RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 416 417 418 419 420 [421] 422 423 424 425 426 ... >   
  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: Dec. 19 2014,17:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 19 2014,16:48)
We've already established that Gary includes nothing of Trehub's neural systems in his "model" code, and Trehub's block diagram is not a model. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Trehub neural system implementation.

And we've already established that Gary's implementation of Heiserman stops short of the level (gamma) that Heiserman applied "good guess" to describe its operation. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Heiserman gamma robot implementation.

Gary has circled back around to the same bogus assertions he started with here. As I argued early on, citing competent people does not confer competence on the work in which they are cited. Gary is right back to trying to dishonestly claim that his work is made notable because of the work of others. The old line about reviews applies: it is good and original, except that what is original is not good, and what is good is not original.

And for the record I said exactly:
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,14:43)
In my opinion you came to this forum expecting to have fun playing hero by helping to mock and ridicule someone or something out of science. You did not expect something very well researched that even includes the best of UMass legend Arnold Trehub, who actually did have insight into how human (and other) intelligence works. I was lucky to have early-on found a copy at the Odyssey bookshop (across the street from Mount Holyoke College) when it was brand new to cognitive science. I must have spent a couple thousand hours modeling from it. David Heiserman based models that came before helped make sense of what is most important to know about how the Arnold Trehub model all together works.


--------------
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: Dec. 19 2014,17:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,18:25)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 19 2014,16:48)
We've already established that Gary includes nothing of Trehub's neural systems in his "model" code, and Trehub's block diagram is not a model. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Trehub neural system implementation.

And we've already established that Gary's implementation of Heiserman stops short of the level (gamma) that Heiserman applied "good guess" to describe its operation. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Heiserman gamma robot implementation.

Gary has circled back around to the same bogus assertions he started with here. As I argued early on, citing competent people does not confer competence on the work in which they are cited. Gary is right back to trying to dishonestly claim that his work is made notable because of the work of others. The old line about reviews applies: it is good and original, except that what is original is not good, and what is good is not original.

And for the record I said exactly:
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,14:43)
In my opinion you came to this forum expecting to have fun playing hero by helping to mock and ridicule someone or something out of science. You did not expect something very well researched that even includes the best of UMass legend Arnold Trehub, who actually did have insight into how human (and other) intelligence works. I was lucky to have early-on found a copy at the Odyssey bookshop (across the street from Mount Holyoke College) when it was brand new to cognitive science. I must have spent a couple thousand hours modeling from it. David Heiserman based models that came before helped make sense of what is most important to know about how the Arnold Trehub model all together works.

And for the record, you have been shown to be wrong regarding those claims.
You seem to have highlighted the wrong words.  You should have bolded 'includes', which is one of the many material falsehoods you have uttered.  Likewise 'helped make sense'.
And others you will doubtlessly fail to figure out by yourself.

You pathetic moron.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,17:41   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 19 2014,16:48)
We've already established that Gary includes nothing of Trehub's neural systems in his "model" code, and Trehub's block diagram is not a model. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Trehub neural system implementation.

And we've already established that Gary's implementation of Heiserman stops short of the level (gamma) that Heiserman applied "good guess" to describe its operation. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Heiserman gamma robot implementation.

Gary has circled back around to the same bogus assertions he started with here. As I argued early on, citing competent people does not confer competence on the work in which they are cited. Gary is right back to trying to dishonestly claim that his work is made notable because of the work of others. The old line about reviews applies: it is good and original, except that what is original is not good, and what is good is not original.

The two systems are systematically identical, Wesley.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,17:07)
From model and theory that is supposed to be under discussion:


From 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

Nice try, but throwing deceptive insults are not working for you either.

--------------
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: Dec. 19 2014,17:57   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,18:41)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 19 2014,16:48)
We've already established that Gary includes nothing of Trehub's neural systems in his "model" code, and Trehub's block diagram is not a model. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Trehub neural system implementation.

And we've already established that Gary's implementation of Heiserman stops short of the level (gamma) that Heiserman applied "good guess" to describe its operation. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Heiserman gamma robot implementation.

Gary has circled back around to the same bogus assertions he started with here. As I argued early on, citing competent people does not confer competence on the work in which they are cited. Gary is right back to trying to dishonestly claim that his work is made notable because of the work of others. The old line about reviews applies: it is good and original, except that what is original is not good, and what is good is not original.

The two systems are systematically identical, Wesley.
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,17:07)
From model and theory that is supposed to be under discussion:


From 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

Nice try, but throwing deceptive insults are not working for you either.

No.  They emphatically are not.
Go through them, in detail, and catalog the differences.  They are there, and without exception they invalidate the claimed 'systematic identity'.

BTW, don't think we've missed your attempts to ignore the other serious challenges raised against your nonsense.
Melodies, Gary.
Transposed melodies, Gary.
The meaning of 'molecular intelligence' -- is it just a pointer to the fact that all intelligence arises in systems comprised by molecules or are you claiming something above and beyond the laws of physics and chemistry?
How can a phenomenon simultaneously be emergent and self-similar with respect to the same "lower level" phenomena?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,18:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,01:41)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 19 2014,16:48)
We've already established that Gary includes nothing of Trehub's neural systems in his "model" code, and Trehub's block diagram is not a model. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Trehub neural system implementation.

And we've already established that Gary's implementation of Heiserman stops short of the level (gamma) that Heiserman applied "good guess" to describe its operation. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Heiserman gamma robot implementation.

Gary has circled back around to the same bogus assertions he started with here. As I argued early on, citing competent people does not confer competence on the work in which they are cited. Gary is right back to trying to dishonestly claim that his work is made notable because of the work of others. The old line about reviews applies: it is good and original, except that what is original is not good, and what is good is not original.

The two systems are systematically identical, Wesley.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,17:07)
From model and theory that is supposed to be under discussion:


From 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

Nice try, but throwing deceptive insults are not working for you either.

What is it about [program] file [by Mr Gaulin] and line number [in Gaulin's code] that you don't get Gary?

Repeated misstruths, obfuscation, avoidance and just plain bone headed lies on your part Gary in evidence on this blog are proof beyond any shadow of doubt of your inability to honesty engage in science.

Less than zero credibility on your part bordering on the pathological ensures you will never ever make the grade.

--------------
"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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,19:08   

And the only difference between the two illustrations (Arnold Trehub's and mine) is added detail to show the "Guess" part of the system explained by David Hesierman that automatically takes a guess when associated confidence level(s) reach a "Set Point". Arnold Trehub did not need to show that as a separate block for it to none the less also be represented in his illustration. It's only common sense anyway that a way to take guesses has to exist somewhere in a model of a human brain or it's not ever going to behave like a human.

--------------
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: Dec. 19 2014,19:12   

And sorry for the motor coordination typo Dave.

--------------
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: Dec. 19 2014,19:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,20:08)
And the only difference between the two illustrations (Arnold Trehub's and mine) is added detail to show the "Guess" part of the system explained by David Hesierman that automatically takes a guess when associated confidence level(s) reach a "Set Point". Arnold Trehub did not need to show that as a separate block for it to none the less also be represented in his illustration. It's only common sense anyway that a way to take guesses has to exist somewhere in a model of a human brain or it's not ever going to behave like a human.

Wrong.
Your ability to focus and identify details are astonishingly bad, even given what we've already seen from you.

As to your nonsense about 'guess' -- there are so many things wrong with your "it's only common sense" that I can't begin to enumerate them.
'Guess' is neither a single undifferentiated phenomenon with a unit set of attributes present in all occurrences nor is it an autonomous or quasi-autonomous function in any way analogous to a random dice-roll.
It is, however, the item you use to smuggle actual intelligence into your pastiche masquerading as a model.

You are in so far over your head you might as well not even have one.  Of course, given the use you make of it, it only serves to keep your ears apart.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,19:40   

Even if your nonsense about 'guess' were sensible and complete, neither of which it is, you would still be missing two core aspects of human intelligence.  Two functions without which your proposed "model" is "never going to behave like a human."

Those two are planning and imagination.

Interestingly enough, they both have a role to play in that spectrum of behaviors you call 'guessing.'
Even more interestingly, neither of them requires nor can be explained by guessing, nor the pale imitation you present in its stead.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,19:45   

[quote=GaryGaulin,Dec. 19 2014,19:08]
 
Quote
You did not expect something very well researched
ROTFLMAO.  So at least he wasn't disappointed.  (Your stuff is not well researched, Gary.)

