation fit into your "theory"?

In this theoretical model we get an Intelligence Design Lab where there would be foraging success of its molecular intelligence, which as a population can still keep foraging through time even though every once in a while a branch falls off of it. In this theory we ultimately see the wider biosphere sized picture that in reality might not have change much because of one lineage going extinct, or may, depending on what it is and how far along in development it was.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

  18527 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (618) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]