N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 16 2015,01:30) | I studied this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......e_wrong
The Intelligence Algorithm model I use is not a statistical model attempting to model something with so many variables it's impossible to be precise. It reduces any intelligence that can exist anywhere in the universe to its systematic parts as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as follows:
| Quote | SYSTEMATIC
: using a careful system or method : done according to a system
Full Definition of SYSTEMATIC
1
: relating to or consisting of a system
2
: presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles <systematic thought>
3
a : methodical in procedure or plan <a systematic approach> <a systematic scholar>
b : marked by thoroughness and regularity <systematic efforts>
4
: of, relating to, or concerned with classification; specifically : taxonomic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction....tematic
|
In the case of "intelligence" there are four required parts connected together a certain way in a circuit you have seen illustrated so many times you complain when I show it again. With just that I have had years of success modeling surprisingly lifelike self-learning systems without ever finding anything else required. My first programs were on the first PC there ever was the Radio Shack-Tandy TRS-80 Model-1 where you used a cassette tape recorder to save code that usually did not work and very very slow, but it was better than nothing.
As you saw I had no problem at all adding in a neocortex (hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, etc. are part of) like any other RAM system with the only difference being that the Data locations Address neighboring locations causing all sorts of interesting waves through the network that make the critter come to life, in a never seen before way. Having the systematics all figured out makes possible an unbiased determination of whether the origin of our species was caused by "intelligence" at the cellular and/or molecular levels of our construction. With all the programmable molecular networks inside and on the surface of cells I would not at all be surprised by cells and/or our genetic system having a neocortex too. Self-similarity where all are systematically in each other's likeness, image. One model, does it all. Another test of its being complete, easily passed.
This model and theory is something I thought about even as a young kid growing up in the 60's. I had no idea how intelligence worked but knew I would eventually figure it out. By the time I had "the circuit" well tested and three biological levels well sorted out the Discovery Institute was making all kinds of noise in Kansas with ID but it was obvious to me that they had a long way to go before finding out where that leads to, which turned out to be what's happening right here, right now. I was in contact with the notorious Kathy Martin and helped her along when I could at the Kansas Citizens For Science forum, which was educator central for the issue. The first forum is not online but the best of years are still preserved.
http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....=Search
Discussion long ago ended with nothing more really needing to be said (though I was disappointed for not being able to argue on) after things in the end turned out well. Kathy was reelected by in part having impressive answers to their questions. For example when given a list of places she respects the opinion of that included the Discovery Institute, Kansas regional National Science Teachers Association, she answered all when in fact actually was active with the NSTA and listened to all sides, like a politician is supposed to. Kathy was not defeated in disgrace, as "scientists" planned. The "creationist" side of the issue was not left powerless and had something to celebrate. Making it through a second term with Kathy Martin still in control of power without ID ever becoming an issue again is the best case scenario for KCFS where they just wanted to somehow end the statewide chaos that got real scary for a while.
I had plenty of motivation to explain all I could about what I knew about "intelligence" so that what the Discovery Institute was saying that made enough sense to scientifically explained, in a complimentary way. That led to the Intelligence Generator and Detector, the first model at Planet Source Code and before the first Intelligence Design Lab for ID. What made it fine published where it was is public school science teachers need simple models not a million lines of code from a complex formula in a paper you have to be a PhD to understand. The first ID Lab was measurable progress just in time for the holidays made another wonderful science filled Christmas for those who helped create it.
UD and the DI supplied a controversy but are not the ones that had to find ways of settling it in a science classroom friendly way that who Kathy best represented can like seeing happen that the KCFS forum would be OK with. In regards to public school science education that is the ultimate test for any ID related model. I hope all even Casey rather it exists than it not but this theory has to connect to the hearing in Kansas that was at the time embarrassing to many educators but what was educationally gained from it was golden. A happy ending that keeps getting better with time, for those who live in Kansas where the DI came to get their foot in the door so that from there all goes the nation sort of thing. Giving credit where due empowers K-12 school teachers, who control their classrooms not I or the DI.
With all said: a long time ago something the DI brought to Kansas that made enough sense to be a problem led to a time when the bold and daring said "There is something I don't understand, I'm going to solve it!" that ended up going well, regardless of some having religious reasons for being attracted to the concept. Now here we are with what became of it, more or less controlling ID the future, even rules this forum right now. That is only possible by having a simple model that gets the systematic parts right, the first time. That is the only thing that can in turn lead to new ways to view biology that at least works for those who find the Darwinian paradigm to be dull and boring and have reasons to see Neil deGrasse Tyson be answered real good, this way. Please do not mind my having to say what needs to be said, it's something that's there that had to. But Neil is supposed to love something like that happening, so it's really not a bad thing. |
Another piece of execrable writing.
