RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (395) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,05:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 09 2012,04:32)
Why don't you take the TSP challenge Gary? It's from 2006 but you'd be the first ID supporter to attempt it AFAIK.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....gn.html

     
Quote
I will announce the winners (if any) in a week’s time, and also will present the answer that Evolution came up with. I’m interested in proposed solutions from any and all (you don’t have to be in the ID camp), but am especially interested in solutions by ID advocates, since y’all are saying that the solution is already implicitly defined in the statement of the problem (finding shortest connected networks).


Support your claim or continue to be laughed at. TBH that'll happen either way but at least this way you get to keep a little dignity.


I have far more important things to do than be muddled by another math based problem that does not pertain to "intelligence" or "intelligent cause".  The power of your laughter is now in my favor anyway, because in the real scientific arena if that's all you got then you were already defeated.

Quote
I’m giving Intelligent Design proponents (and everyone else!) a chance to actually Design something!

As you recall, my algorithm involves finding Steiner Trees, the shortest networks of straight-line segments connecting a given collection of fixed points. These networks may include additional variable “Steiner Points” where segments may meet.

If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.

--------------
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. 09 2012,05:15   

Quote
And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.


Liar.

--------------
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. 09 2012,05:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,05:07)

I have far more important things to do than be muddled by another math based problem that does not pertain to "intelligence" or "intelligent cause".  


Don't you get it? According to *you* you have already done this.

You said:

 
Quote
And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.


How do you know your "simple cognitive models" can outperform a GA if you've yet to try that?

I take it then that your "opinion" is more important than "observation".

No wonder you are unable to understand how science works.
 
Quote
The power of your laughter is now in my favor anyway, because in the real scientific arena if that's all you got then you were already defeated.


No, 100+ years of observations (i.e. science) are on my side. What have you got apart from empty claims and lies?

Nothing.

 
Quote
If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.


For example?

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 09 2012,05:19

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,05:22   

No delivery of substantial support of any of the claims = expect to see the list posted again later.


Gary on the citric acid cycle claim:

 
Quote

There is no other place that I know of where this is documented. [...]


Yes, exactly. Nobody else makes the same bizarre mistakes that you make when describing the citric acid cycle.

Gary on comparison of his code to evolutionary computation:

 
Quote

You are again demanding documentation that does not yet exist.  And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.


You didn't keep your notes from when you compared them? Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them? And if you never compared them, you have no basis to say what "outperforms" what. Basically, your statement here says that you know nothing about evolutionary computation, can't be bothered to learn anything about evolutionary computation, but still want people to think it means something when you spout ignorant opinions about relative merit involving evolutionary computation.


Gary:

Quote

And on that point, although I agree that I could have been more precise, if you look again at exactly what I said then it should be more obvious that I was calling attention to what I wanted you to notice in the Wikipedia link (all the nonintelligent AI techniques that are in it).


I pointed out that you were wrong on that, too. Computational complexity theory is not comprised of AI techniques. Computational complexity theory is applied to evaluating the performance of AI techniques and all other algorithmic approaches to problems. You made a basic error, were corrected, and don't even have enough comprehension of your ignorance on the topic to appreciate that it was an error. If you did, you wouldn't have just repeated that very same error.

Gary on his code being able to "easily solve" the TSP and the implications that has for the central unresolved problem in computational complexity theory:

 
Quote

You sure like to nitpick.  I gave you an example of a fly (intelligence) that just keeps bashing into a window until it knocks itself senseless and never gets out, even where there is a nearby exit.  If that is not utterly being unable to find any solution at all to the Traveling Salesman Problem then you tell me how well it did at finding a solution to the problem after it is one more dead bug on the windowsill that made it no further than that.


I'm interested in your claim that your code can "easily solve" the TSP. I'm not interested in irrelevant anecdotes about flies. And nothing in the above says anything about the capability that you have claimed that your code does have. Abandoned is a soft word for what you've done with that claim.

