Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
Gary seems to think that he can post a bunch of claims, make excuses as to why he shouldn't be held accountable to support or retract them, and that they will eventually be forgotten. This is a time-honored antievolutionist tactic, after all. Who could be bothered to dig back through the forum to see whether he's left things hanging? The answer for that is a periodic posting of a summary of such items, to make sure that folks tuning in late are apprised of just what sort of correspondent they have at hand.
Periodically Posted List of Abandoned or Unsupported Claims: Gary Gaulin Edition
1. Citric Acid Cycle Description
The claim
| Quote |
Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence
In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.
At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]
Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.
Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.
|
The request for documentation
Response
Further documentation that Gary's false claims are current and unretracted
Response to Gary asserting that "the Krebs cycle" and "the citric acid cycle" refer to different biochemical pathways.
Status: Abandoned. Bizarre, false-to-fact description of the citric acid cycle is left unretracted as if it supported Gaulin's concept of "molecular intelligence". Gary replied on 2012/11/09, but apparently did not comprehend that his description of the citric acid cycle was what was at issue, and not something more vague than that.
2. Gaulin Code v. Evolutionary Computation
The claim
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:45) |
The theory is for modeling reality. Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison. Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself. |
(Emphasis added.)
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,22:21) |
[...] It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys. [...] |
(Emphasis added.)
The request for documentation
Response
Status: Abandoned. Complete refusal to divulge the substance of the comparisons that Gaulin claims he already has made. The same 2012/11/09 response already linked continues with Gary simply asserting that his claim is his opinion.
3. Gaulin Code, the Traveling Salesman Problem, and Computational Complexity Theory
The claim
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,05:39) |
I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem. [...] |
Request for documentation
Response
Status: Abandoned. After making ignorant and bizarre claims about computational complexity theory ("It's a collection of AI techniques"), Gaulin decided to stop responding to requests to demonstrate these claims. His 2012/11/09 response made some irrelevant and bizarre comments about dead flies and windowsills, with no attempt to substantiate his positive claim of capability of his code.
4. Gaulin Code and Artificial Neural Network Models
4.A. Absence of Artificial Neural Network Models Specified by Arnold Trehub
The claim
| Quote |
The theory makes sure to well credit Arnold Trehub and his book that has been my most valuable guide through the neuron level cognitive science. I computer modeled memory circuits from it and to spite its age is still holding up well in science. It's still an excellent (but unfortunately under-appreciated) resource that as you can see U-Mass is helping to make sure is there for you to read.
Along with all else I can't ask for much better than that, from a local academia that honestly has better things to do than join a crusade against what Arnold Trehub found true too, that the model in the Theory of Intelligent Design is much modeled from.
|
and here
| Quote |
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory.
|
This latter requires that Gary's "Planet Source Code" Visual Basic program include a Trehub model.
Response
| Quote |
Gary thinks that we don't remember his claims at all. He claimed that his code was unassailable by mere mortals because it was comprised of models by "established cognitive scientists", and specifically claimed to utilize a memory model from Trehub. Citation is certainly appropriate when text and figures are quoted or copied, but that isn't the issue here. Gary has been claiming that his code actually implements models from Trehub, and the fact is that Gary was telling us a falsehood when he told us that. The only remaining bit of mystery is whether Gary *intentionally* told that falsehood.
|
Response
| Quote |
The fact is that no such implementation of Trehub models is in Gary's code from PSC, when he assured us that his PSC code was beyond criticism in part because of content from Trehub.
|
Response
| Quote |
I have said, directly, that Gary should admit that it was an error on his part to claim that an Arnold Trehub model was implemented in his PSC source code. And that he should stop trying to act like his PSC code project couldn't be criticized because look at how eminent the people Gary got models from were. *Not* doing this is clearly scientifically unethical behavior on Gary's part, and he is clearly set on doing just that. Since Gary, in fact, did not use an Arnold Trehub model in his PSC code, he gets no credibility rubbing off on it because of Trehub, and he loses credibility by leaving his false claims about Trehub models being in his PSC code unretracted.
|
Status: Unacknowledged and abandoned. Gary simply responded with insults, not substantiation of his claim.