You didn't study that Wikipedia essay well enough, as shown by your statement, | Quote | | The Intelligence Algorithm model I use is not a statistical model attempting to model something with so many variables it's impossible to be precise. |
As Box and others have said, no model can be perfect and complete, but if you want precision, or to be more accurate, accuracy, you need to add variables until you get all the important factors accounted for. Otherwise, your simplified model may work fine for your initial and limited test data set, but it risks failing completely when presented with additional data affected by influences that have not yet been accounted for.
However, accuracy is commonly not the most important priority for a model, which was probably your larger point. From Georg Rasch in 1960: | Quote | | … no models are [true]—not even the Newtonian laws. When you construct a model you leave out all the details which you, with the knowledge at your disposal, consider inessential…. Models should not be true, but it is important that they are applicable, and whether they are applicable for any given purpose must of course be investigated. This also means that a model is never accepted finally, only on trial. For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?". |
From George Box, | Quote | | "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." |
So the key question is, how do you tell if a model is useful? This is where you fail abysmally. It's where ground-truthing and making and testing predictions come in. Since you refuse to do these, your work is clearly without much value. Since you lack operational definitions, logically valid regular definitions, and any useful supporting evidence, "without much value" can with confidence be reduced to "without any value".
From
| Quote | Evaluating a model
A model is evaluated first and foremost by its consistency to empirical data; any model inconsistent with reproducible observations must be modified or rejected. One way to modify the model is by restricting the domain over which it is credited with having high validity. A case in point is Newtonian physics, which is highly useful except for the very small, the very fast, and the very massive phenomena of the universe. However, a fit to empirical data alone is not sufficient for a model to be accepted as valid. Other factors important in evaluating a model include:
Ability to explain past observations
Ability to predict future observations
Cost of use, especially in combination with other models
Refutability, enabling estimation of the degree of confidence in the model
Simplicity, or even aesthetic appeal
|
You don't have any of that.
| Quote | | In the case of "intelligence" there are four required parts connected together a certain way in a circuit you have seen illustrated so many times you complain when I show it again. |
Your four required parts don't make sense, and include Neato vacuum cleaners while excluding a whole lot of highly intellligent behavior, so right there your model is useless.
| Quote | | As you saw I had no problem at all adding in a neocortex (hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, etc. are part of) ........ Having the systematics all figured out makes possible an unbiased determination of whether the origin of our species was caused by "intelligence" at the cellular and/or molecular levels of our construction. With all the programmable molecular networks inside and on the surface of cells I would not at all be surprised by cells and/or our genetic system having a neocortex too. |
You should have had problems putting a hippocampus (or an entorhinal cortex) in an insect. If you wish to solve your problem by simply relabelling what you are modelling, that simply says that your model is really bad. If you wanted to model how the increasing interconnectedness and intercommunication of nerve cells in the central complex or in the basal ganglia allows the emergence of regulated and adaptive behaviors, then fine, that would be an interesting contribution, albeit comparatively obsolete by now. You still haven't demonstrated "molecular intelligence" and "cellular intelligence" is at best extremely problematic, and you certainly haven't demonstrated that they are responsible for speciation, let alone the origin of our species. Our cells and our molecules do not and cannot have a "neocortex": that's your failure of systematics, anatomy, and cell biology again. More specifically to your intention, you have not even shown that they have something that functions equivalently.
| Quote | | Self-similarity where all are systematically in each other's likeness, image. One model, does it all. Another test of its being complete, easily passed. |
A) Learn to write - that's hideous. B) It's also all wrong. You haven't demonstrated self-similarity. Self-similarity and emergence are antithetical. Your model doesn't do ANY of the things you claim. That's not a test, and your model didn't pass it.
| Quote | | Having the systematics all figured out |
In copying the dictionary definition of "systematic", you neglected to notice that you had the definition of an adjective, and that "systematic" is problematic and ambiguous in your text because of its special biological meaning, which comes to the reader's mind first when biological and evolutionary topics are being discussed. When you shift to using "systematics", which you often do, you have unambiguously left the realm of "system" and are entirely within the realm where "systematics" ONLY means
| Quote | Definition of SYSTEMATICS
1
: the science of classification
2
a : a system of classification
b : the classification and study of organisms with regard to their natural relationships : taxonomy |
You don't have any systematics worked out at all: you've got a hippocampus and four legs in an insect and you are using an arthropod to talk about the emergence of intelligence when your not-a-theory has it emerging at much lower taxonomic levels.
| Quote | | Now here we are with what became of it, more or less controlling ID the future, even rules this forum right now. |
Why isn't your stuff made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's stuff, according to the criteria that you have proposed for claiming that your stuff makes the DI rubbish obsolete?
Scientists, doubtlessly including Neil Degrasse Tyson, indeed love new discoveries, better explanations, and paradigm shifts (there was a wonderful cartoon of two scientists coming out of a conference and one says excitedly to the other, "what a great talk everything we thought we knew is wrong"). However (and this is the point that continually escapes you), the new ideas have to be demonstrated to be superior to the old ones.
|
