RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 391 392 393 394 395 [396] 397 398 399 400 401 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2014,16:23   

Humorously fascinating!

Quote
The evolution of caffeine in coffee started when the gene for an N-methyltransferase mutated, changing how the enzyme behaved. Later, the plants accidentally duplicated the mutated gene, creating new copies. Those copies then mutated into still other forms.

“They’re all descendants of a common ancestor enzyme that started screwing around with xanthosine compounds,”
said Victor A. Albert, an evolutionary biologist at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the new study.

Scientists had already determined that caffeine was also made in other plants, like tea and cacao, by N-methyltransferases. But by sequencing the coffee genome, Dr. Albert and his colleagues were able to make a more detailed comparison of the genes in different species. They discovered that in cacao, the enzymes manufacturing caffeine did not evolve from the same ancestors as those in coffee.

In other words, the coffee plant and cacao plant took different evolutionary paths to reach the same destination. Evolutionary biologists call this sort of process convergent evolution.

........

Coffee plants also use caffeine to ward off insects that would otherwise feast on their leaves and beans. At high doses, caffeine can be toxic to insects. As a result, insects have evolved taste receptors that help them avoid ingesting caffeine.

But coffee and a number of other plants also lace their nectar with low doses of caffeine, and in that form, it seems to benefit the plants in a different way.

Plants make nectar to feed insects and other animals so they’ll spread their pollen. When insects feed on caffeine-spiked nectar, they get a beneficial buzz: they become much more likely to remember the scent of the flower. This enhanced memory may make it more likely that the insect will revisit the flower and spread its pollen further.

How Caffeine Evolved to Help Plants Survive and Help People Wake Up

Now I need another coffee!

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2014,16:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2014,16:23)
Humorously fascinating!

Quote
The evolution of caffeine in coffee started when the gene for an N-methyltransferase mutated, changing how the enzyme behaved. Later, the plants accidentally duplicated the mutated gene, creating new copies. Those copies then mutated into still other forms.

“They’re all descendants of a common ancestor enzyme that started screwing around with xanthosine compounds,”
said Victor A. Albert, an evolutionary biologist at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the new study.

Scientists had already determined that caffeine was also made in other plants, like tea and cacao, by N-methyltransferases. But by sequencing the coffee genome, Dr. Albert and his colleagues were able to make a more detailed comparison of the genes in different species. They discovered that in cacao, the enzymes manufacturing caffeine did not evolve from the same ancestors as those in coffee.

In other words, the coffee plant and cacao plant took different evolutionary paths to reach the same destination. Evolutionary biologists call this sort of process convergent evolution.

........

Coffee plants also use caffeine to ward off insects that would otherwise feast on their leaves and beans. At high doses, caffeine can be toxic to insects. As a result, insects have evolved taste receptors that help them avoid ingesting caffeine.

But coffee and a number of other plants also lace their nectar with low doses of caffeine, and in that form, it seems to benefit the plants in a different way.

Plants make nectar to feed insects and other animals so they’ll spread their pollen. When insects feed on caffeine-spiked nectar, they get a beneficial buzz: they become much more likely to remember the scent of the flower. This enhanced memory may make it more likely that the insect will revisit the flower and spread its pollen further.

How Caffeine Evolved to Help Plants Survive and Help People Wake Up

Now I need another coffee!

Aren't you going to claim your video game predicted all this?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2014,17:17   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 04 2014,16:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2014,16:23)
Humorously fascinating!

 
Quote
The evolution of caffeine in coffee started when the gene for an N-methyltransferase mutated, changing how the enzyme behaved. Later, the plants accidentally duplicated the mutated gene, creating new copies. Those copies then mutated into still other forms.

“They’re all descendants of a common ancestor enzyme that started screwing around with xanthosine compounds,”
said Victor A. Albert, an evolutionary biologist at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the new study.

Scientists had already determined that caffeine was also made in other plants, like tea and cacao, by N-methyltransferases. But by sequencing the coffee genome, Dr. Albert and his colleagues were able to make a more detailed comparison of the genes in different species. They discovered that in cacao, the enzymes manufacturing caffeine did not evolve from the same ancestors as those in coffee.

In other words, the coffee plant and cacao plant took different evolutionary paths to reach the same destination. Evolutionary biologists call this sort of process convergent evolution.

........

Coffee plants also use caffeine to ward off insects that would otherwise feast on their leaves and beans. At high doses, caffeine can be toxic to insects. As a result, insects have evolved taste receptors that help them avoid ingesting caffeine.

