|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,18:44)|
|Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 23 2012,10:38)|
|Quote (damitall @ Nov. 23 2012,18:11)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,09:26)|
|Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 23 2012,08:25)|
|keep googling troll|
I was refreshing my memory. Still did not run across the list of papers pertaining to molecular intelligence, but found this one:
Solving Traveling Salesman Problems Using Molecular Programming
Note: Solving a Traveling Salesman Problem is a "programming" challenge, not an indicator of "intelligence".
What, you mean like making virtual critters move towards targets on a monitor screen?
He's the classic fundy marksman.
Shoots at a barn wall then goes over and draws a bullseye on the hole.
That paper has nothing to do with 'molecular' intelligence or much to do with the TSP.
They are using a GA for small scale analysis of hydrogen bonds in DNA because the TSP looks a bit like the math involved in the bonds.
Something I'm pretty sure Gary doesn't understand.
Gary please explain how the TSP relates to hydrogen bonds.
I was speaking in reference to this argument that began on page 11 where the traveling salesman problem was presented as a good indicator of which model is a more accurate representation of reality (where living things each have their own intelligence):
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,02:22)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,02:05)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)|
It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.
To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.
Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?
Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?
Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.
Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.
It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.
I have been claiming that it is a better model of reality where living things (from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence) have intelligence that make their own choices that over long periods of time can develop into new species.
You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)|
|Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.|
And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.
The paper is titled "Solving Traveling Salesman Problems Using Molecular Programming"
That isn't about *your* program. No amount of references to what other people have done will do anything to substantiate *your* claim about *your* program.
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker