RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (384) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2012,11:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.


In what way?
Quote
And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.


What publications have that policy then?

hint: Nobody who makes that claim has ever been able to answer, instead they simply ignore the question.
Quote
I also still have the growing page-length problem that now fills at least half an issue, cannot afford publishing fees, more illustrations are needed to walk the biased (who donít care about source code and such) through this, and so on..

The biased, by definition, are biased and won't be convinced whatever you do.

And this is it really, you have not succeed in the way you think you should have and you put it down to "bias", nothing to do at all with you.

hint: It's you. †
Quote
All in all, Iím probably better off leading the undermining of the pompous part of the scientific political system that literally shuts-out self-learners like me with rules which only allow the academically entitled (or corporations) to receive funding, and credit where due.

Tell yourself that if you like. But the fact is that were this to be true: "scientific political system that literally shuts-out self-learners like me"
then it's a global worldwide conspiracy from top to bottom.

And which is more likely, that or your lack of success is down to something else?
 
Quote
So as with my little low-powered

Whining snipped.

In a way you hit the nail on the head.

Quote
academically entitled (or corporations) to receive funding, and credit where due.


Yes, people with money typically look for academic qualifications. Or results (you know, e.g. venture capitalists) will do in a pinch.

So I guess, for now, that rules you out!

Condense what you have got into a short, sharp paper that covers only the essentials that contains the "core" of your idea and send it off!

Then post the letters here. I'm sure they will be "this is rejected simply because of the content".

lol.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2012,19:11   

The forum index says this thread has 448 replies, which would fit in 15 pages of 30 posts each. But it has replies that should be on page 16, but page 16 doesn't show up without operator kludging of the URL, because the Ikonboard software computes the number of pages on the thread from the number of replies that it thinks the thread has.

Let's see if this post pushes the count that it thinks it has high enough for it to admit that there's a 16th page.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2012,19:13   

Again.

ETA: It took two additional posts to get page 16 to become visible without kludging of the URL.

Can the reply count in the forum index be updated to the correct value?

Can the Ikonboard software be fixed so that the counter stays at the correct value as replies are added?

Just thought I'd ask.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2012,21:33   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2012,19:11)
The forum index says this thread has 448 replies, which would fit in 15 pages of 30 posts each. But it has replies that should be on page 16, but page 16 doesn't show up without operator kludging of the URL, because the Ikonboard software computes the number of pages on the thread from the number of replies that it thinks the thread has.

Let's see if this post pushes the count that it thinks it has high enough for it to admit that there's a 16th page.

Fanciest way of saying "page turn bug" I've seen yet.  You could study under KF with skills like that.


kidding

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2012,21:41   

Here's a funny story Gary.

Shockingly, I don't have a Ph.D. in anything.  I'm a 'self-learner', but the difference between you and I is that I actually learn something about what I choose to talk about on the internet where everyone can read what I write.

Did you know that 'self-learners' can publish in peer-reviewed journals?  I'm still deciding if it's worth the effort it would take for me to write up the article I want to do.  You see, unlike you, I'd have to look up several hundred references and include them with the article.  You know, all those references that provide support to the things I would say in my article... oh wait, no, you must not know that.

BTW: Are you ever going to answer any of the questions I specifically asked about your specific article.

1) Do you understand that you are fundamentally mistaken about natural selection?
2) Do you have any support for an embryo modifying its genome after fertilization?
3) Do you have any support for any organism consciously choosing to modify its genome at any point in time?
4) Do you know how to develop a graph that meets the minimum requirements of 3rd grade school children?
5) There was some more, but that's all I remember and it's not worth the effort to look up, because we both know you won't acknowledge these questions... much less answer them.

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3192
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,00:11   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)
† †
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.


In what way?
† † †
Quote
And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.


What publications have that policy then?


List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even though I would (just to see what happens) not hesitate to submit something that I felt was ready to go, this really is a lot of theory that takes more than a quick paper to explain. †It also does not help to have half the scientific community spitting on the journal, then canceling their subscriptions in protest, for allowing ID to be taken seriously. †Especially after seeing it daring to suggest that their Evolutionary Algorithms could somehow be an imperfect model of reality.

What is already proudly published at Planet Source Code is for now, an excellent way to see what the theory looks like in science. †It's there a how-to for self-learners who only need that. †And top journals seriously do not want to get stuck in the middle of something that protesting scientists should have resolved somewhere else first, like here. †So here, I am...

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,00:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)
† †  
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)

Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.


In what way?
† † †  
Quote
And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.


What publications have that policy then?


List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even though I would (just to see what happens) not hesitate to submit something that I felt was ready to go, this really is a lot of theory that takes more than a quick paper to explain. †It also does not help to have half the scientific community spitting on the journal, then canceling their subscriptions in protest, for allowing ID to be taken seriously. †Especially after seeing it daring to suggest that their Evolutionary Algorithms could somehow be an imperfect model of reality.