 
Quote
And the only difference between the two illustrations (Arnold Trehub's and mine) is added detail to show the "Guess" part of the system explained by David Hesierman that automatically takes a guess when associated confidence level(s) reach a "Set Point". Arnold Trehub did not need to show that as a separate block for it to none the less also be represented in his illustration. It's only common sense anyway that a way to take guesses has to exist somewhere in a model of a human brain or it's not ever going to behave like a human.

Yes, humans can guess.  This is not news.  Now how does a molecule guess?

 
Quote
[from NoName] Those two are planning and imagination.
 Yes, as we have noted earlier, your model specifically excludes from "intelligence" such activities as planning one's future, evaluating one's life, composing a melody, recognizing a friend, and daydreaming over a lover's photo.  That makes your ideas ridiculous.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2014,19:59   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 19 2014,19:45)
Yes, as we have noted earlier, your model specifically excludes from "intelligence" such activities as planning one's future, evaluating one's life, composing a melody, recognizing a friend, and daydreaming over a lover's photo.  That makes your ideas ridiculous.


That is not a requirement for intelligence, it's an add-in circuit I covered with the Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation and all that goes along with it that you mentioned:





http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

or:

http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

--------------
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: Dec. 19 2014,20:20   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 19 2014,19:45)
Yes, humans can guess.  This is not news.  Now how does a molecule guess?

From text of theory:

Quote
Molecular Intelligence

Molecular intelligence (a living thing, life) is emergent from naturally occurring machine-like molecules which together build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities. This form of intelligence is sustained by a “replication cycle” that keeps it going through time. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm but (where physics willing) the system would still work as well by replicating itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence. If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could this way sustain itself nearly forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, has no way to efficiently forage for food, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry.

Chromosomal subsystems may be separately modeled. The flowchart becomes:



Since cells of multicellular organisms can reconfigure even eliminate parts of their genome in order to “differentiate” into many cell types only our germ cells (which produce egg/sperm) would be fully representative of the memory contents of a molecular intelligence system. With all of the memory cycles before the one that made us is included, our molecular intelligence is currently estimated to be over 3.4 billion years old.

REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL
......
......
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY
......
......
REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS
......
......
REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

Complex forms of molecular intelligence have sensory receptors on their surface membrane for different morphogenetic proteins (substance that evokes differentiation). Interaction of the protein with the receptor initiates a cascade of events that eventually turns on some genes and turns off others, aiding differentiation of the cell into brain, muscle and other unique cells. Successful actions to take in response to environmental conditions are recalled from its RNA/DNA memory. New memories can be formed as in the classic example of the origin of nylonase6 whereby a successful response to environmental chemistry conditions is the result of a good guess that leads to a new action to be taken.

At the molecular intelligence level, good guesses are taken using mechanisms such as crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission, duplications, deletions and transpositions (jumping genes) whereby a coded region of DNA data physically moves to another location to effectively change its address location. Information shared by conjugation may possibly include good guesses which are incorporated into its genome. Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell then responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, uncontrolled random change (random mutation) in DNA coding is normally damaging. These are caused by (among other things) x-rays and gamma rays, UV light, smoke and chemical agents. Molecular intelligence systems normally use error correction mechanisms to prevent “random chance” memory changes from occurring. To qualify as a random guess the molecular intelligence system must itself produce them. An exception is where random change/mutation is the only available guess mechanism, which may have been all that existed at the dawn of life, to produce the very first living/intelligent things.

Without some form of good-guess genetic recombination the learning rate of the system would be very low. Offspring would normally be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle often has crossover exchange where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. This is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled genetic scrambling which can easily be fatal.

Regardless of population size a molecular intelligence “gene pool” still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. A gene pool is the combined memory of a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". By using conjugation to share information, a colony of bacteria (or other cells) can be considered to be a single multicellular organism.


--------------
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: Dec. 19 2014,20:41   

Quote
   
Quote
(N.Wells @ Dec. 19 2014,19:45)
Yes, as we have noted earlier, your model specifically excludes from "intelligence" such activities as planning one's future, evaluating one's life, composing a melody, recognizing a friend, and daydreaming over a lover's photo.  That makes your ideas ridiculous.


