RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (406) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:36   

Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:38   

Quote (Richardthughes @ 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!

I've been the beneficiary of a Templeton grant, and the paper on the evolution of effective methods in movement is one result from that.

I don't think that Gary is close to getting a Templeton grant.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:45   

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.

I have been trying to narrow the discussion to a couple of very specific claims that you have made. Given that you can't back those up, you apparently think that you should be given a pass on making false claims because, hey, there are other things that you have also been interested in.

Part of how science has progressed has been through problem decomposition. Keeping focus on a small, resolvable issue enables removing error from larger-scale systems.

Gary's approach is the inverse: protect and cherish errors that could be identified and resolved at the small scale by asserting some sort of holistic property of his work. It makes no rational sense.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3386
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,19:52   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ 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!

I've been the beneficiary of a Templeton grant, and the paper on the evolution of effective methods in movement is one result from that.

I don't think that Gary is close to getting a Templeton grant.

The Templeton Foundation is another which gave into political pressures, and now only fund political efforts to destroy this new area of scientific research.

But back to the subject at hand.  Here is a paper that uses "computational complexity theory" to test the performance an "expert system":

http://bmir.stanford.edu/file_as....246.pdf

Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.

--------------
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: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,20:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:52)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,19:38)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ 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!

I've been the beneficiary of a Templeton grant, and the paper on the evolution of effective methods in movement is one result from that.

I don't think that Gary is close to getting a Templeton grant.

The Templeton Foundation is another which gave into political pressures, and now only fund political efforts to destroy this new area of scientific research.


Sour grapes, apparently.

 
Quote

But back to the subject at hand.  Here is a paper that uses "computational complexity theory" to test the performance an "expert system":

http://bmir.stanford.edu/file_as....246.pdf


It's OK, Gary; we've taken the point that you don't know the subject. You can stop adding further clueless comments to hammer that point home.

Yes, computational complexity theory is utilized in assessing performance of artificial intelligence systems and other approaches to problem optimization, too. But that no more establishes the notion that computational complexity theory is itself a collection of artificial intelligence techniques than the fact that rulers get used in dressmaking means that fashion design is a part of the physics of measurement. Swing and a miss, Gary.

 
Quote

Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3386
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,20:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "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: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,20:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
 
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."

I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3386
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,21:02   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2012,19:36)
Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.

Here is the operational definition for intelligence, from the Introduction:

 
Quote
Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works, as an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a learned response does not yet exist but it must try something.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must think up "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which the other person does not know so to them they are indeed a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not, if not then Guess is taken by changing direction to produce tumble/guess where to next go. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, are the molecules that act as a switch to change motor direction where only a single memory location is required, instead of two as shown here that takes the same concept to self-learning as in the human brain and other intelligent living things where Motors (muscles) are separate from the Guess mechanism requiring two memory locations with In0/Out0 a 4 state (0-3) or more analog to recall confidence level that increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed then upon reaching 0 produces a guess.  Like us we know when we need to take a guess or have an action response we are confident will work.  And as when first born, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which likewise produces a guess.  What works is stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

There is more detail in following sections, but that's a summary.  Not needing a "natural selection" variable is the result of not needing a 1200+ year old generalization.  This is a cognitive theory, that explains how intelligence works, through time...

--------------
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.

   
sparc



Posts: 1715
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,21:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:22)

   
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.
Why then waste your (and our) time here? I don't have the impression that you can gain anything here (besides publically selfing)
Quote
 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.
You actually miss world class programmers. E.g. GilDodgen. Some over there even have contacts to former NASA programmers. In addition, I think that the discussion here gets redundant and that the guys over there may have better questions for you. I am quite willing to watch the discussion over there.
Quote
 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
Acoording to DI's web pages
Quote
Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist.
Do you think that he is qualified to follow your demanding thoughts? Actually, how many major developments did you report to him? How many times did he reply? And what did he actually have to say regarding your work? In addition, how did Caroline Crocker respond? You mentioned before that there were no complaints from DI folks but  did their replies go beyond that? Did they make comments or suggestions that helped you in one or another way? If so, what did they contribute and how did it help you?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3386
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,21:19   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
   
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."

I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.

Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

 
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?


A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.

--------------
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: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,21:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,21:19)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
     
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."

I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.

Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

   
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?


A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.

Yes, you have quoted me.

But you haven't quoted me saying anything like what you claimed I said, so I have no clue why you even bothered making that post.

And that last bit... Are you not bright enough to parse a statement that you have not correctly understood what I was saying, since you persist in attributing to me stances I've never taken?