What is already proudly published at Planet Source Code is for now, an excellent way to see what the theory looks like in science. †It's there a how-to for self-learners who only need that. †And top journals seriously do not want to get stuck in the middle of something that protesting scientists should have resolved somewhere else first, like here. †So here, I am...

What does a scientific paper need?

A testable hypothesis - you've already said yours can't be tested.

The test of the hypothesis - oops.

The data from the test - see where this is going?

The analysis of the data from the test - sigh.

A conclusion about the validity of the hypothesis based on the test - no hypothesis, no test, no conclusion.

And that is why no ID paper has ever been published in a peer-review journal.  Not a single ID proponent has ever presented a testable hypothesis for ID or the designer.

Do that FIRST, before you write a 50 page paper on ID.  Oh and it helps if, in your 'paper' you don't state things that are known to be wrong.

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

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

   
sparc



Posts: 1676
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,02:23   

Gary, I may have missed it but I don't have the impression that you have answered my question regarding the fluctuation assay. Where is intelligence interfering in that assay and where does it come from? Or do you consider the fluctuation test irrelevant for your "theory".

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
Cubist



Posts: 346
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,04:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)

Quote
And PSC does notÖ [have] a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.

What publications have that policy then?

List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That Wiki page does indeed list a number of scientific societies which reject the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. In many cases, it also provides the scientific society's reasons for rejecting the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. For instance, the American Assiciation for the Advancement of Science says this: "Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
American Astronomical Society: "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
I realize you presented that Wikilink to support the notion that scientists are dogmatically committed to reject Inteliigent Design, Gaulin. But after looking at that Wikipage, it seems that while scientists do, indeed, reject Intelligent Design, they don't reject it for dogmatic reasons; rather, scientists reject Intelligent Design because it just ain't science.
Got any testable hypotheses, Laddie GaGa? Yes, you have that spiffylicious computer program. Great! Does this program test a hypothesis? If so, what hypothesis does it test?

  
The whole truth



Posts: 973
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,05:58   

Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.

I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3192
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,12:50   

I have to add that an EA not needing to forage for nutrition is because it doesnít have to be there, for the algorithm to ďevolveĒ something. Adding foraging to an EA at least gets closer to reality so job well done there. Itís just that in this theory there is another algorithm entirely.

When Avida was the newest rage in the forums even though it did not hold my interest for long I still only had good things to say about it after trying it out. Might say part of my EA/GA learning experience, that Iím glad was there to download and run. Best for all to know how a EA/GA works than not. †Itís just that an EA is not in this model where there must be what there is where two of the four requirements are found met by the behavior of matter for molecular intelligence that next emerges, which runs on metabolic cycles which require feeding on something. Without it, the algorithm does not work as shown in the Intelligent Causation illustration. In fact, it does not work at all. This is also what is needed to gauge success rate, how intelligence is here detected and gauged, so are working without what you need in the first place.

The kind of paper and/or video the theory needs just happens to need electrodes in the central complex of a giant cockroach that is then given a zap through just to see what happens when stimulated. That helps explain the system being modeled in the Intelligence Design Lab that in the two lobe configuration ends up with both lobes connecting into two Confidence level subsystem central complex. Programmatically zapping it would cause the same thing to happen. So of course that video had to be in the favorites links.

I must include the Blackawton bee experiment was so inspiring it led to BobaBot-Bee (Boba a TalkRational troll once around with childish impishness that makes them inspire that) thinking that led to the final design of the critter in the Intelligence Design Lab. †

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/site.......s.xhtml

Also programmed a version that sets up the feeders:



Since it only sees the feeders sideways in a 2 dimension flat-land, it seems like a little stuck in a mirror-room confused. †Confidence goes from (having fun chasing an easy feeder to find) 2.7 to a half unsure where to go 1.3 confidence level. †It still figures it out well enough to get around, which made it worth uploading a .zip with BlackawtonBeesLab1.exe (should be dated 08/07/2011 9:04 AM) †

https://sites.google.com/site.......ab1.zip

Regardless of their bee paperís final conclusions being arguable, the Theory of Intelligent Design none the less found the data gathering experiment very useful:

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....t_el_86

Just in case backup link:
http://www.yuddy2046.net/web_doc....056.pdf

This theory needs papers and such that are in a whole other area of science, where itís best to keep things as simple as that, where possible. †

It works with what youíre surprised it even can. See 0:37 into the immensely popular (in US) public education program for another example: †

PBS Dinosaur Train theme song † †

Science is not going to stop over that either. †So itís here really best to lighten up, and enjoy the novel science show. Iíll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with.  