That is not a requirement for intelligence, it's an add-in circuit I covered with the Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation and all that goes along with it that you mentioned

Please read for comprehension.  Of course those activities are not required for intelligence.  They are among the peak achievements of human intelligence, so any theory of human intelligence is required to account for them, not they are required for intelligence to exist.  Your work not only can't account for them, it specifically excludes them from "intelligence".  Therefore your ideas are a clear and evident failure.  "Place avoidance spacial navigation" has nothing to do with any of the behaviors I mentioned.

 
Quote
Molecular intelligence (a living thing, life) is emergent from naturally occurring machine-like molecules which together build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities. This form of intelligence is sustained by a “replication cycle” that keeps it going through time. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm but (where physics willing) the system would still work as well by replicating itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence. If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could this way sustain itself nearly forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, has no way to efficiently forage for food, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry.
You are asserting "molecular intelligence", but you are not proving its existence.  You are asserting an analogy between building cells and building cities that begs your desired conclusions, is entirely without foundation, and is dubious from the get-go.  So cells are made of bricks and concrete?  Enzymes are like people, or power tools, or vehicles, or what?  In exactly what way are molecules machine-like? - they are designed for specific tasks by intelligent designers, they apply mechanical power, they are manufactured in factories and workshops, or what?  You jump from unfounded and dubious speculation to conclusion.  This is lunacy, Gary, not science.

In what way are mutations such as translocations, chromosomal fusions and fissions, duplications, deletions, and point mutations "guesses"?  Metaphorically, perhaps, but how about in hard reality?  In what way does "guessing" exceed standard genetic/biochemical explanations for mutations, and how do you demonstrate the reality of that difference?  Ditto for gene pools.  You are just labelling stuff as "intelligence" without demonstrating that the label is real or necessary or even helpful.  Assertions, delusions, and wishful thinking are not evidence.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,00:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,17:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 19 2014,16:48)
We've already established that Gary includes nothing of Trehub's neural systems in his "model" code, and Trehub's block diagram is not a model. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Trehub neural system implementation.

And we've already established that Gary's implementation of Heiserman stops short of the level (gamma) that Heiserman applied "good guess" to describe its operation. Again, if Gary wishes to dispute this, all he need do is provide the file and line number in his late 2012 code that shows a Heiserman gamma robot implementation.

Gary has circled back around to the same bogus assertions he started with here. As I argued early on, citing competent people does not confer competence on the work in which they are cited. Gary is right back to trying to dishonestly claim that his work is made notable because of the work of others. The old line about reviews applies: it is good and original, except that what is original is not good, and what is good is not original.

And for the record I said exactly:
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,14:43)
In my opinion you came to this forum expecting to have fun playing hero by helping to mock and ridicule someone or something out of science. You did not expect something very well researched that even includes the best of UMass legend Arnold Trehub, who actually did have insight into how human (and other) intelligence works. I was lucky to have early-on found a copy at the Odyssey bookshop (across the street from Mount Holyoke College) when it was brand new to cognitive science. I must have spent a couple thousand hours modeling from it. David Heiserman based models that came before helped make sense of what is most important to know about how the Arnold Trehub model all together works.

Like I said, it is not in the code. Thanks for confirming I was correct on that, Gary.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,01:01   

Red-herring Wesley strikes again. Yawn.......

--------------
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: Dec. 20 2014,01:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,01:01)
Red-herring Wesley strikes again. Yawn.......

Shorter version: Gary's got nothing.

“If you’re weak on the facts and strong on the law, pound the law. If you’re weak on the law and strong on the facts, pound the facts. If you’re weak on both, pound the table.”  You are transparently pounding the table, Gary, and it doesn't look good.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,03:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,07:01)
Red-herring Wesley strikes again. Yawn.......

You've no idea what red herring means, do you Gary?

You saw somebody at UD using it and figured you'd drop it into a sentence, any sentence, and hope for the best.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,07:26   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 19 2014,21:41)
   
Quote
       
Quote
(N.Wells @ Dec. 19 2014,19:45)
Yes, as we have noted earlier, your model specifically excludes from "intelligence" such activities as planning one's future, evaluating one's life, composing a melody, recognizing a friend, and daydreaming over a lover's photo.  That makes your ideas ridiculous.