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

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,06:57   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 09 2012,05:15)
Quote
And I am entitled to my honest opinion of how "realistic" EA'a and GA's are.  That's why I never found them very scientifically interesting, and instead experimented with simple cognitive models that can outperform them.


Liar.

"True, everybody's entitled to their opinion, but when your opinion is based on misinformation and you're incapable of actually getting a clue about what's really going on in the world around you, your opinion isn't worth very much."

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,07:29   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........

I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…

--------------
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. 09 2012,07:35   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,07:29)

 I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  


And I already told you that the TSP can be used as a standard test to measure intelligence. You seem afraid to put your own theory to that test, I wonder why...
 
Quote
Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

The demand is that you support the claim you yourself made. That's all. Nothing more or less.
If you don't want to do that then get used to this treatment.
   
Quote
If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.

But you *are* a liar, and provably so. Nobody is arguing against your theory, they are simply asking you to provide support for a claim *you* made. This whining won't distract you know. Been there, seen that.

You made a claim.
You are now pretending you did not.
You are a liar!
 
Quote
 You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.

Irrelevant. You made a specific claim, when called on it you pretend it's irrelevant yet it's your claim!
 
Quote
You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…


Aww, don't cry! Why don't you go and find a forum where nobody knows anything about science and then you can bask in the adulation of the ignorant? You can then make as many claims as you like and nobody will call you on them.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 09 2012,07:36

--------------
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: 2876
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,08:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,15:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........

I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…

Stand in front of a mirror and read that backwards.
You are projecting GG.

Oh and by the way define your use of the word 'intelligence' specifically the physical processes if it is an external extant device and your evidence to support such an assertion.

If you replace your use of the word 'intelligence' which seems to have some private and magical quality unique to you (and all other creationists) with the word 'life', 'god' or 'je ne sais quoi' what do we have?

Nothing, admit it GG.


A dog turd in the street has more use than your apeal to authority.

Pathetic but true.

YOUR semantics are meaningless and have no useful scientifice value.

Your misuse of the term 'scientific theory' produces no pedictions, a KEY FEATURE of a scientific theory.

None what so ever.

Zero.

You bitch on and on.

While we do not even have a hint from your bibliographies.

You have some papers right?

No?

I thought not.

Zilch.

--------------
"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: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,08:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,05:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........

I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…

Gary, you said:

"You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design."

I'm trying to understand your "theory" and have asked you some questions in an attempt to understand what it is that you're positing and what the differences are, if any, between your "theory" and the "ID inference", but you haven't answered most of my questions.

A few things you should realize:

Your avoidance of some questions doesn't help you.

Answers from you that are irrelevant or incoherent don't help you.

People here (including me) have seen and heard enormous amounts of "ID" bullshit and we have finely tuned "ID" bullshit detectors and pretty short fuses. Unless you have something that is explained well and can be tested and holds up to scrutiny you're not likely to get very far here or anywhere else where scientists and science supporters hang out.  

Yeah, it's a very tough crowd here but if your "theory" can be demonstrated to do something positive or lead to something that can do something positive you have a chance at winning over the crowd. If, on the other hand, you've got nothing but another lame attempt to push a useless, non-scientific, religious/political agenda you're going to be treated accordingly.

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,08:46   

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



What, you mean as opposed to digital ones?

Clown.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,08:46   

It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.

--------------
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: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,08:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.

But that's what you've been saying.  By claiming that bacteria have 'memory' and can 'choose' to adapt and that embryos can modify their own genome, you are saying that they are intelligent as humans.

In fact, they are more intelligent than humans, because no human has the ability to alter its own genome or choose to adapt to a changing environment (I refer here to biological adaptation, not putting on a sweater).

It's the extension of your own claims.

Let me ask this, is a slime mold intelligent according to you?

--------------
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. 09 2012,09:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)

It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence.