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3386
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,21:54   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,17:22)

         
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.
Why then waste your (and our) time here? I don't have the impression that you can gain anything here (besides publically selfing)


Like in the old days I wander the World (Wide Web) teaching and discussing my theory.  But the internet has made it possible to get far less sand in our shoes while traveling from place to place, even when traveling at nearly the speed of light.

   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   
Quote
 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.
You actually miss world class programmers. E.g. GilDodgen. Some over there even have contacts to former NASA programmers. In addition, I think that the discussion here gets redundant and that the guys over there may have better questions for you. I am quite willing to watch the discussion over there.


I doubt that an experienced NASA programmer would be surprised by the way this theory explains how intelligence works.  At least one at NASA should know the work of David Heiserman, or other who now teaches his theory within their own.

I'll put a visit to UD in my overfilled suggestion box.  But have others to first visit again, after finishing work that started there, which needs attention too.  Especially Biology Online.

   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2012,21:02)
   
Quote
 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
Acoording to DI's web pages      
Quote
Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist.
Do you think that he is qualified to follow your demanding thoughts? Actually, how many major developments did you report to him? How many times did he reply? And what did he actually have to say regarding your work? In addition, how did Caroline Crocker respond? You mentioned before that there were no complaints from DI folks but  did their replies go beyond that? Did they make comments or suggestions that helped you in one or another way? If so, what did they contribute and how did it help you?


Robert Crowther is the director of communication, not their science expert(s).  It is not his job to give such opinions, they just communicate information back and forth.  Should suffice to say that they have been helpful. Sent me this in regards to the author/contributors to the premise of the theory:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf

Dr. Crocker said quote: "I am not a computer expert so cannot really offer expertise. But, I have referred others to your information, in case they can help."

--------------
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: 3386
Joined: Oct. 2012

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

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,21:32)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,21:19)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
       
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."

I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.

Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

   
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?


A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.

Yes, you have quoted me.

But you haven't quoted me saying anything like what you claimed I said, so I have no clue why you even bothered making that post.

And that last bit... Are you not bright enough to parse a statement that you have not correctly understood what I was saying, since you persist in attributing to me stances I've never taken?

I warned you that you were making unfair/unrealistic comparisons.  I'm not at all surprised that the discussion did not go as you expected.

--------------
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: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,22:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,22:07)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,21:32)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,21:19)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:48)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,20:36)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,20:11)
           
Quote
Question still remains, of whether an AI expert system that has the knowledge of hundreds of physicians in it is actually "intelligent".  And for some weird reason you refuse to even answer.


Because it has nothing to do with the discussion I'm trying to have? That a response would be rewarding a blatant attempt at digression away from the point? That would be *so* weird, wouldn't it?

You have been claiming that computational complexity theory which is applied to numerous AI techniques is a good test of whether something is actually intelligent or not.  

Your implied answer is that expert systems with large databases are so intelligent they far surpass the intelligence of any human who has ever lived.

My answer was "that is not reality, and only leads to your being easily fooled by unrealistic nonsense."

I've said no such thing, Gary. If I had, you could demonstrate that with a quote of me saying that, which you will not manage because it doesn't exist. You do no better trying to read what I say than what Wikipedia says, apparently.

What I said was that your claim that your program could solve the TSP was a strong claim about *the* primary unresolved issue in computational complexity theory. That's what the stuff about P=NP was about, and if you knew diddly about computer science as a science, you would have understood that right off the bat. You didn't understood that, apparently still don't understand that, and still have no clue what is actually the point of the discussion. Hint: it isn't about some test for "intelligence". Hint: it is a far more basic issue in computer science.

Here is where you started on the tangent of expecting this intelligence model to outperform all other models, regardless of their being intelligent or not:

         
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?


A fly has more intelligence than an unintelligent expert system and such, yet your operational definition for intelligence apparently requires a fly to be more intelligent than an experienced human physician.

Yes, you have quoted me.

But you haven't quoted me saying anything like what you claimed I said, so I have no clue why you even bothered making that post.

And that last bit... Are you not bright enough to parse a statement that you have not correctly understood what I was saying, since you persist in attributing to me stances I've never taken?

I warned you that you were making unfair/unrealistic comparisons.  I'm not at all surprised that the discussion did not go as you expected.

Gary, you've made some claims.

I've asked you to demonstrate that you have a basis for your claims.

You've declined to do so.

Along the way, you have demonstrated that you have no background in the topics that would be necessary to you successfully demonstrating your claims. You have cited material as if it supports some aspect of your responses, even though it is clear that you have not understood the content of that material. You have claimed that I have said certain things that I have not.

Back when you first started posting here, I did go looking for your prior history in discussions, and found documentation that you are a person with serious reading comprehension issues and bad communication skills. Gary, contrary to your final statement, this progression of discussion is *exactly* what I expected. I can't even claim to be disappointed with your poor showing, since I had the benefit of seeing your previous record of poor performances. Nonetheless, I did give you the opportunity to take a different path this time. It's not my fault that you failed yet again. Your claims remain extravagant and unsupported fantasies that you have no means to defend other than to attempt to throw up digression after digression in the vain hope that your correspondent would forget what the topic was. Your character was shown to be less than honorable by your eagerness to make false claims about what your correspondents say, to reiterate those false claims, and then to simply leave those false claims unretracted. Your grasp of computer science relevant to your claims was shown to be entirely lacking. And you did all of this to yourself. Congratulations.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3386
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,23:02   

Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" 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.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,23:03   

my face when Wes chews tards



i'm sure that in 150 years everyone will know about this groundbreaking work but i suspect it will require someone who actually knows how to fucking describe it to wrest command of the ship away from Ahab





--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,23:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3386
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,23:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

And here we go again comparing nonintelligent algorithms to one that has to be in order to produce intelligent causation events.  I'm maybe best off to just ignore them, while waiting for someone to at least attempt to meet the burden of proof that here requires a more scientifically viable causation mechanism, for us to experiment with.

Science is no longer about answering questions people have.  It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.

--------------
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. 08 2012,04:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:25)
It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.

You have that exactly right.

That is the single thing you excel at.

Making excuses.

For.

Not.

Having.

Any.

Answers.

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,04:46   

Gary,
One last post :)
 
Quote
Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.


Couple of questions on that.

How long have you been running your simulations for?

Has that happened?

If not, why do you believe it will happen? On what basis?

If not, what would it take for that to happen?

How long would you run your simulation for without the next emergent level of intelligence emerging before you concluded that it was never going to happen?

How would you tell if it did happen? What would be the sign?

What would be the delta in intelligence before and after, and how are your measuring that?

All simple questions you should be able to answer if you are not the bullshitter supreme you are giving a good impression of.

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e..



Posts: 2948
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,06:13   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2012,03:31)
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!

Now now lets be fair.

You have to 2 x PhDs, with one in welshing, to get one of those.

--------------
"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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2948
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,06:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2012,07:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

And here we go again comparing nonintelligent algorithms to one that has to be in order to produce intelligent causation events.  I'm maybe best off to just ignore them, while waiting for someone to at least attempt to meet the burden of proof that here requires a more scientifically viable causation mechanism, for us to experiment with.

Science is no longer about answering questions people have.  It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.

Stand in front of a mirror and read that backwards....

--------------
"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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1046
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,06:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2012,19:36)
Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.

Here is the operational definition for intelligence, from the Introduction:

   
Quote
Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works, as an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a learned response does not yet exist but it must try something.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must think up "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which the other person does not know so to them they are indeed a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not, if not then Guess is taken by changing direction to produce tumble/guess where to next go. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, are the molecules that act as a switch to change motor direction where only a single memory location is required, instead of two as shown here that takes the same concept to self-learning as in the human brain and other intelligent living things where Motors (muscles) are separate from the Guess mechanism requiring two memory locations with In0/Out0 a 4 state (0-3) or more analog to recall confidence level that increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed then upon reaching 0 produces a guess.  Like us we know when we need to take a guess or have an action response we are confident will work.  And as when first born, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which likewise produces a guess.  What works is stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

There is more detail in following sections, but that's a summary.  Not needing a "natural selection" variable is the result of not needing a 1200+ year old generalization.  This is a cognitive theory, that explains how intelligence works, through time...

Gary, I'm trying to understand your definition of "intelligence". After reading it several times I get the impression that you're kinda sorta describing evolution but have added something along the line of molecules and/or cells having the ability to consciously think about what they want or need to do. Is that what you're saying, or close to it?

Some other questions I have are:

Do you agree with joe g and most or all other ID pushers that "ID" is all about 'origins'? If so, can and will you tell me where, when, and how "intelligence" originated and how you figured that out, if you have?

What is the "goal" of "intelligence", whether the alleged "intelligence" is in a molecule, a cell, a flower, a cat, a human, or anything else?