That is not a requirement for intelligence, it's an add-in circuit I covered with the Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation and all that goes along with it that you mentioned

Please read for comprehension.  Of course those activities are not required for intelligence.  They are among the peak achievements of human intelligence, so any theory of human intelligence is required to account for them, not they are required for intelligence to exist.  Your work ...  specifically excludes them from "intelligence".  Therefore your ideas are a clear and evident failure.  ...

We cannot hammer hard enough on the bolded specific point.
All the other (countless) flaws in your work are insignificant given this single point, Gary.
Your work specifically excludes things that must be included in any explanation of intelligence as such.

It is conceivably acceptable to delimit intelligence and its explanation to sub-sets of the entirety of the phenomenon.  'Spatial reasoning intelligence', 'musical ability intelligence', 'mathematical intelligence' may all be valid sub-sets of intelligence as such, and they may each have explanations that do not apply to the others.  But you are claiming to have *the* explanation for intelligence, without qualifiers or limits.  That eliminates any potential 'out' for you -- if your "theory" explicitly excludes acts that are acts of intelligence, then it is not a 'theory of intelligence'.  It is an error.

Of course, this is what happens when you take a vague generalization like 'intelligence', fail to supply any operational definition, and fail to supply any concrete examples and then proceed to cobble together a mess of illiterate gibberish and call it a "theory" regarding said vague generalization.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,07:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2014,21:20)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 19 2014,19:45)
Yes, humans can guess.  This is not news.  Now how does a molecule guess?

"TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf"

       
Quote
Molecular Intelligence

Molecular intelligence (a living thing, life) is emergent from naturally occurring machine-like molecules which together build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities. This form of intelligence is sustained by a “replication cycle” that keeps it going through time. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm but (where physics willing) the system would still work as well by replicating itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence. If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could this way sustain itself nearly forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, has no way to efficiently forage for food, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry.
...

This is such a wall of gibberish text the mind veritably reels.  It would take hours to properly pull this apart and show all the many ways it goes wildly wrong.  The language and the tragically abused concepts are so mashed together that they rarely rise to the level of error.  For the most part, it is nonsense.

You start the nonsense by equating 'molecular intelligence' to life, that is, to biology.  That this is absurd should not need explication -- if what you mean by 'molecular intelligence' is 'biology', use that word.  But of course that would reduce the grandiloquence quotient that seems to be your personal measure of quality.

Analogizing molecules to machines is simply wrong.  The analogy fails in virtually every respect.  it is certainly not explanatory.
You once more smuggle the concepts you are seeking to explain into your explanation when you analogize the simple physical and chemical (and thermodynamic) interactions of molecules to the purposeful and intelligently planned and guided construction and maintenance of cities.
Circular, therefore false.

The same goes for machines -- machines are a product of intelligence, not a precursor to or ingredient of intelligence.
You then proceed to assert entities and facts not in evidence.  But worse, you begin talking about cycles and cyclic functions without ever attending to the implication that there are clocking features involved, that there are synchronization mechanisms involved, and that this is a problem to be addressed, not a 'solved piece of the puzzle' to pull into your shoddy construct in support of an explanation it not only fails to provide but also fails to be capable of providing.

You take a giant leap when you proceed to talk as if molecules needed to forage for food or as if molecular behavior were learned, planned, had options or were not, in all cases and circumstances, subject to the vagaries of the current environment of the molecules in question.
This is one of the major problems to be solved, you idiot, not something you can preen about as a word salad tossed together in service of a promised explanation that does not and cannot emerge from your gibberish.

Finally, let  us make brief mention that in the section that purports to discuss and explain 'molecular intelligence', you use the phrase as part of the explanation by sentence number 3.

That's not how it works, Gary, in any of the various senses of the terms.
     
Quote
REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL
......
......
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY
......
......
REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS
......
......
REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

...

And here we see once again your list of requirements that specifically exclude from intelligence most of the features that we consider essential.  In particular, you exclude a vast number of acts which unquestionably count as intelligent even if you happen to stumble upon acts of intelligence which meet these 4 criteria.