No, rather it's your claim that your "intelligence" can solve the TSP. Your claim.
All you have to do is provide proof for your own claim.
 
Quote
But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to.

BZZZ, wrong:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....3900382
 
Quote
Optimal foraging models are examined that assume animals forage for discrete point resources on a plane and attempt to minimize their travel distance between resources. This problem is similar to the well-known traveling salesman problem: A salesman must choose the shortest path from his home office to all cities on his itinerary and back to his home office again. The traveling salesman problem is in a class of enigmatic problems, called NP-complete, which can be so difficult to solve that animals might be incapable of finding the best solution. Two major results of this analysis are: (1) The simple foraging strategy of always moving to the closest resource site does surprisingly well. More sophisticated strategies of “looking ahead” a small number of steps, choosing the shortest path, then taking a step, do worse if all the resource sites are visited, but do slightly better (less than 10%) if not all the resource sites are visited. (2) Short cyclical foraging routes resulted when resources were allowed to renew. This is suggested as an alternative explanation for “trap-lining” in animals that forage for discrete, widely separated resources.

http://chittkalab.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/2010.......Nat.pdf
 
Quote
Bees’ tendency to visit patches in
their discovery order decreased with experience. Instead, they optimized their ?ight distances by rearranging ?ower visitation sequences. This resulted in the development of a primary route (trapline) and two or three less frequently used secondary routes. Bees
consistently used these routes after overnight breaks while occasionally exploring novel possibilities. We discuss how maintaining some
level of route ?exibility could allow traplining animals to cope with dynamic routing problems, analogous to the well-known traveling salesman problem.

 
Quote
They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human.

No, I care about the claim that you made and the fact you cannot support it.
 
Quote
In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.

Better tell that to the authors of those two papers plus the myriad of others on similar lines.
Fool and a liar?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,09:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:07)
If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.

on a blog?



if you don't give a shit enough about your "theory" to even try to publish an abstract of the thing in the journal of negative results, what makes you think you have presented any "scientific problems" to "camp"?

I mean, you can't even explain what the hell you're on about here, or even justify any of the silly claims you've made here in rapid fire repetition.  So, you have seriously overestimated the quantity of fucks that the world gives about your interpretation of the shadows dancing on the wall of your cave

But, things might change, eh?  I recommend you add more font colors to your flow chart

--------------
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. 09 2012,09:25   

Perhaps if we all put our tinfoil hats on then sit under a cardboard pyramid all would become clear.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,09:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,06:22)
Abandoned is a soft word for what you've done with that claim.



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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,09:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.

"But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself..."  (my emphasis)

Gary, what is the it that you're referring to?

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

   
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,11:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2012,17:05)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2012,16:55)
Where is the memory in a bacteria?

From theory:

 
Quote
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSABLE MEMORY

E.coli senses chemoeffector gradients in temporal fashion (recall series of readings/conditions back in time) by comparing current concentrations to those encountered over the past few seconds of travel, a single element reversible methylation temporal memory, to navigate its environment.

Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time.  The entire colony of bacteria cells functions as a single organism.  In plasmid exchange cells conjugate, bump into another then wait for plasmids they do not have yet to be copied/learned then look for another to conjugate with.  To a cell, some plasmids can be like a harmful disabling/traumatizing parasite.

Only germline cells that divide to become egg and sperm cells must accurately copy the full genetic memory.  After germline cells fuse (fertilization) they begin to modify their genome as much as is necessary to achieve differentiation into a specialized cell. It is here changing in morphology in response to its environment to be able to survive one cellular lifetime.  During development of the organism many kinds of cells (muscle and skin cells, neurons, etc.) with many cellular intelligence behaviors are produced by the germline cells which remain the same through time to produce the eggs and sperm of another generation.

See:
An overview of E. coli chemotaxis, Parkinson Lab, Department Of Biology – University Of Utah
http://chemotaxis.biology.utah.edu/Parkins....is.html

You may want to explain to us where and when intelligence acts during the fluctuation test.