When a baby is born (and even before that) it has a heartbeat, brain activity, and other body functions (unless there's something wrong with it). Is it "intelligence" that causes those things? If so, does the "intelligence" reside in the baby's molecules, cells, heart, brain, or what?

Is "intelligence" the same as knowledge?

Do you see "intelligence" as something that was front-loaded (initially programmed) into atoms, molecules, cells, and/or something else by a 'designer/creator'?

Do you see human beings as the pinnacle of "intelligence"?

Are the molecules and/or cells in a spider, a mushroom, a tree, or a gorilla less or more intelligent than the ones in a human or are they equally intelligent?

Do all molecules everywhere contain "intelligence"?

--------------
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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,07:00   

Which came first, the intelligence or the organisms/universe it was supposed to have built?

If the answer is "intelligence" then you are describing a god and any claims about religious harrasment are your, not ours.

If the answer is "everything else" then where did the intelligence come from?  (hint: it's evolution, physics, and chemistry)

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,07:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:25)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

And here we go again comparing nonintelligent algorithms to one that has to be in order to produce intelligent causation events.  I'm maybe best off to just ignore them, while waiting for someone to at least attempt to meet the burden of proof that here requires a more scientifically viable causation mechanism, for us to experiment with.

Science is no longer about answering questions people have.  It's all about making excuses for not having any answers.

Let's take a moment to review.

Item 1:

   
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.)

Item 2:

   
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.)

Item 3:

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,05:39)

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


Items 1 and 2 demonstrate that Gary is quite willing to compare his work favorably to other techniques, without reference to their matching in every attribute exactly. I think the word typically deployed for the level of hypocrisy in response that Gary's dismissal of inconvenient comparisons displays is "chutzpah". It is only when Gary is called upon to do more than simply claim that he has already compared two techniques and found one superior, but show exactly how one is superior, that he suddenly finds comparison odious.

Item 3 demonstrates that Gary wasn't discussing a comparison in that instance, but rather making a simple unfounded brag about capability he believes his own system has. So complaining about comparisons has nothing whatsoever to do with demonstrating a supposed capability of his system. Or, rather, not demonstrating a supposed capability of his system.

Bottom line? We have no reason to believe that Gary Gaulin has compared his technique to evolutionary computation. The evidence of his responses testifies to his lack of familiarity with basic concepts that would be relevant to making such evaluations. Gary's reticence in revealing anything whatsoever about comparisons that he claims he's already made is most simply explained by assuming that he is stating something false to fact when saying that he has made any such comparisons. Gary could easily rectify this impression were it actually false by providing the details of the comparisons that he has claimed to have already done.

Did the dog eat them, Gary? Is it all about making excuses for not having any answers?

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

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,07:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

Wait,

"Intelligence cause" is your notion.  Why is it up to internet trolls to provide YOU with a better experimental mechanism for YOUR notion?  

The only possible way that this makes sense is if you are calling yourself an internet troll, but I think that requires too much self reflection. Remember, it's up to the person making the claim to support it.  You don't believe that, so the rest of the world will go right on ignoring you until you A) support your notions and B) show that they are better than the actual theories we have now.

So, let's play a game.  Let's test your notions of intelligent causes.  I have two gene sequences, one of which was specifically designed by an intelligence (a human in this case) and the other was created randomly (random.org).  They are the same size.

Can you use your notions to tell us which was designed and which was not designed?

If you can, your on your way to a testable hypothesis.

If not, then there really isn't any point, because your notions are not able to differentiate between what you think is true and what everyone else thinks is true.

BTW: You must bow before me, as I am your king.  I'll also expect my yearly tribute in the form of a Best Buy gift card, prior to Thanksgiving Day.

(See how making statements doesn't mean anything if you can't support them?)

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

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2948
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,08:24   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2012,15:00)
Which came first, the intelligence or the organisms/universe it was supposed to have built?

If the answer is "intelligence" then you are describing a god and any claims about religious harrasment are your, not ours.

If the answer is "everything else" then where did the intelligence come from?  (hint: it's evolution, physics, and chemistry)

..erm I think he said god didit somewhere already.

He's just another biblical literalist who doesn't like the fact that things can evolve without HIM.

..oh and his projections know no bounds so you will only get denial from him, not rationality.

--------------
"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

  
sparc



Posts: 1715
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,12:32   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 08 2012,06:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,19:02)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2012,19:36)
Gary, so now we add complexity to the list of things you have no clue on?

