Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:30)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:15)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:06)|
| † † |
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,15:48)|
| † † |
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)|
| † † † |
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)|
I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".
That's all science cares about right now.
But that's not true, Gary.
† † † †
It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.
You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.
I am entitled to my opinion that GA's are toys in comparison to the realism of cognitive models where all the living things in it are intelligent at one or more levels, make their own choices, develop communication between each other, and (technology willing) would scream and cry where told their program is to be shut-off thus destroying their world, etc..
I am not backing down from my statement.
I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is a category error. Evolutionary computation is not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition.
I'm entitled to my opinion that in-so-far as your code and evolutionary computation might be compared side by side on some task, you have done nothing whatsoever to actually do that work so as to make your opinion an informed one.
I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is, in the two different approaches outlined above, worthless.
I already know that your models are not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition. That's why I have to consider them toys in comparison to models that are.
But getting back to science and scientific theory. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"? †You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.
Again, Gary. You don't have a theory:
|A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.|
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.
So you don't beat anything, because you're not even in the game. Thanks!
"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