Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 21 2013,03:22) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2013,20:36) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 18 2013,20:21) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2013,20:03) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 18 2013,18:40) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2013,17:48) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 18 2013,17:33) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2013,09:07) | Gary's single ISCID post. And that one was about his membranes lab exercise. That's a special kind of welcome ISCID provided Gary.
I've got several posts that are still on ISCID. |
By the time I arrived (to see whether the self-assembly demonstration would be controversial in that ID community) the ISCID forum was already on its way out.
And whether what I was working on at the time belongs there or not is easily answered by what the ISCID forum says it's for:
| Quote | | The ISCID Forums are aimed at generating insight into the nature of complex systems (e.g. biological complexity, organizational complexity, etc.) and the ontological status of purpose, especially from the vantage point of various information- and design-theoretic models. |
With all considered: At that time the self-assembly demo was the most appropriate thing I had to contribute, and since it did not cause a fuss at ISCID things went very well there. A year later what was explained in the topic was on its way to all the science teachers in the US via National Science Teachers Association journal. So at least that IDea actually made it into the public school classrooms! And ISCID can share the pride, in that happening... |
Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly: entering a single comment on a forum that "doesn't cause a fuss" is grounds to claim success? Is that right? |
Yes.
I'm used to chaos erupting from a topic like this that I post. If it turned out like this thread then I would have had to plan/prepare for a long protest. But the ID community found no need to argue against it, and as was expected there was no protest after its publishing. |
I made a post that created no fuss at all at the Kurzweil AI forum. Yet Gary, in apparent hypocrisy, is on the record objecting that my participation there was a negative for me. |
No fuss at the Kurzweil AI forum over your post is a plus for me. None getting upset after you told them (and later positive comment in another thread in regards to my participating instead of causing trouble there) was a bad thing for you. But I can understand how easy it is think of ways of rationalizing the situation you are now in, that at least some in your choir will actually believe. |
Gary delivers more projection.
And it seems to be time for the usual footnote...
It's not a diagram, but it does seem to annoy Gary to have his reasons for approaching discussion the way he does laid out clearly and documented in his own testimony.
The question of why Gary goes for false, provocative, and malicious statements when mentioning me or replying to me does have an answer. Gary thinks that 1) I have "big-bucks" and 2) if I say something actionable, Gary could sue me and get them. We know this from Gary himself. He refers to "big-bucks" (quoted in this post). And Gary previously revealed his premeditated approach and strategy for using the legal system to enrich himself:
| Quote |
And before I came to this forum Casey gave me free legal advice in regard to what is legally over the line enough to easily win a case for that can come at me from places like this. Where reversed upon Wesley, it would be like someone anonymously calling campus security where they are working to report that their loss of mind is endangering the lives of all in the building they are in, when the truth that was stretched out of proportion is that they needed to use a small amount of flammable liquid to patch around the air conditioning unit that let water pour in every time it rained.
|
And Gary confirmed again that he was still looking for actionable statements from me here:
| Quote |
I was hoping Wesley would at least attempt to find something "actionable" (that is not outright criminal like chaining me inside a basement torture chamber) that was not already tried on me.
|
Unfortunately for Gary, he has not and will not be able to provoke me into actionable statements.
Gary's otherwise apparently bizarre behavior in his responses to me becomes explicable with the understanding that he has been angling for a lawsuit, confirmed definitively and spectacularly here. |
Im weirdly fascinated by how after going over the line you get into this defensive mode and like blame me for it happening. I already explained how science is not usually very well paying. Evolutionary biology is not one of the get rich quick fields, and might be more like another fast way to become a starving scientist.
With the petition and all, theres no way to compare the legal system tactics from your anti-ID movement. My message has consistently been the opposite. What you are powerless against is the science that makes all else irrelevant.
