RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (412) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,01:37   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

Quote

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.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?

Can you please first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,01:39   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

†  
Quote

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.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?


Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1119
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,02:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,20:21)
† †
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)
† † † † † †  
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)
† † † † † † †
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)
† † † † † † †  
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54)
They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it. †

Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is.

Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it. †At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory.

Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?


The theory I work on is a much more complete model of reality. †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. †It's also the only model that makes immediate sense of what Guenter Albrecht-Buehler and others are now discovering, that 20+ years ago was predicted by the theory to exist.

† † † † †
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)
IDiots have been claiming for years that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. When they're asked for details the IDiots either run away or just keep claiming that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research.

So, can and will you describe a real world situation where the acceptance of "ID" (alleged intelligent design and creation by a supernatural entity - aka "God") would change science for the better and open new avenues of research?

Theories which require unexplained/unexplainable "supernatural" intervention are religious theories not scientific theories, therefore they do not open new avenues of scientific research.

You claim that the so-called "theory" is a much more complete model of reality but that's just your claim and you haven't described how science's acceptance of the so-called "theory" would be useful, change science for the better, or open new avenues of research. What good is your so-called "theory" if it doesn't do anything positive? You're going to have to do a lot more than make claims that you're unwilling and/or unable to back up if you want science and science supporters to take you seriously.

The more you say the more you sound just like all the other ID pushers. You dance around and wave your arms a lot but you won't get down to the nitty gritty and SHOW how the so-called "theory" will actually do anything that will benefit science and the world.

You said:

"Theories which require unexplained/unexplainable "supernatural" intervention are religious theories not scientific theories, therefore they do not open new avenues of scientific research."

Then why are you pushing "ID", which is completely dependent on a supernatural designer (aka "God")? You try to make it sound as though your so-called "ID theory" ("The theory I work on...") is different from the religious/political agenda (dishonestly and poorly masked as "ID" and/or the "ID inference") that typical god zombie IDiots push, but you also refer to some typical god zombie IDiots as though what they say is connected to and supports your so-called "theory".

If your so-called "theory" is actually different and you're not an IDiot of a feather flocking together with typical god zombie dominionist IDiots, then why do you refer to any of them in any way in an attempt to support your claims? And if your so-called "theory" is not a religious/political agenda or dependent on a supernatural designer god, then why are you associating yourself with god zombie IDiots who are trying to push "ID" into science, public school science classes, government, etc., and who or what is the non-religious, non-supernatural 'designer' and who or what designed the non-supernatural 'designer'?

Tell me Gary, exactly which parts of the "ID inference" that is pushed by the usual gang of IDiots do you agree with or disagree with and exactly how is your so-called "ID theory" different from their inference religious and political agenda?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,02:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

† † †
Quote

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.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?


Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

Huh?

Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.

It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,02:22   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,02:05)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)
Gary:

† † †  
Quote

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.


To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?


Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

Huh?

Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.

It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.

I have been claiming that it is a better model of reality where living things (from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence) have intelligence that make their own choices that over long periods of time can develop into new species.

You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,02:28   

I HAS DEFEATED EVOLUTIONISM!

TAKE THAT DARWINISTS

Gary, it's all bluster, no substance from you. You are a twat, and I doubt even you are buying that shoite you're peddling.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,02:31   

Also Gary, those 'baby toys' that are EAs and GAs can and do solve real world problems, unlike your theory hypothesis code.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,02:42   

I Don't Know about others in the audience who just got a good punch in the head from that last couple/few replies, but I sure need this one right now...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....lYB3iSM

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,04:14   

There are a number of strategies involved in solving the TSP, of which intelligence certainly is one.

For example, animals who cache food have been shown to compute a near-optimal TSP route between each cache.

When people are asked to solve a TSP by instinct they realise †certain attributes of a path will not be optimal. For example, paths that cross or paths criss crossing the "interior" of the network will (typically) be non-optimal and without any experience of this people perform much better then random search by default.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....1505612

Quote
The relation between perceptual organization and the process of solving visually presented TSPs is briefly discussed, as is the potential of optimization for providing a conceptual framework for the study of intelligence.