--------------
"[...] 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: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,12:36   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 09 2012,09:59)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.

"But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself..."  (my emphasis)

Gary, what is the it that you're referring to?

The "it" is the intelligence in the simulation being monitored/tested to find out how well it's doing:


https://sites.google.com/site.......een.png

In this example is the two lobed brain configuration, with the right lobe now active.  At this moment in time it's taking two good guesses based upon what was working before.  Green line is showing it's having little problem learning how to keep itself fed, but all indications are that it would greatly benefit from having touch/taste buds to feel around with it's mouth.

--------------
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: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,12:57   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,12:36)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 09 2012,09:59)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,06:46)
It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat.

"But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself..."  (my emphasis)

Gary, what is the it that you're referring to?

The "it" is the intelligence in the simulation being monitored/tested to find out how well it's doing:


https://sites.google.com/site.......een.png

In this example is the two lobed brain configuration, with the right lobe now active.  At this moment in time it's taking two good guesses based upon what was working before.  Green line is showing it's having little problem learning how to keep itself fed, but all indications are that it would greatly benefit from having touch/taste buds to feel around with it's mouth.

I thought you said it wouldn't be right to create an intelligence and then pull the plug on it.

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,20:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
[...] But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. [...]

Wow, Gary tells yet another whopper. I guess Gary didn't actually read my paper that I gave him the link to a while back.

Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement

   
Quote

Abstract— Even the simplest of organisms may exhibit low-level intelligent behaviors in their directed movements, such as in foraging. We used the Avida digital evolution research platform to explore the evolution of movement strategies in a model environment with a single local resource that diffuses to produce a gradient, which organisms have the ability to follow. Three common strategies that evolved, Cockroach, Drunkard, and Climber, exhibit how both environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors. The evolved programs are also suitable for use in controllers on robots.


 
Quote

Another characteristic of intelligence is the ability to generalize a strategy and use it in a new situation. An evolved Climber could successfully move to resource peaks set in new locations (see Figure 6).


   
Quote

V. CONCLUSIONS

In testing the capability of evolutionary computation to produce effective methods utilizing movement strategies to intelligently exploit spatially-distributed resources, our results show that such strategies do emerge and that in about 12% of shorter runs and in 80% of longer runs the final movement strategy used by the majority of the population at the end of the run is in the class of optimal response for our environment, that of gradient ascent.


What excuse will Gary come up with this time?

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

    
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,20:16   

Gary, in your "theory" you say:

"Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time."  (my emphasis)

That wording doesn't make sense to me, and what do you mean by "ahead of time"? Ahead of time for what? Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it looks like you're saying that the "solution" is known by the entire colony before the "solution" is shared with the entire colony.





.

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,22:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,07:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,05:22)
..... Or you lied to us when you told us that you had already compared them?...........

I already told you the theory is for experimenting with intelligence and studying intelligent cause.  Therefore your other demands of it are still totally irrelevant.

If the best that you and you know who can do is endlessly present the same worn out semantic arguments while trying to claim that I am a liar then I would be a fool to waste my time entertaining you while you try to drag me down with insults.  You did not even have the scientific candor to study the theory before commenting on it, and instead pretended you understood the whole thing when you were in fact so clueless you trashed a theory that was not even the Theory of Intelligent Design.  You have no idea how much of a kick in the face that actually is, bully…

I haven't made demands of "it" (your so-called theory). I haven't looked over your full document, and have not said word one in speculation about it. You once again state a falsehood about me, that I have commented on your so-called theory. I have not, and will not until such time as I review your current document. You may apologize now.

I have asked for substantiation of specific things that you have asserted to be true, things whose truth-value can be assessed without reference to anything beyond that particular context. You have chosen to defer providing substantiation even where your words state that you already have that substantiation in hand. When you say that you have made a comparison, and then say that no such documentation exists, you should be able to admit that there is a legitimate question about which of two contradictory pieces of information is correct.