But coffee and a number of other plants also lace their nectar with low doses of caffeine, and in that form, it seems to benefit the plants in a different way.

Plants make nectar to feed insects and other animals so they’ll spread their pollen. When insects feed on caffeine-spiked nectar, they get a beneficial buzz: they become much more likely to remember the scent of the flower. This enhanced memory may make it more likely that the insect will revisit the flower and spread its pollen further.

How Caffeine Evolved to Help Plants Survive and Help People Wake Up

Now I need another coffee!

Aren't you going to claim your video game predicted all this?

The cognitive model does in fact predict such things as descendants of a common ancestor enzyme that started screwing around with xanthosine compounds.

Thanks for pointing that out.

--------------
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: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2014,18:15   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 04 2014,12:02)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2014,01:31)
as stated by Buddy (et al.) in the PBS Dinosaur Train series

that's fantastic.

Scorpions - Wind Of Change

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2014,19:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2014,17:17)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 04 2014,16:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2014,16:23)
Humorously fascinating!

 
Quote
The evolution of caffeine in coffee started when the gene for an N-methyltransferase mutated, changing how the enzyme behaved. Later, the plants accidentally duplicated the mutated gene, creating new copies. Those copies then mutated into still other forms.

“They’re all descendants of a common ancestor enzyme that started screwing around with xanthosine compounds,”
said Victor A. Albert, an evolutionary biologist at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the new study.

Scientists had already determined that caffeine was also made in other plants, like tea and cacao, by N-methyltransferases. But by sequencing the coffee genome, Dr. Albert and his colleagues were able to make a more detailed comparison of the genes in different species. They discovered that in cacao, the enzymes manufacturing caffeine did not evolve from the same ancestors as those in coffee.

In other words, the coffee plant and cacao plant took different evolutionary paths to reach the same destination. Evolutionary biologists call this sort of process convergent evolution.

........

Coffee plants also use caffeine to ward off insects that would otherwise feast on their leaves and beans. At high doses, caffeine can be toxic to insects. As a result, insects have evolved taste receptors that help them avoid ingesting caffeine.

But coffee and a number of other plants also lace their nectar with low doses of caffeine, and in that form, it seems to benefit the plants in a different way.

Plants make nectar to feed insects and other animals so they’ll spread their pollen. When insects feed on caffeine-spiked nectar, they get a beneficial buzz: they become much more likely to remember the scent of the flower. This enhanced memory may make it more likely that the insect will revisit the flower and spread its pollen further.

How Caffeine Evolved to Help Plants Survive and Help People Wake Up

Now I need another coffee!

Aren't you going to claim your video game predicted all this?

The cognitive model does in fact predict such things as descendants of a common ancestor enzyme that started screwing around with xanthosine compounds.

Thanks for pointing that out.

No, it doesn't.  Show where and explain the logic of the prediction.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2014,19:25   

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

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2014,22:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2014,19:25)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_error

If that was supposed to be an answer to my challenge, it's not.

I note that the source correctly says,
Quote
Biological evolution can be considered as a form of trial and error. Random mutations and sexual genetic variations can be viewed as trials and poor reproductive fitness, or lack of improved fitness, as the error. Thus after a long time 'knowledge' of well-adapted genomes accumulates simply by virtue of them being able to reproduce.


That is not the same as "making a guess" or "learning from a guess", and it does not require anything that anyone other than you considers fall within the province of either "intelligence" or "design".  The use of 'knowledge' is metaphorical and is put in scare quotes, and would be better replaced by "information", because it is perfectly correct to say that information accrues in the genome.  However, information is not intelligence.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2014,22:41   

I have a model that is doing just fine explaining how intelligence and intelligent cause works. I am in no need at all in cherry picked definitions that can do neither.

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,06:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2014,22:41)
I have a model that is doing just fine explaining how intelligence and intelligent cause works. I am in no need at all in cherry picked definitions that can do neither.

That's not true.   You rely on vague and nonstandard usages that you utilize to smuggle in your desired conclusions.  You have not provided operational definitions for key things like molecular intelligence, and you have not demonstrated that such things exist and can accomplish the things that you claim.  In what way is having stuff happen to you making a guess?  You have not demonstrated that your model has any relevance to reality.  This makes your work nothing but a huge reeking pile of hollow assertions wrapped up in "science-y" jargon and really bad (essentially incoherent) writing.  Your model fails to explain how intelligence works, and it doesn't begin to address intelligent cause beyond asserting that it exists at almost every level.  You don't have to follow standard definitions, but if you don't, you do have to provide operational definitions and justify your new usages.  How much intelligence is in an amoeba and a mushroom, in what units, and how do I measure that?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,06:46   

I have to work to earn a living. I don't have time to answer the same things all over again.

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,07:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2014,23:41)
I have a model that is doing just fine explaining how intelligence and intelligent cause works. I am in no need at all in cherry picked definitions that can do neither.

Demonstrably false.
The demonstration being, of course, the past 395 pages of this thread.
Notably absent is any explanation by you of any phenomenon generally considered intelligent.
On the other hand, conspicuously present are quite a few phenomena generally considered to be intelligent that have been shown to be literally impossible to explain with your "theory" or your 'model'.

Give it up, Gary.  Your 'model' doesn't work, your "theory" isn't a theory, you have no explanations.
No explanations at all.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,07:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 05 2014,06:46)
I have to work to earn a living. I don't have time to answer the same things all over again.

Says the guy who's made nearly five posts a day here for two years, and who keeps showing up on other sites, all the while never answering those questions.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,07:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 05 2014,07:46)
I have to work to earn a living. I don't have time to answer the same things all over again.

Obviously, you don't have time, or some other factor, to answer them even once.
You have no answer to the challenges that have been raised against your nonsense.  None.  You have never answered those challenges.  Demonstrate otherwise -- post links to previously given answers.  You won't because you can't, not because you "don't have time".
In fact, you have time to link to pointless youtube videos, generally of execrable music, you have time to post links to rehashes of your blithering gabble as posted on other discussion sites, you have time to output massive amounts of gibberish.
But when push comes to shove, suddenly you "don't have time" to answer the many serious critiques of your effluent.
Quelle surprise that once again you resort to dishonesty.
You're delusional and a fraud, Gary.  And you're not even very good at those.
The only thing at which you succeed is failure.  And you reek of it.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,09:31   



Posted for no particular reason.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,10:04   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 05 2014,14:46)
I have to work to earn a living. I don't have time to answer the same things all over again.

Considering that your worth is only visual pollution who appointed you an ID spokesman?
Oh you, right?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,10:11   

Quote
I don't have time to answer the same things all over again.


You haven't answered them once.

If you haven't been able to convince anyone of anything because you won't or can't answer all those sorts of questions, then any time spent on any of it is a pointless waste of time.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,13:37   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 05 2014,10:31)


Posted for no particular reason.

in fairness to Hoover and iRobot, those machines actually accomplish something, and do useful work, unlike Gary's worthless efforts.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2014,16:51   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 05 2014,13:37)
             
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 05 2014,10:31)



Posted for no particular reason.

in fairness to Hoover and iRobot, those machines actually accomplish something, and do useful work, unlike Gary's worthless efforts.




Neato                                                 GG
Leaves things cleaner                          Creates messes
Communicates regarding errors            Does not communicate regarding errors
Auto-docking feature                           No auto-docking feature
Intelligently designed                           Probably not intelligently designed
Learns from errors                              Does not learn from errors
Intelligent, according to Gary's criteria   Not measurably different from Neato, according to Gary's criteria
Not intelligent* (*standard usage)        Unclear (*standard usage)
Convenient size and shape                   Information not available
Great suction                                      Also sucks
Impressive                                          Does not make a positive impression
People will pay $$$ for it, want it           Not well paid & largely unappreciated
Not capable of writing decent prose       Not capable of writing decent prose


Conclusion: Overall win for the Neato

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2014,06:26   

It is not at all clear that Gary counts as intelligent under his own "theory".
It is questionable on the basis of his 'fundamental path' that holds an intelligence either gets a 'good enough' result or guesses a new approach.  Gary gives consistent evidence that he does not consider the results of his posting history here or elsewhere satisfactory.  Yet he fails to come up with a new approach -- we're still seeing the same tropes, and the same errors, and, especially, the same basic approach, as was used initially, 5 or more years ago.
So, is Gary 'intelligent' on the basis of his own "theory"?  It seems not.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2014,08:12   

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 06 2014,06:26)
It is not at all clear that Gary counts as intelligent under his own "theory".
It is questionable on the basis of his 'fundamental path' that holds an intelligence either gets a 'good enough' result or guesses a new approach.  Gary gives consistent evidence that he does not consider the results of his posting history here or elsewhere satisfactory.  Yet he fails to come up with a new approach -- we're still seeing the same tropes, and the same errors, and, especially, the same basic approach, as was used initially, 5 or more years ago.
So, is Gary 'intelligent' on the basis of his own "theory"?  It seems not.

By his not-a-theory, he has the same "molecular intelligence" and "cellular intelligence" as an amoeba, plus whatever  "multicellular intelligence" is implied in getting to the level of a rutabaga or a mushroom.  Beyond that he cannot say, given that he provides no units for intelligence and no operational definitions that explain how to measure it.  

Given that's he's got about five basic responses (randomly spin off a music video, squirt out a cloud of word salad, post his diagram, whine, switch from model to not-a-theory depending on whichever is not under attack), he's about four responses ahead of a mushroom.  Given his love of fearlessly making assertions based on things that seem to him like they ought to be correct but which aren't, his working approximation of reality is worse than his bug's.  For example, over on the NCSE blog, at http://ncse.com/blog.......0015843
   
Quote
The observation that water becomes denser as it cools leads to the hypothesis ........ even though liquid water did become denser as it cools.  In this case hydrogen bonding needs to be explained or there is a contradiction that makes no sense at all.


Yes, water becomes denser as temperature drops anywhere in the range of 100 to just below 4 degrees C, but it becomes progressively less dense as the temperature drops from just below 4 degrees C to 0 C, because at those cool temperatures the water molecules no longer have enough energy to randomize themselves, so intermolecular forces ("hydrogen bonding") begin to dominate and start to orient the water molecules into a slightly more expanded than usual arrangement that get locked into place when the water freezes into ice.  If you start with the correct facts about how the density of water changes with temperature and the nature of the water molecule, then you aren't surprised by floating ice.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2014,21:38   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 10 2014,20:39)
Iz fix.  Happy.

Pharrell Williams - Happy (Official Music Video)

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,06:59   

Bad enough that Gary continues to plumb new depths of pointlessness.  Now he's going for stuff that's not even new.

Oh, wait.  That pretty much describes everything he's up to, including most of his errors.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,17:23   

Quote
Google has open sourced a tool for inferring cause from correlations

According to blog post author Kay H. Brodersen, Google uses the tool — created it, in fact — primarily for quantifying the effectiveness of AdWords campaigns. However, he noted, the same method could be used to gauge everything from whether adding a new feature caused an increase in app downloads to questions involving events in medical, social or political science.
.......

The differences between causation and correlation — and the importance of not conflating the two just because you’re now dealing with big data — has been explained ad nauseam. And although all of those concerns hold true, especially if we’re using data to solve a problem or to inform policy strategies that could have meaningful negative effects on individuals, this type of tool is still potentially very useful. Strong causal inference could serve as a jumping-off point for a deeper study of cause and effect, and for applications such as advertising, marketing or site/app design it might be good enough.

https://gigaom.com/2014.......lations

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,20:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 11 2014,17:23)
Quote
Google has open sourced a tool for inferring cause from correlations

According to blog post author Kay H. Brodersen, Google uses the tool — created it, in fact — primarily for quantifying the effectiveness of AdWords campaigns. However, he noted, the same method could be used to gauge everything from whether adding a new feature caused an increase in app downloads to questions involving events in medical, social or political science.
.......

The differences between causation and correlation — and the importance of not conflating the two just because you’re now dealing with big data — has been explained ad nauseam. And although all of those concerns hold true, especially if we’re using data to solve a problem or to inform policy strategies that could have meaningful negative effects on individuals, this type of tool is still potentially very useful. Strong causal inference could serve as a jumping-off point for a deeper study of cause and effect, and for applications such as advertising, marketing or site/app design it might be good enough.

https://gigaom.com/2014.......lations

Great, now we can tell if stupidity is the cause of Gary's nonsense or just correlated with it.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2014,23:54   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 11 2014,20:32)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 11 2014,17:23)
 
Quote
Google has open sourced a tool for inferring cause from correlations

According to blog post author Kay H. Brodersen, Google uses the tool — created it, in fact — primarily for quantifying the effectiveness of AdWords campaigns. However, he noted, the same method could be used to gauge everything from whether adding a new feature caused an increase in app downloads to questions involving events in medical, social or political science.
.......