In your case what I must most want out of you is your flagellum powered cell model circuited as per the ID theory, which will easily enough work, but I cant program everything. If it checks out by me then I could reference that in a footnote in cellular intelligence section, which already explains well enough to model that from. Adding eye and chemosensor patches are optional. Can also test to see whether real e.coli and other can be trained to either attract or repel from stimuli depending on prior experience. If cells can be trained then its not a simple feedback system or can be never changing ROM there is a RAM memory somewhere to store proper actions that the ID model also has in it, for that purpose. The exact chemistry of cellular temporal memory is not known but literature shows cells can anticipate a shock of some sort and be in defensive mode in anticipation of another, which might work where time reference since last event of that sensory type is included in addressing and can test that against experiments with slime-molds and other things.
And it just so happens that I just finished uploaded an update to the Intelligence Design Lab where the MAIN INTELLIGENCE GENERATING ALGORITHM at the end of the Intelligence.frm file now features a circuit diagram (in comments) that has a numbered step in code that propagates signals for each lobe cycle.
https://sites.google.com/site.......ab2.zip
For simplicity sake the good guess code was taken out of the circuit. Still works great without it. Likely need to remove good guess for chemotaxis anyway, now its done for you. With that out of the way, the Intelligence Design Lab should be much easier for you to code from.
The way I see it, science makes it possible for even you to (for the most part) redeem yourself. But that requires (language of your choice) programming of a novel computer model to add to an earlier paper from you that at least shows you might have the right stuff to code it. You can later wire-in other senses. First step is your Chemotaxis Intelligence Design Lab but you dont have to call it that, where you hate that name so much theres no way you ever would.
There is so much novel new science that can be programmed from this theory you are left with no good excuses at all for complaining about not finding a science worthy paper even I would have to love you for. Its easily PNAS and/or Nature material. At least I think it deserves it.
The winning strategy is to ignore all the things that are not science. What matters is theory that develops in a way to assimilate you in a way that is good or bad depending on what you choose. On my end, that takes time getting the Intelligence Design Lab just right, so that a download worth looking at is online right now to help make this an even more memorable week for us all. The Lab still does not draw the entire circuit (will next get back to that) but I was able to resist the lure of the forum trolls and instead reduced down the algorithm variables to very minimum, which in turn cleaned up a big coding mess that made it harder to figure out and work on. I did not forget what PSC and other worlds need from me the most, and Im relieved that I managed to optimize the algorithm by now. But I did not neglect your scientific needs, in this new design, and was able to have this posted for your wonderful Sunday morning enjoyment, to get to work on too! |
What's weird is Gary denying the things I've quoted him saying, including his many instances of going "over the line" by falsely accusing me of unethical behavior based on an incident that even Gary has stipulated that he got wrong. Every instance where Gary reiterated the false claim after that point is quite arguably an instance of going "over the line" with actual malice and willful disregard for the truth. Unfortunately, once someone has stated that they are looking for an excuse to sue, they can't be trusted when they backpedal from that. At best, Gary demonstrates yet again that inconsistency is his preferred approach to dealing with the world.
Gary says that he'd like to assimilate my 2009 paper. Unfortunately for Gary, he doesn't yet understand it. For Gary to make headway on trying to replicate what I've done, he would need to start from the same point I do, and be able to demonstrate the same results I've obtained. It isn't sufficient to produce an animation and say "Let's pretend that this is like that."
Can Gary program a system that will itself program a controller for a robot agent in 2D that would yield a *provably* optimal strategy in finding high resource concentrations?
Starting conditions:
* Resource is distributed as a gradient with a single peak randomly placed in a rectangular discrete bounded 2D grid with prime or relatively prime sides.
* The robot agent can sense the difference in concentration of a resource gradient between the current position and one step ahead in the direction of current movement. (Knowledge of the resource is only local.)
* The robot agent is restricted in its means of changing heading. It can only initiate a random tumble, as with ciliary or flagellar movement, resulting in a new random heading.
* The robot agent is restricted in its movement ability. It can only initiate a single-step movement ahead in the current direction.
* The robot agent controller has a Turing-complete computer language and hardware including three registers and three stacks of 10 numbers.
* The initial control program in the simulation includes no heading-change commands and no movement commands.