I take it that peer-review is an unfamiliar concept to you?

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,23:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,20:10)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
[...] But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. [...]

Wow, Gary tells yet another whopper. I guess Gary didn't actually read my paper that I gave him the link to a while back.

Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement
     
Quote
Abstract— Even the simplest of organisms may exhibit low-level intelligent behaviors in their directed movements, such as in foraging. We used the Avida digital evolution research platform to explore the evolution of movement strategies in a model environment with a single local resource that diffuses to produce a gradient, which organisms have the ability to follow. Three common strategies that evolved, Cockroach, Drunkard, and Climber, exhibit how both environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors. The evolved programs are also suitable for use in controllers on robots.

     
Quote
Another characteristic of intelligence is the ability to generalize a strategy and use it in a new situation. An evolved Climber could successfully move to resource peaks set in new locations (see Figure 6).

   
Quote

V. CONCLUSIONS

In testing the capability of evolutionary computation to produce effective methods utilizing movement strategies to intelligently exploit spatially-distributed resources, our results show that such strategies do emerge and that in about 12% of shorter runs and in 80% of longer runs the final movement strategy used by the majority of the population at the end of the run is in the class of optimal response for our environment, that of gradient ascent.

What excuse will Gary come up with this time?

I ran across that paper before while searching the web for information on biological intelligence.  I honestly found it uninteresting and unconvincing due to problems which include: No testable operational definition for intelligence. No systematic method qualifying intelligence which may exist at any level, i.e. multicellular, cellular, molecular, etc. No schematics showing biologically plausible circuits that are supposedly being “evolved”. Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.  It’s also not useful for explaining how intelligent causation works, therefore showing one paper like this does not impress me.

But seeing you brought up the topic, here are some of my biology related favorites which I did like enough to save the links to, so that you can see what I do like to study. And it starts off with the link to the Parkinson Lab Overview of Chemotaxis page that was down (which led to even more accusations of dishonesty) but it's now back online!

http://chemotaxis.biology.utah.edu/Parkins....is.html
http://www.pnas.org/content....emental
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online.....16.html
http://www.pnas.org/content....63.full
http://www.pnas.org/content....t....11
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2691949
http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0040138
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....ull.pdf
http://www.ini.ethz.ch/~conrad....imp.PDF
http://www.ini.ethz.ch/~conrad....imp.PDF
http://biomimetic.pbworks.com/f....so....son.pdf
http://www.frontiersin.org/neural_........ull
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....ull.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2151524
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online.....e....n1
http://ec.europa.eu/informa....e_2.pdf
http://www.insectscience.org/10.58......-58.pdf
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article....1000879
http://www.eyedesignbook.com/index.h....ex.html
http://www.hpc.unm.edu/~karen.....326.pdf
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....96.full
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....57.long
http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content....11.full
http://www.cell.com/neuron.....0010731
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662....825a6e6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2677239
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2571118
http://www.jneurosci.org/content....df+html
http://www.mindcreators.com/2DInsec....tor.htm
http://www.mindcreators.com/2DInsec....tor.htm
http://www.izhikevich.org/publica....els.pdf
http://www.wessnitzer.net/academi....int.pdf
http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers.....ple.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content....95.full
http://www.pnas.org/content....35.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....6600853
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.......ina.pdf
http://www.cis.rit.edu/people.....p1.html
http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/article....=413723
http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personn....nn....m
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki.......ception
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin....Doc.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/bcs........-5.html
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....93.full
http://web.mit.edu/bcs........25.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2430089
http://www.journalofvision.org/content....nt....6
http://www.newscientist.com/article....dn15068
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites......6129892
http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0030396
http://www.world-science.net/exclusi....frm.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content....ull.pdf
http://jcb.rupress.org/content....df+html
http://jcs.biologists.org/content....65.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1562375
http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2293.......sis.pdf
http://jb.asm.org/content....56.full
http://www.pnas.org/content....89.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC94809
http://www.plosbiology.org/article....entner1
http://regulondb.ccg.unam.mx/index.j....dex.jsp
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article....35.g001
http://www.cellmigration.org/science....x.shtml
http://www.extension.org/pages......odgrass
http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/staff......1_3.pdf
http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/menzel.....CNc.pdf
http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb17.......homberg
http://ndeaa.jpl.nasa.gov/ndeaa-p....-99.pdf
http://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2010.......ligence
http://www.neurobiologie.fu-berlin.de/beebrai....lt.html
http://www.biolchem.ucla.edu/labs.......sc.html
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~msl.......nce.pdf
http://www.frontiersin.org/systems........ull