An EA paper not working for this theory is not at all to be taken personally. Itís just a whole other theory with whole other model for all here to experiment with too. I would rather you be skeptical then find out that with all considered it's not all that bad, for a 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.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,15:03   

Gary,

Have you ever encountered Robert Byers? †I ask because I have a feeling that you two might be able to communicate on the same level. †Here's an example:
Quote
... always remember that in questioning the ark story one is aggressively question , for many, Christian doctrines or Orhodo Jewis ones or Muslim I think.


Linky

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2012,15:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,12:50)
Iíll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with. †

Any plans on addressing all the old questions that you haven't dealt with.

1) Your misunderstanding of natural selection
2) Your misunderstanding of the level of control a fetus has in controlling its genome.
3) Your inability to draw a graph that makes sense.

Just out of curiosity...

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3192
Joined: Oct. 2012

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

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.


The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed.†

† † † †
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.


We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:



Do you see the very major differences?

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2841
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,08:17   

Gary your post is barely coherent.

Just so you know.

--------------
"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: 2841
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,08:26   

GG this is where you should publish
Social Text
under the comedy section they love reductivist nonsense.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,08:30   

Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things.  It has no evidential support.

And I would argue that the step in the middle "If desired fitness reached, then stop" is wrong.  If we knew the desired fitness level then we could design a system to do what we needed.

Genetic algorithms are used when it is very difficult to design a system, but easy to evaluate the results of a system.  For example, in optics.  It is very easy to do a ray trace on an optical lens system, but it is difficult (nearly impossible) to design a lens system to maximize some things, minimize some things, while keeping others constant (or within an approved range).

Now, the reason, I submit that the "if fitness reached, then stop" is an incorrect statement is because genetic algorithms often produce results that are surprising to researchers and engineers.  If those runs were stopped as soon as minimum fitness requirement was reached, then the maximum benefit would not have been reached.  

For example, in diesel engine management systems, researchers used genetic algorithms to vary the many components and inputs for a diesel engine in order to improve the efficiency.  Let's say the researchers wanted  a 5% reduction in soot, a 5% reduction in NOx emmisons, and  a 5% increase in fuel efficiency.   If the researchers had stopped there, then they would not have found the solutions that resulted in a 50% reduction in NOx, AND a 50% reduction in soot, AND a 10% reduction in fuel consumption.

In my experience, researchers allow a GA to run until it reaches an optimum which is not improved by the GA itself OR they run out of time or money.

BTW: Still have some issues you need to address.  Why won't you even talk about these things?

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3192
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,08:49   

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 12 2012,08:17)
Gary your post is barely coherent.

Just so you know.

Hereís one to help explain the possible effects of your being spun around by the science of fractal similarity theory (needing one or two more chances) which somehow goes right though you like a breeze:

U2 - even better than the real thing

Did that make any sense to you?

--------------
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. 12 2012,09:05   



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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,09:05   

Quote
Do you see the very major differences?


Yes, using the latter procedure useful results can be obtained.

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 973
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,09:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,06:12)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.


The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed.†

† † † † †
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.


We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:



Do you see the very major differences?

Well, I see a difference between the way you presented your "theory" and the "Darwinian theory model", but I can't say that I fully understand your "theory" and I don't think that the wording you used for the "Darwinian theory model" is accurate.

What I find myself thinking when I look at your "theory" is pretty much what I said before: That you're kinda sorta describing evolution, with intelligent thought and action thrown in, for example a feedback loop between the processes and results of adaptation/evolution (mutation, drift, variation, speciation, etc.) and environmental pressures/natural selection, but instead of it all being 'natural' or any of it being 'non-deterministic', 'random', or by 'chance' you're saying that it's guided by intelligence and deliberate actions (including or solely by guesses) within molecules and cells (and atoms?). Am I close?

I have another question:

How does extinction or extirpation fit into your "theory"?




ETA: fixed a minor spacing error.

Edited by The whole truth on Nov. 12 2012,07:13

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3192
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,09:15   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,08:30)
Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things. †It has no evidential support.
.........

I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too. In this case they are essentially parroting old political slogans while clouding the issue with another pompous lecture.

It should be clear enough that there are two entirely different models, and they need way more than a brush-off to make the one for Intelligent Causation go away.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,09:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,08:12)

The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed.†

† † † † †  
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.


We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:



Do you see the very major differences?



--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
k.e..



Posts: 2841
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,09:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,17:15)
† † †
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,08:30)
Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things. †It has no evidential support.
.........

I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too. In this case they are essentially parroting old political slogans while clouding the issue with another pompous lecture.

It should be clear enough that there are two entirely different models, and they need way more than a brush-off to make the one for Intelligent Causation go away.