End results:
The point of the paper is about the production of effective methods in a particular class.
| Quote |
In testing the capability of evolutionary computation to produce effective methods utilizing movement strategies to intelligently exploit spatially-distributed resources, our results show that such strategies do emerge and that in about 12% of shorter runs and in 80% of longer runs the ?nal movement strategy used by the majority of the population at the end of the run is in the class of optimal response for our environment, that of gradient ascent.
|
If Gary's approach does not generate an effective method, it isn't a replication of the paper. If Gary can't prove the optimality of the generated effective method, anything else he does doesn't matter.
What's strange is that it is unclear about who Gary thinks would work on the project. He seems to think that I would do something in his framework. It isn't entirely impossible that I would install the VB6 IDE on something, but it certainly isn't what I'd consider a generally useful way to spend my time. My Windows machines are already running Windows 7, so installation of VB6 isn't straightforward there. Otherwise, I have a Mac and Linux boxes, so that isn't happening there, either, other than perhaps in a VM. I don't have to have the VB6 IDE, though, to assess the code in Gary's PSC VB project. Conducting a post-mortem on Gary's bug is about all I want to do with it.
I certainly have no motivation to put time into making something "circuited as per" Gary's conjectures. I've already accomplished what I set out to do, which is showing the ability of evolutionary processes to generate effective methods of a provably optimal class. The PSC VB code shows nothing other than an ad hoc approach to establishing behavior of a single agent, with no capability to do anything but one movement strategy, the one the programmer provided.
The Gary Gaulin "Let's pretend" approach to ad hoc computer programs has some obvious drawbacks. Something that would be worth putting some time into would be programming a framework for agent interaction to follow on to the "evolving intelligence" work from my postdoc. I'd go with a object-oriented system based on free, open source, multiplatform tools. Python and PyGame fit the bill nicely. This would open things up for anyone with any platform from a Raspberry Pi on up to use it. The object-oriented approach would allow a relatively clean separation of objects, agents, and environment. While a derived agent class for Heiserman-style robots would be easy to do, the real point would be to also incorporate tools to allow some amount of artificial life work to be done as well. This might be another Python module, but it might also be a way to integrate Avida programs as agent controllers. That would be much like the system Jacob Walker and I worked on at Michigan State to enable Avida programs to be used as robotic controllers for iRobot Create and Lego Mindstorms robot platforms. In this case, the robots would be software agents rather than hardware. Students and educators could use such a system to learn not just about concepts from Heiserman, but a whole panoply of artificial intelligence concepts related to agents, their interactions, and evolutionary computation.
Gary at least indicates that this time around he has some interest in the content of the paper, unlike his still-outstanding claims regarding metadata from the paper. Gary never bothered to retract any of those prior claims, so I'll remind him and everyone else of what those are:
| Quote |
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 04 2013,15:32) |
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. |
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.
|
And it seems to be time for the usual footnote...
It's not a diagram, but it does seem to annoy Gary to have his reasons for approaching discussion the way he does laid out clearly and documented in his own testimony.
The question of why Gary goes for false, provocative, and malicious statements when mentioning me or replying to me does have an answer. Gary thinks that 1) I have "big-bucks" and 2) if I say something actionable, Gary could sue me and get them. We know this from Gary himself. He refers to "big-bucks" (quoted in this post). And Gary previously revealed his premeditated approach and strategy for using the legal system to enrich himself:
| Quote |
And before I came to this forum Casey gave me free legal advice in regard to what is legally over the line enough to easily win a case for that can come at me from places like this. Where reversed upon Wesley, it would be like someone anonymously calling campus security where they are working to report that their loss of mind is endangering the lives of all in the building they are in, when the truth that was stretched out of proportion is that they needed to use a small amount of flammable liquid to patch around the air conditioning unit that let water pour in every time it rained.
|
And Gary confirmed again that he was still looking for actionable statements from me here:
| Quote |
I was hoping Wesley would at least attempt to find something "actionable" (that is not outright criminal like chaining me inside a basement torture chamber) that was not already tried on me.
|
Unfortunately for Gary, he has not and will not be able to provoke me into actionable statements.
Gary's otherwise apparently bizarre behavior in his responses to me becomes explicable with the understanding that he has been angling for a lawsuit, confirmed definitively and spectacularly here.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