--------------
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: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2012,23:43   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 09 2012,20:16)
Gary, in your "theory" you say:

"Cellular (and molecular intelligence) can include “plasmid exchange” memories which is a very useful form of communication between members of a bacterial colony where all share tiny circular loops of genetic information, mostly only share with its own kind.  When one finds a useful solution to a given environmental situation all others around soon know it ahead of time."  (my emphasis)

That wording doesn't make sense to me, and what do you mean by "ahead of time"? Ahead of time for what? Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it looks like you're saying that the "solution" is known by the entire colony before the "solution" is shared with the entire colony.





.

And example of that are plasmids found locally in one area but not others which allow digestion of nylon, detoxification of toxins/pesticides (where in the gut of insects the insect become resistant to pesticides used by the farmer in his particular field) such that bacteria (or other organism that carries them) are all set to join the others in feasting on what would otherwise not be edible or would make them sick, without first having acquired the plasmid upon their arrival there.

I'll see what I can do to improve that part.  I agree it could use some elaboration.

--------------
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: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2012,00:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,23:12)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 09 2012,20:10)
                 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,08:46)
[...] But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. [...]

Wow, Gary tells yet another whopper. I guess Gary didn't actually read my paper that I gave him the link to a while back.

Published article on evolving effective strategies for movement
             
Quote
Abstract— Even the simplest of organisms may exhibit low-level intelligent behaviors in their directed movements, such as in foraging. We used the Avida digital evolution research platform to explore the evolution of movement strategies in a model environment with a single local resource that diffuses to produce a gradient, which organisms have the ability to follow. Three common strategies that evolved, Cockroach, Drunkard, and Climber, exhibit how both environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors. The evolved programs are also suitable for use in controllers on robots.

               
Quote
Another characteristic of intelligence is the ability to generalize a strategy and use it in a new situation. An evolved Climber could successfully move to resource peaks set in new locations (see Figure 6).

           
Quote

V. CONCLUSIONS

In testing the capability of evolutionary computation to produce effective methods utilizing movement strategies to intelligently exploit spatially-distributed resources, our results show that such strategies do emerge and that in about 12% of shorter runs and in 80% of longer runs the final movement strategy used by the majority of the population at the end of the run is in the class of optimal response for our environment, that of gradient ascent.

What excuse will Gary come up with this time?

I ran across that paper before while searching the web for information on biological intelligence.  I honestly found it uninteresting and unconvincing due to problems which include: No testable operational definition for intelligence. No systematic method qualifying intelligence which may exist at any level, i.e. multicellular, cellular, molecular, etc. No schematics showing biologically plausible circuits that are supposedly being “evolved”. Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.  It’s also not useful for explaining how intelligent causation works, therefore showing one paper like this does not impress me.

[...]


That's pretty brazen, Gary. You now say that you had full knowledge of my paper, and yet you still claimed things that are false to fact.

Your original statement:

     
Quote

[...] their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to.


You might not like my work, but it does directly address the topic that you claim it did not.

And the "even have to" is quite egregiously false to fact.