4.B. Absence of Artificial Neural Network Models in General
The claim
| Quote |
That is part of the COGNITIVE MODEL that has NEURONS that they can make virtual ROBOTS with, like I do.
|
Response
| Quote |
There is no sign I've found of any artificial neural system in Gary's PSC VB code. Gary will neither forthrightly acknowledge that he was wrong to claim that his PSC VB code had "NEURONS" or to definitively indicate the file name and line numbers where he believes an implementation of an artificial neural system is at. Gary has spent dozens of messages hurling abuse at me rather than address the issue.
|
That post also documents in detail Gary's identification of his "Planet Source Code" Visual Basic program as what he has offered to instantiate his claims.
Status: Unacknowledged and abandoned. Gary refers to uncheckable private code that he claims shows he has implemented articial neural systems, all of which is irrelevant to his claim.
5. Gaulin Code, Genetic Drift, and the Lehman and Stanley Paper on Evolvability
The claim
| Quote |
The phrases "robots model" and "more realistic" along with what is described in the paper should have clued you in that they are not using a Darwinian GA they are instead modeling with what I explain, which you got all bent out of shape about when I mentioned it is a more realistic model that can put yours to shame.
|
Response
| Quote |
Nor are Lehman and Stanley "modeling with what [Gary] explain[s]". This is where details Gary ignores bite him.
Lehman and Stanley do utilize a genetic algorithm but they have turned off selection. Differential proportions of descendants can't be attributed to direct competition. Gary does not implement a genetic algorithm in his VB code. Gary has no form of inheritance in his VB code whatsoever.
Lehman and Stanley utilize a recurrent neural network in some of their approaches. Gary does not implement any such thing in his VB code.
Lehman and Stanley utilize the NEAT algorithm to define neural nets in another approach. Gary, needless to say, does not implement any such thing in his VB code.
|
Status: Unacknowledged and abandoned.
6. The Kitzmiller v. DASD Decision
* an acknowledgment that the Kitzmiller decision is binding law for more than one school district
The claim
| Quote |
Regardless of your slanted opinion the ruling against board members only applies to one school district in all the US, [...]
|
Response
| Quote |
First, there is more than one school district that is within the judicial ambit of the Middle District of Pennslvania's court system. The Kitzmiller ruling is binding precedent for all of those.
|
Status: Unacknowledged and abandoned. Gary points out that other people get the extent of binding precedent wrong, but never acknowledges that he made his own claim in error.
7. Feynman and Equivocation
The claim
| Quote |
With much in physics having changed Richard's views on uncertainty were overdone but he did a good job of explaining how the scientific method worked, and a number of times used the phrase "good guess" that one way or another ends up what it's called in our self-learning WWW classroom.
|
Response
| Quote |
I would like to discuss the Feynman lecture Gary links to. Gary seems to think that since Feynman uses the word "guess" that Gary's usage of it makes him the next Feynman. Not hardly. Nor is Feynman interested in excruciatingly fine distinctions in terminology, which anyone listening to the first few seconds for comprehension would note, for Feynman discusses a search for a new law, not "theory" or "hypothesis". It really is perplexing as to why Gary would link to that video, for it is a thorough repudiation of Gary's modus operandi here. Within the first fifty seconds, Feynman has validated falsification as the way science moves forward. Gary probably does not recognize it because Feynman does not use the word "falsification" itself. But Feynman does quite clearly lay out a falsificationist program there. A guess for Feynman is not what "guess" is used for in Heiserman. Feynman is concerned with the inception of a concept. Heiserman is concerned with the discovery of a motor action. These are different uses of the word "guess", and attempts to say they are the same are clearly equivocation. Feynman next says that one must calculate the consequences of a guess (meaning the new concept). This is a determination of what must be true if the concept is true. (This is another difference from Heiserman, whose testing of a motor action does not try to predict whether the action will be effective or not; it is merely implemented and the result evaluated for effectiveness.) Then Feynman notes that the consequences are tested against reality. If the consequences do not match reality, the concept is wrong. This is exactly Popper's falsification, which is just the application of modus tollens to statements about the world.
