NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2015,03:39) | Wesley the title of the topic is "Where is the program equivalent of the single cell organism?" and you did not code "the program equivalent of the single cell organism" |
Nor did you. You have nothing even remotely resembling a single-cell organism as it exists in the real world. You are arguably considerably further from that achievement than Avida is. Your 'model' is not an organism, is not single cell, does not reproduce in any way whatsoever. Your 'model' simply ignores all aspects of cellular chemistry, all of the internal processes of the cell, and makes the giant, and massively incorrect, assumption that single cells can properly be called 'intelligent' and so can and should incorporate the vague, incoherent, and incorrect "principles" of your "theory". Quote | nor does the Avida model even have the ability to qualify and quantify "intelligence" as is required by the software they need. |
Why does Avida need to qualify and/or quantify 'intelligence'? It is your assertion, based on an undefined, vague, and general term that, as it stands, has no place in single-cell modeling whatsoever. Nor, to be fair, in any other place in science for so long as it remains an undefined vague generalization with neither concrete operational definition nor concrete real-world examples qualified to fit under the presumptive operational definition. You continue to not get this vital point. It is arguably the single most fatal flaw of your enterprise -- you don't know what you're talking about. That this is true is proven by the fact that you have no definition of 'intelligence'. At best you have a post hoc pseudo-ostensive self-referential pile of verbiage that you justify by pointing to pre-selected examples. Dishonest, confused, incoherent, vague generalization, illogical, and just, well, WRONG. Quote | Your belief that "environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors" is misleading wishful thinking. But along with all of your trash talking you did a fine job of demonstrating how deceptive you and others who call themselves "science defenders" actually are. You helped proved that the only science you and others care to defend is what you have vested interests in, and all the rest gets trashed. That's very sinister behavior. |
You continue to mistake justified conclusions with assumptions. That's probably because all you ever work with are your own assumptions, unjustified as they are, for conclusions. You compound the error by insisting that all the biological science that supports, with facts, evidence, definitions, hypotheses and theories are 'wishful thinking' and your work is somehow, by contrast, 'real-science'. That's psychotic delusion at its best. Literally. Have you noticed in your current rage that Wesley is not the only one who "trash talks" your "theory"? In point of fact, everyone who deigns to spend a few minutes with it and comment on what they've found has pointed out that the best parts of it are trash, the remainder is verbal effluent. You have not one single supporter anywhere in science. You have to lie and steal inferred support from people who's work you manifestly do not understand and demonstrably have not included in your work. And that, all by itself, is sufficient to obliterate your pitiful claims that your opponents are driven by self-interest. And, by the way, we're supposed to believe that you are not? That you are in this without any self-interest, that you're doing this work not for personal recognition, glory, triumph, and financial reward, all things that you are bitter you have not received? ROFLMAO The one with an agenda here, the one with sinister and deplorable motives, based entirely on a vested anti-science self-interest compounded by delusions of adequacy is you. Which is, yet again, part of why you have convinced no one, found not one single supporter, and are routinely laughed at and scorned wherever you go.
|