Just out of curiosity, have you researched your paper's failure on the concept of natural selection, the Cambrian explosion and the rather inexplicable graphs?

One would think that things in one's life's work that are wrong would be high on the discussion topic list.

Do you have a definition of "intelligence"?  If so, what is it?  No, I'm NOT going to troll through your paper for it.

Here is the operational definition for intelligence, from the Introduction:

     
Quote
Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works, as an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a learned response does not yet exist but it must try something.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must think up "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which the other person does not know so to them they are indeed a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not, if not then Guess is taken by changing direction to produce tumble/guess where to next go. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, are the molecules that act as a switch to change motor direction where only a single memory location is required, instead of two as shown here that takes the same concept to self-learning as in the human brain and other intelligent living things where Motors (muscles) are separate from the Guess mechanism requiring two memory locations with In0/Out0 a 4 state (0-3) or more analog to recall confidence level that increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed then upon reaching 0 produces a guess.  Like us we know when we need to take a guess or have an action response we are confident will work.  And as when first born, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which likewise produces a guess.  What works is stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain.  The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it.  The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction.  Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system that may appear to be intelligent but would only qualify as a protointelligent behavior.  This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course, but does not learn how to control itself.  There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled.  An example so simple it is almost cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed, and when it is going the wrong way tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it.  Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level.  No computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

There is more detail in following sections, but that's a summary.  Not needing a "natural selection" variable is the result of not needing a 1200+ year old generalization.  This is a cognitive theory, that explains how intelligence works, through time...

Gary, I'm trying to understand your definition of "intelligence". After reading it several times I get the impression that you're kinda sorta describing evolution but have added something along the line of molecules and/or cells having the ability to consciously think about what they want or need to do. Is that what you're saying, or close to it?

Some other questions I have are:

Do you agree with joe g and most or all other ID pushers that "ID" is all about 'origins'? If so, can and will you tell me where, when, and how "intelligence" originated and how you figured that out, if you have?

What is the "goal" of "intelligence", whether the alleged "intelligence" is in a molecule, a cell, a flower, a cat, a human, or anything else?

When a baby is born (and even before that) it has a heartbeat, brain activity, and other body functions (unless there's something wrong with it). Is it "intelligence" that causes those things? If so, does the "intelligence" reside in the baby's molecules, cells, heart, brain, or what?

Is "intelligence" the same as knowledge?

Do you see "intelligence" as something that was front-loaded (initially programmed) into atoms, molecules, cells, and/or something else by a 'designer/creator'?

Do you see human beings as the pinnacle of "intelligence"?

Are the molecules and/or cells in a spider, a mushroom, a tree, or a gorilla less or more intelligent than the ones in a human or are they equally intelligent?

Do all molecules everywhere contain "intelligence"?

Gary, from what I know about him you may want to meet gpuccio of UD. It seems likely that he will uderstand you:
Quote
38 gpuccio July 30, 2008 at 1:50 am

sparc:

First of all, I really believe that my assumptions are right, and I invite you to tell where they should be wrong. In a sense, they are not assumptions at all, but very simple facts about probability.

Regarding the immune system, the scenario is completely different. Primary antibody diversification is a process which uses random variation very intelligently targeted to generate a repertoire of basic antibody specificities to cover, at a low specificity level, a search space which is very big, but not immense, referring to possible epitopes in nature (an epitope is a very small aminoacid sequence, usually a few aminoacids, or up to ten -fifteen). Even so, the basic repertoire is very unspecific, and can ensure only a low level interaction with possible epitopes. Antibody maturation “after” primary response, instead, is a typical process which utilizes random variation very intelligently targeted plus very intelligent selection to increase the specificity of the immune response. Indeed, the process utilized here is the same as used in modern protein engineering: the results of targeted random variation are “measured” against the original epitope, and intelligent selection takes place (obviously, here selection includes very specific informatioon about the target, that is the epitope itself, and is therefore very efficient).

So, as you can see, there is nothing in what we know about antibody generation which is inconsistent with my “assumptions”. Antibody generation is a perfect example of intelligent engineering using the realistic resources of probability. It is therefore perfectly natural and reasonable that the immune system of birds or mammals can “produce antibodies against antigens that they or their ancestors never encountered before”.


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Henry J



Posts: 4083
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,13:08   

Some of his stuff reminded me of what I've read about neural networks.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2012,13:29   

I'm still waiting for a sensible way of differentiation trial and error learning from evolution at the conceptual level.

Recognizing differences in the hardware implementation.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
  12161 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (406) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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