NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,01:58) | Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 16 2014,17:28) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2014,16:54) | Typo, should read:
Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work. |
In both cases we have typically (not always, but ideally) developed multiple hypotheses about how something works and are testing the hypotheses, but yes, the two approaches can differ in many ways. However, there is a much vaster gulf between what scientists do in either modelling or experimental work on the one hand and what you do on the other.
On the whole, devising and running a useful experiment is a higher level of science than creating a computer model, particularly when (like you) you make no effort to ground-truth the model and simply slap labels on variables with no attempt to assess their veracity: PlaneElevation = 0: AngelLift=0 Do AngelLift = AngelLift+1 PlaneElevation = PlaneElevation + AngelLift Loop See, in my model of planes flying because angels hold them aloft, we clearly see lift by angels increasing, thus proving the premise of planes flying because they are held up by angels.
In what universe do you think your model explains how any complex and unexplained phenomena work? You don't have adequate operational definitions, so you don't know what you are talking about nor how to measure it. You won't ground-truth your rubbish, nor will you offer any evidence for the existence and efficacy of the mechanisms that you propose. You fling undefined labels around for phenomena and processes, with no effort to demonstrate their applicability and no attempt to describe how they work, beyond flinging around even more labels. For example, calling "molecular intelligence" and "cellular intelligence" self-similar and saying that one emerges from the other is not an explanation when: 1) You haven't documented the existence of either one, 2) You don't have any way of quantifying or measuring either one, 3) You won't provide a formula for the fractal relationship or a fractal dimension or state over what orders of magnitude the relationship applies, 4) Something that is self-similar to lower levels cannot "emerge" from those lower levels. Either it is emergent or it is self-similar, not both. 5) Neither emergence nor self-similarity result from design under usual circumstances, except for very atypical and special instances of design that are intended to be examples of self-similarity or emergence, 6) You haven't provided any evidence for design or a designer 7) You haven't discussed any processes involved in design |
The first two are covered by a computer model that measures and quantifies a number of things with charts and graphs and more. |
Laughable. And bat-crap crazy. Neither charts nor graphs measure things. Nor do they quantify things. They present an organized layout of the results of measurement and quantification. You continue to confuse the map and the territory. Here, almost literally so. Quote | In a model like this you simply show on the screen the numbers in whatever variables there are in the algorithm. |
Which, as N.Wells as documented and demonstrated, is useless. If your algorithm is not reality-based, not truth-grounded, your algorithm and your variables are fiction. Showing them on graphs and charts no more attests to their actual-factual existence than the elaborate family tree of characters in Lord of the Rings testifies to the actual-factual existence of Sauron and the One Ring. Quote | All of the variables needed for quantifying or measuring intelligence are all already there. |
Again, as Wikipedia would say 'Citation needed.' This is a blatant assertion with no truth-grounding or association with the real world. Quote | I cannot add more for you. |
Demonstrably true. With exactly the opposite implications of what you intend. Quote | What you want is simply not there,
|
TRUE Quote | not needed for a standard way to quantify or measure intelligence from 0 on up to whatever numbers you get for a human, our cells, or molecular level intelligence systems. |
FALSE Additionally, asserts facts not in evidence, begs a number of key questions, and is circular insofar as it addresses your "theory". Quote | Since number 3, 4, and 5 are within the domain of this theory I will see what I can do about them, fractal wise. |
Nothing is 'within the domain of this theory[sic]" because there is no theory. There is no proper domain. Worse, they point out a fatal internal contradiction in your 'conception' [to be extraordinarily generous] of the relationship between elements asserted to exist in particular forms. Quote | Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context. |
You are required to discuss and support these because you frequently raise these issues as part and parcel of your self-identification of your allegiances, your goals, the [alleged] results of your allegedly 'theoretical' work, and your whiny, your simultaneously self-pitying and self aggrandizing goals and illusory successes. We're not the ones inserting these things into our conception of what you are up to. You are. Quote | See my signature line again for what immediately makes some of your increasingly ambiguous demands out of bounds of science. Others doing the same thing that you are is not a viable excuse either.
|
How on earth is a detailed enumerated list of flaws 'increasingly ambiguous'? You're a loon, Gary. Reason is clearly not your native mode of mental process. Quote | Do unto other's theory, as you would have them do unto yours. If you don't then you end up on the wrong side of science and have zero credibility |
Which entirely explains what we've been up to here --doing onto your "theory" as must be done unto all proposed theories -- for 400+ pages. Exactly as you have encountered at other science sites across the net. And you have reaped as per your consequent -- your nonsense starts and ends on the wrong side of science and you have zero credibility. Who, besides you, anywhere, grants your idiot swill any credibility whatsoever? No one, that's who. You have zero credibility and it's trending downwards. Quote | at a place like UD. |
And there's [a tiny part of] the problem. UD is not a science site. There is no science going on or being discussed at UD. Every sane person knows this.
The rest of your descent into the familiar territory of gibberish deleted as not worth detailed or specific comment.
Your delusions are absurd -- at the very least you need a better class of fantasies than this sort of absurdist twaddle. You start off moderately sane, compared to your usual output, but as the details above demonstrate, 'moderately sane' is not even remotely correct.
Epic fail, same as it has been for years now. 5 years, 6, or more, it's an infinity of error wrapped up in finite time. That's your only accomplishment.
|