So, Gary, your comparison fails. The difference between a pocket calculator and an intelligence solving the TSP is measured in lifetimes of universes. And plenty of other people think there is a relationship between solving the TSP and intelligence. Except you, of course. No doubt every potential "test" that comes your way will be dismissed in a similar way.

If your intelligence is nothing more then a pocket calculator it'll fail to solve any complex TSP by brute force. If it's more then that I expect a better result then a pocket calculator.

If it's intelligent, as you claim, that intelligence can be measured by it's ability to solve the TSP without having to brute force it.

Quote
You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.


Which is funny because it was also you who said:

Quote
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.


So, the situation seems to be that the "baby toys" you disparage can do something (solve the TSP and find near or optimum solutions) that your "intelligence" cannot. So in what way is your intelligence putting GA's to shame if it can't actually do what those GA's do?

And in case you are not aware (you are not) the TSP "problem" is just a reflection of a deeper reality:

Quote
Besides being a "polytope" of a difficult combinatorial optimization problem from a complexity theory point of view, there are important cases of practical problems that can be formulated as TSP problems and many other problems are generalizations of this problem. †Besides the drilling of printed circuits boards described above, problems having the TSP structure occur in the analysis of the structure of crystals, (Bland and Shallcross, 1987), the overhauling of gas turbine engines (Pante, Lowe and Chandrasekaran, 1987), in material handling in a warehouse (Ratliff and Rosenthal, 1981), in cutting stock problems, (Garfinkel, 1977), the clustering of data arrays, (Lenstra and Rinooy Kan, 1975), the sequencing of jobs on a single machine (Gilmore and Gomory, 1964) and the assignment of routes for planes of a specified fleet (Boland, Jones, and Nemhauser, 1994). Related variations on the traveling salesman problem include the resource constrained traveling salesman problem which has applications in scheduling with an aggregate deadline (Pekny and Miller, 1990). This paper also shows how the prize collecting traveling salesman problem (Balas, 1989) and the orienteering problem (Golden, Levy and Vohra, 1987) are special cases of the resource constrained TSP. Most importantly, the traveling salesman problem often comes up as a subproblem in more complex combinatorial problems, the best known and important one of which is the vehicle routing problem, that is, the problem of determining for a fleet of vehicles which customers should be served by each vehicle and in what order each vehicle should visit the customers assigned to it.


If your "intelligence" can indeed make GA's that solve the TSP look like baby toys then you will be RICH overnight. Simply optimising the delivery route for a courier company can save many $$.

So, Gary, your move.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,05:39   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2012,04:14)
There are a number of strategies involved in solving the TSP, of which intelligence certainly is one.

For example, animals who cache food have been shown to compute a near-optimal TSP route between each cache.

When people are asked to solve a TSP by instinct they realise †certain attributes of a path will not be optimal. For example, paths that cross or paths criss crossing the "interior" of the network will (typically) be non-optimal and without any experience of this people perform much better then random search by default.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....1505612

Quote
The relation between perceptual organization and the process of solving visually presented TSPs is briefly discussed, as is the potential of optimization for providing a conceptual framework for the study of intelligence.


So, Gary, your comparison fails. The difference between a pocket calculator and an intelligence solving the TSP is measured in lifetimes of universes. And plenty of other people think there is a relationship between solving the TSP and intelligence. Except you, of course. No doubt every potential "test" that comes your way will be dismissed in a similar way.

If your intelligence is nothing more then a pocket calculator it'll fail to solve any complex TSP by brute force. If it's more then that I expect a better result then a pocket calculator.

If it's intelligent, as you claim, that intelligence can be measured by it's ability to solve the TSP without having to brute force it.

Quote
You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.


Which is funny because it was also you who said:

Quote
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.


So, the situation seems to be that the "baby toys" you disparage can do something (solve the TSP and find near or optimum solutions) that your "intelligence" cannot. So in what way is your intelligence putting GA's to shame if it can't actually do what those GA's do?