Feynman goes on to give an anecdote about a conversation with a layman. Feynman says something is unlikely, and the layman claims he is being unscientific if he cannot prove that the something is impossible. Feynman sharply disagrees with that attitude. Gary may think that he is channeling Feynman, but looking at the quoted exchange at the top here, it is obvious to me that Gary is channeling Feynman's layman antagonist.
|
Status: Unacknowledged and reiterated. Gary continues to claim Feynman as a supporting source. Gary merely responds with insult to pointing out his use of equivocation.
8. Gaulin Code and Efficiency Relative to ADALINE/LMS on Any Adaptive Signal Processing Problem
The claim
| Quote |
| Quote |
(Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 11 2013,21:04)
Gary says he has "neurons" in his PSC VB code. Where are they?
|
Since you do not have real neurons in your model I can demand the same from you.
In both cases there is an "approximation" of real neurons and I doubt yours could beat the performance of the simple method I use.
|
The above is a post of Gary's that follows from this post of mine that showed an implementation of a simple artificial neural system, ADALINE/LMS, as an example of what code looks like that implements an ANS.
Response
| Quote |
I don't think that I specifically pointed out before just how ludicrous Gary's comment about performance is. Gary didn't qualify "performance" in any way in his claim and his use of "both cases" means he cannot be referring to only his computer code, which means that we must take his claim as being that his "method" is always and everywhere going to have better performance than ADALINE/LMS. Given a problem in adaptive signal processing (the field I noted as being what ADALINE/LMS is foundational to), ADALINE/LMS is going to perform at a quantifiably close-to-optimal level. ADALINE/LMS may well be the single most widely deployed algorithm that has come out of the field of AI on the basis of number of devices it is implemented in.
Of course, Gary didn't know about any of that and couldn't be bothered to actually find it out before flapping his jaws on the subject.
|
Response
| Quote |
Gary's claim wasn't restricted to his particular use, as "both cases" makes clear. Gary keeps ignoring my repeated clear declarations that ADALINE/LMS was not broached here as any sort of "RAM" substitute. Notice that Gary didn't bother to analyze how his "simple method" would work in the other of "both cases" (rotation-invariant pattern classification), nor any other non-trivial adaptive signal processing problem, such as adaptive noise cancellation. Gary can't admit to having made a supremely ignorant statement, so we will apparently be treated to a continuing stream of mingled digression, vituperation, and balderdash from Gary.
|
Status: Unacknowledged and abandoned. Gary accused me of "hysteria" in reply to the final quoted response there, but gave no analysis that would substantiate his claim that his code has greater efficiency than ADALINE/LMS on any adaptive signal processing problem.
9. Gaulin Claims About Metadata of Elsberry et al. 2009
The claim
| 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.
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.
|
Response
| Quote |
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.
|
Status: Unacknowledged and abandoned.
10. Presence of Respondent with a Cognitive Science Background
The claim
| Quote |
There has not been a single reply in this from anyone with experience in cognitive science.
|
Response
| Quote |
I'll note some past work and experiences of mine for the other readers, who can then assess exactly how much can be dismissed by Gary in a single sneer. Over the years, I have participated in advancing cognitive science in several different areas. Given how many contributing fields cognitive science comprises, there are a large number of ways one can approach it; I've approached it multiple ways myself.
|
Status: Unacknowledged. Gary has consistently attempted to shift the goalposts by dismissing the notion that I am a more prominent expert than folks like Arnold Trehub, something I never claimed and that is in any case irrelevant to the claim at issue.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