No Gary just say this to him, he should get it after a while.

Quote
My search began at my brain that I personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for Vogons/widows to work, that then goes on into the night/god/lunch time from which I are expressed


ETA: The original is almost sigworthy

PS BTW KIMOSABE WHO IS WE?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,09:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,08:12)
*Snip*

Do you see the very major differences?

Yes.

The bottom one models reality
The bottom one is accepted as science by scientists and not championed by a lone VB programmer
The bottom one has been used to solve actual problems

etc, etc.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,10:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,09:15)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,08:30)
Yes, I see the differences.

One describes actual things that are actually happening in the real world and was developed using a significant amount of evidence from observation and experiment.

The other does not describe real things. †It has no evidential support.
.........

I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too. In this case they are essentially parroting old political slogans while clouding the issue with another pompous lecture.

It should be clear enough that there are two entirely different models, and they need way more than a brush-off to make the one for Intelligent Causation go away.

Let's see, I ask for evidence and I'm called a troll.

I continue to remind you that you have unanswered issues with your paper and I'm ignored.

We're on page 16 here and you have yet to actually use your model to do anything or even explain it.

Can't say I'm surprised.  Let's try it in a way that creationists might understand.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR MODEL!?!?!?!?

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

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,10:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,09:15)

I hope none actually expect me to feed that troll too.


Well, that depends.

Let us say that that "troll" is in fact a zombie.

And that zombie wants to eat your brains.

So no, nobody expects *you* to feed *that* troll anything at all. Simply not possible.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2012,10:44

--------------
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: 3192
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,12:10   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
† † † † †
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,06:12)
† † † † † †
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
Gary, I'm still trying to figure out how your "theory" is different (if at all) from the so-called "ID inference" that the IDiots at UD and elsewhere have been pushing. That's why I've asked you particular questions and why I have more questions pending in my head. The more you're asked to provide answers and/or something testable and the more you say, the more confusing, non-testable, and unsubstantiated your "theory" appears to be. The bottom line seems to be that you're saying "intelligence" itself is intelligent.


The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed.†

† † † † † † † † † † †
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.


We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:



Do you see the very major differences?

Well, I see a difference between the way you presented your "theory" and the "Darwinian theory model", but I can't say that I fully understand your "theory" and I don't think that the wording you used for the "Darwinian theory model" is accurate.

Trying to briefly word the concept of "Darwinian theory model" was never easy. In more detail: Even though Charles Darwin did not show a flowchart of the logic he was describing the theory he proposed had a "model" in it. From that came EA computer models with the GA computer model most representative of what he explained. There are Mutation and Selection variables, along with additional knowledge of genes and how they can be randomly mutated which Charles did not know about.

The text of a theory should have a "model" in it, which can next be coded to make a "computer model". If there is no model in the theory there is no computer model possible from it. I would then question whether it was really a theory. Could instead be a hypothesis therefore simply true/false with an experiment where results are best shown with something like a chart, not computer model. The theory the Discovery Institute long ago presented to Kathy Martin then later Judge Jones did not have a model in it, but that was then and this is now...

† † † †  
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
What I find myself thinking when I look at your "theory" is pretty much what I said before: That you're kinda sorta describing evolution, with intelligent thought and action thrown in, for example a feedback loop between the processes and results of adaptation/evolution (mutation, drift, variation, speciation, etc.) and environmental pressures/natural selection, but instead of it all being 'natural' or any of it being 'non-deterministic', 'random', or by 'chance' you're saying that it's guided by intelligence and deliberate actions (including or solely by guesses) within molecules and cells (and atoms?). Am I close?


In this theory, intelligence always has the ability to self-learn. †From the human brain to molecular intelligence (source of what you call "evolution") there is a learning curve, biologically physically "develops", but that's it.

Evolution is a concept from another model that makes even me dizzy trying to compare their variables. I once read (not sure where likely Wikipedia) that paradigms of theories are supposed to be this way, makes sense that they are.

You're here best off not to try making the other paradigm fit this one. You end up with generalizations for what might be seen happening in an intelligent population in an Intelligence Design Lab of the future but that still does not help explain how the model works, only complicates it.

† †  
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:10)
I have another question:

How does extinction or extirpation fit into your "theory"?

In this theoretical model we get an Intelligence Design Lab where there would be foraging success of its molecular intelligence, which as a population can still keep foraging through time even though every once in a while a branch falls off of it. In this theory we ultimately see the wider biosphere sized picture that in reality might not have change much because of one lineage going extinct, or may, depending on what it is and how far along in development it was.

--------------
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. 12 2012,12:18   

Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

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

What does your model do?

--------------
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: 3192
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,12:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

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

What does your model do?

What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.

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

   
  11501 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (384) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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