And in case you are not aware (you are not) the TSP "problem" is just a reflection of a deeper reality:

Quote
Besides being a "polytope" of a difficult combinatorial optimization problem from a complexity theory point of view, there are important cases of practical problems that can be formulated as TSP problems and many other problems are generalizations of this problem. †Besides the drilling of printed circuits boards described above, problems having the TSP structure occur in the analysis of the structure of crystals, (Bland and Shallcross, 1987), the overhauling of gas turbine engines (Pante, Lowe and Chandrasekaran, 1987), in material handling in a warehouse (Ratliff and Rosenthal, 1981), in cutting stock problems, (Garfinkel, 1977), the clustering of data arrays, (Lenstra and Rinooy Kan, 1975), the sequencing of jobs on a single machine (Gilmore and Gomory, 1964) and the assignment of routes for planes of a specified fleet (Boland, Jones, and Nemhauser, 1994). Related variations on the traveling salesman problem include the resource constrained traveling salesman problem which has applications in scheduling with an aggregate deadline (Pekny and Miller, 1990). This paper also shows how the prize collecting traveling salesman problem (Balas, 1989) and the orienteering problem (Golden, Levy and Vohra, 1987) are special cases of the resource constrained TSP. Most importantly, the traveling salesman problem often comes up as a subproblem in more complex combinatorial problems, the best known and important one of which is the vehicle routing problem, that is, the problem of determining for a fleet of vehicles which customers should be served by each vehicle and in what order each vehicle should visit the customers assigned to it.


If your "intelligence" can indeed make GA's that solve the TSP look like baby toys then you will be RICH overnight. Simply optimising the delivery route for a courier company can save many $$.

So, Gary, your move.

Not a bad response, but you are also comparing algorithms that are not for modeling intelligence to one that is the starting point for modeling any intelligence, as well as intelligent causation events, and can develop into new species just as in reality. †In fact, that's what you end up with where you make a molecule by molecule model a cell, or neuron by neuron model of a human brain.

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem. †But I do not have the time and resources for the hundreds of things I can only wish I could afford and be able to do. †And it's certainly not my fault that scientific resources are only allowed to be used to stop me from succeeding because of my work so easily meeting the requirements of the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design...

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,06:00   

More excuses Gary? I'm not surprised.
 
Quote
Not a bad response, but you are also comparing algorithms that are not for modeling intelligence to one that is the starting point for modeling any intelligence, as well as intelligent causation events, and can develop into new species just as in reality. †


So model an intelligence that can solve the TSP! Or model one that develops into one that can solve the TSP! Or make ability to solve the TSP a factor in your model! Excuse after excuse after excuse....

Ants can do it!
 
Quote
In fact, that's what you end up with where you make a molecule by molecule model a cell, or neuron by neuron model of a human brain.


Really? And you've done that have you? I don't think so.

 
Quote
I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.


On what basis? What similar problems has your 'intelligence' solved? If you can't name any then on what basis are you making this claim?
 
Quote
But I do not have the time and resources for the hundreds of things I can only wish I could afford and be able to do.

Yet you seem to have the time and resources to go around the internet, on forum after forum, posting exactly the same things and saying exactly the same things when asked to support your claims.

The problem you have Gary is that if you were to apply your "intelligence" to the TSP that would be all the vindication that your "theory" needs.

Everybody knows about the TSP.
Everybody knows what it takes to solve the TSP.
There are many prizes on offer for new solutions to the TSP (not least unlimited wealth).

If you don't see that applying some of your time to an example that everybody can appreciate then that's your lose.

If you prefer to spend your time finding a new forum where nobody has heard of you you can start all over again?

Spend a couple more years getting nowhere eh?
 
Quote
And it's certainly not my fault that scientific resources are only allowed to be used to stop me from succeeding because of my work so easily meeting the requirements of the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design...


The only person stopping you is you.

There is no reason at all you could not apply your simulation to the TSP. Set up the energy sources so that they create a grid and cause energy to be expended moving around that grid.

If your "intelligence" is anything other then a mirage, it'll work it out.

Ants do!

So Gary, come up with excuse after excuse after excuse if that makes you feel better.

But the fact remains that your name would be heard worldwide if you intelligence can indeed solve the TSP and do it with fewer resources then anything currently available.

So whatever you might think about the applicability of my challenge to your model is irrelevant. If you did solve the TSP in a novel way you'd be rich overnight and then would have the money to spend succeeding with your theory.

