Joined: April 2007
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,18:49)|
|Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:40)|
|Gary, I do a lot of hydraulic modeling with a commercially available program (just to say - I am not a scientist).|
When I do an analysis I always begin with comparing the model to existing reality. I may need to adjust my model parameters, like perhaps ground temp, to make sure my model better matches actual flow conditions.
This is with a simple hydraulic model. Your model, from what I can gather, attempts to model much more than linear single phase flow. Have you done any comparing to reality? If so, please show that. If not, why not and why would you think your model has value?
Over the past 40 years (since I was a teenager) I have been studying the cognitive models that became popular, and what was known about how brains of many kinds work. After the advent of the personal computer I took a home study course in AI and later programmed neural networks. The internet later came along which made it possible to study even more, which is here important because of it being vital that the model accurately sums up the main features of any cognitive system. The model that ended up surviving the test of time (since 1980) is that of David Heiserman, which I found in a book on building your own self-learning robot.
For an idea of what I have more recently been studying there is a list of some of my favorites here:
As you can see from this reply it is a matter of comparing biologically relevant models for insects to humans:
I spent many thousands of hours comparing this model to existing reality. In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. And even more recently I needing to explain emergent intelligence from intelligence which resulted in my being pelted with insults because of the ID controversy having given that the name of “intelligent cause”. A couple of years after that I realized that I had everything needed to clinch the Theory of Intelligent Design and at the same time have the logical name I needed which is in fact the phrase “intelligent cause” . I knew I was in for years of even more severe bashing for it. But at least that way the biological sciences can progress like they should, and in time the controversy can end with all having learned something valuable from the experience.
If I did not compare models and study what is known about how brains and such work then there would be no way I could make it this far. That’s what it’s all about, comparing to reality. And none in any forum ever presenting a better model summing up how any intelligence of any kind works is more evidence that I have the best model in all of science for that and for the phenomenon of “intelligent cause”.
Don't you have a day job?
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."
- William Dembski -