The differences between causation and correlation — and the importance of not conflating the two just because you’re now dealing with big data — has been explained ad nauseam. And although all of those concerns hold true, especially if we’re using data to solve a problem or to inform policy strategies that could have meaningful negative effects on individuals, this type of tool is still potentially very useful. Strong causal inference could serve as a jumping-off point for a deeper study of cause and effect, and for applications such as advertising, marketing or site/app design it might be good enough.

https://gigaom.com/2014.......lations

Great, now we can tell if stupidity is the cause of Gary's nonsense or just correlated with it.

Start here:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......0486159

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,07:15   

Cause and effect are always and inevitably correlated.
Not all correlated items are in cause/effect relationships.

It seems safe to assume that the entirety of Gary's output is caused by his stupidity.  However, there are co-causal factors at work, not least his arrogance and his jealousy of those with demonstrably greater knowledge and/or capability than he possesses.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,08:38   

Quote (NoName @ Sep. 12 2014,05:15)
jealousy of those with demonstrably greater knowledge and/or capability than he possesses.

Our cat, for example.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2014,16:23   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 12 2014,09:38)
Quote (NoName @ Sep. 12 2014,05:15)
jealousy of those with demonstrably greater knowledge and/or capability than he possesses.

Our cat, for example.

Or lawn grass.
Or African Violets.
Or air.

Practically anything can clear that particular hurdle.  Only Gary is stuck immobile, mired in his own delusions and errors.
And proud if it, by designer!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2014,07:27   



Now there's a nice diagram of complicated biological circuits.

From http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....opilots
which also says,
 
Quote
One of those pernicious misconceptions about biology is that “you” — the conscious, aware, self-reflective part of your being that thinks and plans and takes in sensory information and initiates voluntary movements — is the whole of your being. It isn’t. It’s a small fraction of the activity of your nervous system. It’s a layer on top of a whole hierarchy of control that works away without “you” thinking about it. There is this whole parallel chain of distributed ganglia in the autonomic and enteric nervous system that are pretty much autonomous — they don’t take orders from your conscious brain, and they don’t report back directly to “you”, they just do their job. It’s hot, you don’t have to instruct your sweat glands to start secreting. Also, you’re nervous — likewise, your sweat glands are getting autonomic orders to get to work.

You don’t have to think about peristaltic rippling of your colon when you use the bathroom; those smooth muscles are coordinated by ganglia outside of your brain. You don’t send explicit commands to your irises to dilate when the room lights dim — there are circuits in your peripheral nervous system that just do it.

This is a system that processes information, but that does not make it intelligent.  Thermostats and motion sensors also process information without being intelligent. Intelligence happens at a level above all that stuff. Gary is lost in confusion concerning metaphors.

Also of interest: http://www.gq.com/news-po....age=all

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2014,15:28   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 13 2014,07:27)


Now there's a nice diagram of complicated biological circuits.

From http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....opilots
which also says,
     
Quote
One of those pernicious misconceptions about biology is that “you” — the conscious, aware, self-reflective part of your being that thinks and plans and takes in sensory information and initiates voluntary movements — is the whole of your being. It isn’t. It’s a small fraction of the activity of your nervous system. It’s a layer on top of a whole hierarchy of control that works away without “you” thinking about it. There is this whole parallel chain of distributed ganglia in the autonomic and enteric nervous system that are pretty much autonomous — they don’t take orders from your conscious brain, and they don’t report back directly to “you”, they just do their job. It’s hot, you don’t have to instruct your sweat glands to start secreting. Also, you’re nervous — likewise, your sweat glands are getting autonomic orders to get to work.

You don’t have to think about peristaltic rippling of your colon when you use the bathroom; those smooth muscles are coordinated by ganglia outside of your brain. You don’t send explicit commands to your irises to dilate when the room lights dim — there are circuits in your peripheral nervous system that just do it.

This is a system that processes information, but that does not make it intelligent.  Thermostats and motion sensors also process information without being intelligent. Intelligence happens at a level above all that stuff. Gary is lost in confusion concerning metaphors.

Thanks for the tip-off! The "You are a meat robot with a network of autopilots" article was very useful at the Sandwalk blarg, to help reel in all the fish of all sizes that attacked a spectacular multipronged Barry Arrington lure:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......6525968

The Marina and the Diamonds video worked great as a heavy duty electric winch that reels in anything. It might even be using the same egg power source that has Chester's Mill under the dome, but since Stephen King is good at everyone guessing it's hard to say for sure, what that mystery is all about.

Quote
Also of interest: http://www.gq.com/news-po....age=all

Yes, I think I soon need to bump an AI thread I created, for keeping up with that issue.

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

   
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 391 392 393 394 395 [396] 397 398 399 400 401 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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