But we all know the reason you won't do it. You already know it can't. So it's out with any excuse at all to cover that up.

So, Gary, if your intelligence can't do this then what *can* it do? Anything at all? Seems you have not reached the level of "Ant" yet if you can't solve the TSP.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,06:12   

Don't you get it yet Gary?

Nobody is interested in disparaging your religion.
Nobody is trying to suppress your work.
Nobody is trying to stop you.

All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate your intelligence in action.

Propose a problem.
Solve that problem.
Demonstrate that your intelligence has solved that problem.
Demonstrate why that solution is non-trivial.

If you don't like the TSP (which is odd from what I've seen of your model it's perfectly suited) then choose your own.

Or you can just carry on whining, it's up to you.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,06:20   

Anyway, enough.

If you choose to respond with anything other then a whiny set of excuses as to why you can't demonstrate your claims then I'll probably respond also.

Other then that, best of luck! You'll need it....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e..



Posts: 3003
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,06:45   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2012,10:31)
Also Gary, those 'baby toys' that are EAs and GAs can and do solve real world problems, unlike your theory hypothesis code.

code paint shop illustration of a rudimentary state machine.

Even calling it vaporware when it looks vapid, might be too much.

GG is missing a few kangaroos in the top paddock.

G in G out.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,07:01   

Gary:

Quote

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.


You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,07:50   

Gary,

Let me know when you
1) decide to comment, learn, and understand why you are mistaken about natural selection
2) decide to explain and cite references to your claim about the Cambrian having an exponential increase in species
3) start constructing graphs at better than a elementary school level
4) learn something about the people you are morally opposed to
5) learn that one who makes claims has the responsibility for supporting those claims

or anything else actually relevant to your work.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,08:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:

Quote

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.


You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?

Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
The whole truth



Posts: 1119
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,08:27   

If only the IDiots at UD and the DI had the guts to step out of their sanctuaries and come here and state their opinions on Gary's "theory". It would be interesting to see what they think of it.

Gary, are you familiar with uprightbiped's 'semiotic' argument for ID? If so, how does it relate to your "theory", if at all? I don't remember if you've been asked this already but have you thought of posting a link to your "theory" on UD to see what they think of it?

Edited by The whole truth on Nov. 07 2012,06:28

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
damitall



Posts: 323
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,15:11   

I can only get that Giggles thinks that;

1. Everything of which life is made, from molecules on up, is intelligent.
2. Therefore, all life intelligently designed itself
3. But without natural selection, no sir!

I don't think he's ever postulated an external intelligent agent, but who knows what's hidden in the crawling mess that is Giggles Gaulin's idea of the English language?

I've marked very many student exam and test scripts. I've never seen anything quite so incoherent as Giggles's efforts. Still, his spelling is nearly impeccable.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,17:22   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
If only the IDiots at UD and the DI had the guts to step out of their sanctuaries and come here and state their opinions on Gary's "theory". It would be interesting to see what they think of it.


I agree. †

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
Gary, are you familiar with uprightbiped's 'semiotic' argument for ID?


No. †Never heard of it before.

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
If so, how does it relate to your "theory", if at all?


I searched for info. †My opinion is that it is another argument for such a theory being possible, but at this point in time that has already been answered by the theory being possible. †I think they are more or less arguing that there is functional anarchy at work (as opposed to lucky accidents) as in part explained here:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....ome.htm

 
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2012,08:27)
I don't remember if you've been asked this already but have you thought of posting a link to your "theory" on UD to see what they think of it?

I thought about it. †But since I only have time for less than 1% of all that I wish I could finish, all the other projects took priority. †And honestly, I would rather not get caged-up in the UD sanctuary. †Nor does that help the Theory of Intelligent Design get around. †I would rather be here, than there. †But as I earlier mentioned I email Robert Crowther, Director of Communications at the Discovery Institute whenever there is a major development. †It's a quick way to stay in contact

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,17:53   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,08:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:

Quote

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.


You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?

Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?

In the glass window experiment, not being able to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem is expected in a model of an insect brain such as a fly. †It is supposed to keep bashing into the transparent barrier until it knocks itself senseless, even though there is a nearby exit somewhere else. †

Being able to quickly find the dark exit is not what happens in reality. †Enough sensory/memory/subsystems must be added to make it the equivalent of a mammal type brain. †In humans we know there is a glass window and don't keep bashing into it to get outside, and will right away look for another way out even though they cannot see light/food through it. †But a fly is not expected to find then wait by the door for someone to open it for them.

As I said before, this is for modeling reality, not passing tests that do not even require intelligence to do well at.  An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula that gets them out right away, but that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,18:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:53)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,08:05)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:

†  
Quote

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.


You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?

Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?

In the glass window experiment, not being able to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem is expected in a model of an insect brain such as a fly. †It is supposed to keep bashing into the transparent barrier until it knocks itself senseless, even though there is a nearby exit somewhere else. †

Being able to quickly find the dark exit is not what happens in reality. †Enough sensory/memory/subsystems must be added to make it the equivalent of a mammal type brain. †In humans we know there is a glass window and don't keep bashing into it to get outside, and will right away look for another way out even though they cannot see light/food through it. †But a fly is not expected to find then wait by the door for someone to open it for them.

As I said before, this is for modeling reality, not passing tests that do not even require intelligence to do well at. †An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula that gets them out right away, but that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.

Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
JohnW



Posts: 2296
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,18:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,16:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:53)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,08:05)
†  
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,07:01)
Gary:

† †  
Quote

I have no doubt that it would easily solve the Traveling Salesman Problem.


You do realize, don't you, that you just claimed that P=NP?

Oh yeah, and that the proof that P=NP is implicit in your existing code?

In the glass window experiment, not being able to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem is expected in a model of an insect brain such as a fly. †It is supposed to keep bashing into the transparent barrier until it knocks itself senseless, even though there is a nearby exit somewhere else. †

Being able to quickly find the dark exit is not what happens in reality. †Enough sensory/memory/subsystems must be added to make it the equivalent of a mammal type brain. †In humans we know there is a glass window and don't keep bashing into it to get outside, and will right away look for another way out even though they cannot see light/food through it. †But a fly is not expected to find then wait by the door for someone to open it for them.

As I said before, this is for modeling reality, not passing tests that do not even require intelligence to do well at. †An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula that gets them out right away, but that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense.

Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.

This:
Quote
An optimal solution can be easily enough calculated with a math formula

made me wonder if he's even heard of the TSP.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,18:49   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,18:03)
Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.

It's a collection of AI techniques, many of which I have already modeled/tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._theory

That is all well and good for someone new to AI but it is not "cognitive science".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....science

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,18:49)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,18:03)
Come on, Gary. Just admit that you don't know the least thing about computational complexity theory and you won't have to make up gibberish like that. Hint: it helps if the gibberish at least has some keywords from the topic at hand. Yours doesn't.

It's a collection of AI techniques, many of which I have already modeled/tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._theory

That is all well and good for someone new to AI but it is not "cognitive science".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......science

LOL

Gary, you once again managed to link to a Wikipedia article that you obviously failed to understand. If there is anything that computational complexity theory definitely isn't, that would be "a collection of AI techniques". The word "artificial" is notable by its absence from the linked article on computational complexity theory. Thanks for providing confirmation of my conjecture, though.

And I already explained why cognitive science is irrelevant to our particular discussion here, so linking to its Wikipedia article is rather sad and pathetic behavior on your part.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:10   

A good question to ask right now would be:  Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be: †Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?

A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:18   

Gary - worst bluffer since Joe G.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:26   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be: †Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?

A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?

You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:10)
A good question to ask right now would be: †Is the common AI technique called an "expert system" actually Intelligent?

A more apropos question is why is Gary desperately trying to change the topic of discussion?

You would simply rather discuss AI than to discuss what is truly relevant to the Theory of Intelligent Design.

You are essentially putting plastic artificial flowers under the microscope in order to support your biological conclusions.

Thank goodness Gary (the arbiter of true design theory ® [in VB] ) is here to tell us what's important. By redefining science and then sprinkling it in his word salad he's got a 'theory' that neither predicts nor explains anything. Well done sir! Templeton grant for you!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
  12341 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (412) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]