GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 18 2014,20:12) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 18 2014,16:27) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 18 2014,10:51) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 18 2014,10:00) | | Quote (Nomad @ April 18 2014,02:33) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 17 2014,23:16) | | I'm best to just leave the other GA related issues at what Joe G said: "Genetic and evolutionary algorithms model Intelligent Design Evolution." |
Wait. I just noticed this.
So you say that the primary weakness of GAs is that they don't model intelligence.
But they model intelligent design anyway?
If your words mean anything (and that's certainly open to debate), you appear to be saying that intelligent design doesn't require intelligence. |
This is like a child arguing that their Tonka Truck toys actually do build roads, scolding the construction industry for not having them finished in five minutes like they can in their sandbox. |
The projector is running. |
Wesley, would you care to explain how the Avida model qualifies and quantifies intelligence?
I already showed what a cognitive scientist would use and I also use:
Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf
David Heiserman described the same circuit.
The IDLab environment detects/qualifies and quantifies generated intelligence. It's a very rigorous process. But from that comes a better understanding how memory systems other than neural brains can qualify as being intelligent.
I started with what is scientifically needed to reliably qualify intelligence and intelligent causation events. You? |
That wasn't the point. Look up-thread, where people were noting that evolutionary computation is being used to accomplish actual work in the real world, and your stuff isn't. You instead talk about philosophy, digressing away from that point. Then you deploy the "Tonka-sandbox" thing, completely inverting the very point you were digressing away from. I'm not alluding to the digression.
Therefore, your projector is running.
Further points: you don't use Trehub in your code. You endlessly post his block diagram, but you absolutely exclude anything that actually implements a Trehub model. We established this definitively last year. If you've changed that since then, just go ahead and specify the software download, file, and line numbers where you now implement comb filters and other signs of a Trehub implementation. Did Heiserman describe the "same" block diagram? Let's have the citation and page number where that happens, and I will check. And, of course, you can only blather about my work because you've never shown any inclination to understand it. |
Or in other words: You started with a conclusion based upon models that have no way to even qualify and quantify intelligence, because an algorithm for trying something millions of ways in search of an efficient design can “accomplish actual work in the real world”.
We can even make one that will guess how to bend an antenna wire in search of a way to get it to work better. But no matter how much you hype your mathematical oversimplification it's still not a model of conscious intelligent living things like autonomous humans who can do the same to a wire antenna using their conscious brain and body made of autonomous cells with their own autonomous complex memory systems that have been around since our planet Earth formed a crust. If science were truly on your side then you would need to fault someone who is honest about what your models leave out for detail.
In science something either exists (in which case scientific theory can be written to explain how it works) or something does not exist (in which case no scientific theory is possible). Your method is based upon Naturalism philosophy that creates a false dichotomy where a supernatural realm can somehow both exist and not exist at the very same time. It's more illogical than you realize.
My not accepting your philosophical based conclusions is not an alternative philosophy, it's a scientific requirement that I take more seriously than you are used to.
Scolding my use of cognitive science models for investigating intelligence was another diversion away from your not having any intelligence related science at all to support your intelligence and intelligent cause related conclusions.
I don't need to model every single circuit Arnold Trehub ever drew (but over time came close to that anyway) just to follow the basics that are true for any cognitive model, as David Heiserman DESCRIBED in a book on electronic intelligence that came before Arnold Trehub's book that summed the human brain to the same circuit.
I asked a very serious question that obliges you to a very scientific answer. Being evasive against another model that you have a vested interest to misrepresent was not scientific evidence to support YOUR model and conclusions.
You were invited to blather about your own work and that does show inclination on my part to understand it but you only threw insults, again. Like you say: Your projector is running.
--------------
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.
|