Now you claim new false things.

Gary:

     
Quote

No testable operational definition for intelligence.


Paper:

     
Quote

If intelligence is taken to be the increased frequency of emission of adaptive behavior under novel stimuli, as is seen in studies of animal behavior, Cockroach either does not qualify as such, since all stimuli yield the same behavior, or may be seen as a small relative improvement on a random walk, since it does exploit the conditions implicit in a bounded grid for movement.


Not only did I provide a commonly-used testable operational definition, I evaluated evolved strategies against it. Refer above to the quote about testing Climber Avidians in novel environments in addition to the quote just previous.

Gary:

   
Quote

Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.


Yeah, Gary; show me where in my paper I say anything about an altruism circuit. Go ahead, I can wait. And will wait forever, since your claim is, once again, a false one.

As for "rehash", it is certainly possible that I missed a citation that I should have found. Please substantiate your claim by providing the full bibliographic references of  uncited and earlier evolutionary computation papers whose topic is the evolution of effective methods for movement of an agent relative to a resource gradient. (You should pay attention to authors in the "et al.", since I'm part of "et al." in the Grabowski et al. 2008 paper.)

I'm sure that there's some common word that describes someone who over and over prefers to tell falsehoods rather than truth.

As for various other points, my paper wasn't aimed at doing whatever it is that you think that you are doing. I think I was pretty clear about the aim of the paper:

 
Quote

Our interest requires a more open-ended approach than is often used in studies of computational intelligence. In most cases, there is a specific function of interest to be accomplished, and the means or process by which that function is acquired is of less interest than the fact of either solving, or approximately solving, it. Instead, in looking at the evolution of intelligent behavior, our primary interest is in finding out by what means less capable agents give rise to those able to appropriately exploit prevailing conditions.


It is still a paper whose topic is intelligent foraging, where the digital organisms "had to" forage in order to gain relative advantage over other digital organisms, contrary to your false claim.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 10 2012,00:41

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2012,06:10   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)

That's pretty brazen, Gary. You now say that you had full knowledge of my paper, and yet you still claimed things that are false to fact.


My work requires far more than "movement strategies" and artificially "evolved programs".

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)
Your original statement:
Quote
[...] their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to.

You might not like my work, but it does directly address the topic that you claim it did not.

And the "even have to" is quite egregiously false to fact.

Now you claim new false things.

Gary:
Quote
No testable operational definition for intelligence.

Paper:
Quote
If intelligence is taken to be the increased frequency of emission of adaptive behavior under novel stimuli, as is seen in studies of animal behavior, Cockroach either does not qualify as such, since all stimuli yield the same behavior, or may be seen as a small relative improvement on a random walk, since it does exploit the conditions implicit in a bounded grid for movement.

Not only did I provide a commonly-used testable operational definition, I evaluated evolved strategies against it. Refer above to the quote about testing Climber Avidians in novel environments in addition to the quote just previous.


Wikipedia has a list of some of the common definitions:

Quote

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

The definition of intelligence is controversial. Groups of scientists have stated the following:

from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]

from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:
Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]

Alfred Binet: Judgment, otherwise called "good sense," "practical sense," "initiative," the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.[8]

David Wechsler: The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.[9]

Lloyd Humphreys: "...the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills."[10]

Cyril Burt: Innate general cognitive ability[11]

Howard Gardner: To my mind, a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving — enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to create an effective product — and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems — and thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.[12]

Linda Gottfredson: The ability to deal with cognitive complexity.[13]

Sternberg & Salter: Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[14]

Reuven Feuerstein: The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[15]


The operational definition you gave is another fuzzy definition with no systematic way to reliably qualify a system as being intelligent or not. It might be good enough for your peers and for a science paper but the theory I have been working on needs to be absolutely precise, with no generalizations or uncertainty that in your case could not even definitively conclude whether a cockroach is intelligent or not.

What I did find very useful in regards to cockroach intelligence is in this excellent video that demonstrated what I was studying in science papers:

John Bender and Roy Ritzmann - Central Control of Insect Locomotion

The circuit schematic in the Intelligence Design Lab (see earlier reply) uses the same Left/Right and Forward/Reverse system that is described in the video.

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)

Gary:
Quote
Rehash of similar EA work I have seen before that makes assumptions which might not be true, such as altruism requiring special circuit/circuitry.


Yeah, Gary; show me where in my paper I say anything about an altruism circuit. Go ahead, I can wait. And will wait forever, since your claim is, once again, a false one.

As for "rehash", it is certainly possible that I missed a citation that I should have found. Please substantiate your claim by providing the full bibliographic references of  uncited and earlier evolutionary computation papers whose topic is the evolution of effective methods for movement of an agent relative to a resource gradient. (You should pay attention to authors in the "et al.", since I'm part of "et al." in the Grabowski et al. 2008 paper.)

I'm sure that there's some common word that describes someone who over and over prefers to tell falsehoods rather than truth.


You sure do like to condemn.  But whatever, here is a paper on "Evolution of Altruism" that was a big sensation to others in the ID controversy but when I saw a special "Share token" circuit I quickly lost interest even though it was still a little bit interesting from a robotics standpoint:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article....15.g001

From what I saw in a forum (not sure which one(s)) where the paper was applauded, none questioned whether it was truly representative of biology or anything even evolved. It looked to me like a circuit that was specially designed to artificially develop an analogy to altruism (therefore it did) but is not the real thing. All that the promoters of the Darwinian paradigm needed to see were the keywords "Evolution of Altruism" and of course they were all excited by the paper.

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2012,00:29)
As for various other points, my paper wasn't aimed at doing whatever it is that you think that you are doing. I think I was pretty clear about the aim of the paper:
Quote

Our interest requires a more open-ended approach than is often used in studies of computational intelligence. In most cases, there is a specific function of interest to be accomplished, and the means or process by which that function is acquired is of less interest than the fact of either solving, or approximately solving, it. Instead, in looking at the evolution of intelligent behavior, our primary interest is in finding out by what means less capable agents give rise to those able to appropriately exploit prevailing conditions.

It is still a paper whose topic is intelligent foraging, where the digital organisms "had to" forage in order to gain relative advantage over other digital organisms, contrary to your false claim.

Where are the critters with a mouth, antennae, eyes, etc. and their circuit diagrams which show confidence levels needed to gauge their overall state of mind and success while foraging?

It's all that was not included which made it another EA paper that likely does not very well represent the reality of how living things work or "evolved". You say they are are intelligently foraging but the paper does not even show them foraging for anything, and all else I need to see for it to be credible. Graphs are here unacceptable. And for origin of life research, I have no idea how you would be able to step-wise go from a particle system that models atoms/matter to an intelligent living thing with artificially "evolved programs".  But at least your paper has excellent grammar.

--------------
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. 10 2012,07:01   

Quote
But at least your paper has excellent grammar.  


And is, er, published.

Unlike your work.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. 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 don’t care about source code and such) through this, and so on..

All in all, I’m 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. So as with my little low-powered W I Don’t Know radio station that helped make big things happen I’ll just keep transmitting on the WWW until something really-big comes to me, that makes it worth my while to take what I now have to the next level. From all the comments from the young on YouTube about music/culture having become boring and they wish they were back in time, my taking this newest (after Grunge) Seattle based culture-war up a few more notches might be just what the artists need to bring back the good clean fun of the last culture-war I was stuck in the middle of, that I now miss the best of. So hopefully none here mind the mayhem, too much, or literally go crazy from it!

--------------
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: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2012,11:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 09 2012,05:07)
If I were you then I would be focusing on the scientific problems that this Theory of Intelligent Design presents to your camp.

What problems would those be?

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

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

   
  11834 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (395) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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