At this point the requirements of both necessary and sufficient conditions are lying brutally savaged on the roadside, having been mugged, raped, and abandoned in your mad careening flight into ever more grandiose delusions.

This is just a brief 'highlights' version of what's wrong with the twaddle you saw fit to quote yet again.  We've been over this territory repeatedly, and you have learned nothing from it.  This is due in large part to your failure to even attempt to grapple with any of the issues raised.
When the vast majority of those issues are such that each individually represents a fatal flaw in your enterprise, this failure represents such a betrayal of science, of human knowledge acquisition in general, as to render your every claim to be working 'in science', to be 'doing science', or even to 'explain' anything at all a vicious self-serving lie.

Have you no shame, sir?  At the end of the day, have you not even the self-awareness to generate the shame such behavior ought to produce?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,08:41   

Gary, here’s a short list of the questions you must be able to answer for your wibble to be acceptable as a ‘theory of intelligence’.  These are by no means all, but each is a showstopper.

What is the ‘something’ that must be controlled when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line?
Note that none of these require muscle activity of any sort.

What are the senses that address what memory/memories when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line?
Note that each of these has been performed by individuals who lack the 'obvious' sensory modalities one would expect for the product.
Sub-question — what does it mean for memory to be sensory-addressed?  The naive view that has the senses directly writing to memory or directly “indicating” what memory to use and what to store there has been debunked many many years ago.  So what are you talking about here?

What is the measure of confidence to gauge failure and success when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line?
Sub-question — what senses address what memory/memories in the creation, storage, and retrieval of the ‘confidence’ factor?  Is it analog or digital?  What process(es) modify it, at what points, and what difference does it make?

What is the ‘ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS’?  How is it manifested and how is it utilized when  an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line?

What is a guess?  How does ‘guess’ relate to ‘plan’ and to ‘imagination?  Are there factors that feed into/influence the guess?  Is a guess random?  If not, what regularity does it exhibit?  Is it algorithmic?  What algorithm?  Or how is the specific algorithm used chosen?
What justifies embedding ‘guess’ into the “flow” that defines “intelligence” when the ability to guess is generally taken to be an act of intelligence?  How is it we only find guessing happening when we find ‘molecular intelligence’ in your sense, i.e., biology?
(You do realize that a random number generator in a computer program does not ‘guess’?)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,11:10   

Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 20 2014,03:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,07:01)
Red-herring Wesley strikes again. Yawn.......

You've no idea what red herring means, do you Gary?

You saw somebody at UD using it and figured you'd drop it into a sentence, any sentence, and hope for the best.

In this case the red-herring being dragged around to mislead the audience expects a computer model that has to accurately model behavior of matter/energy, molecular, cellular and multicellular systems to instead be made of artificial neurons, which in turn sabotages the theory by forcing it to go into neurological detail not yet known by science and limiting its core model to only multicellular brains in which case "intelligent cause" is no longer explainable by the model either.

The model's detail was per Occam's razor limited to what is most important and necessary to explain about how ANY intelligence system works. I'm not going to please Wesley by destroying my own work.

If anyone wants to study ahead then see:
<Mathematical Model and Equivalent Circuit of Neuron>
http://www.zhang.pi.titech.ac.jp/en....n....n&print

The challenge is to adapt electronic models like this to also work for molecular and cellular systems. It's one of the electronic projects I am now working on in addition to the earlier mentioned timing strobe project.

--------------
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: Dec. 20 2014,11:45   

This is a better link to the neural model information. The link above is for the print version:

http://www.zhang.pi.titech.ac.jp/en...._Neuron

--------------
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: Dec. 20 2014,12:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,12:10)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 20 2014,03:34)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,07:01)
Red-herring Wesley strikes again. Yawn.......

You've no idea what red herring means, do you Gary?

You saw somebody at UD using it and figured you'd drop it into a sentence, any sentence, and hope for the best.

In this case the red-herring being dragged around to mislead the audience expects a computer model that has to accurately model behavior of matter/energy, molecular, cellular and multicellular systems to instead be made of artificial neurons, which in turn sabotages the theory by forcing it to go into neurological detail not yet known by science and limiting its core model to only multicellular brains in which case "intelligent cause" is no longer explainable by the model either.

BULLSHIT!
Your computer software in no way shape or form models matter nor energy nor molecular nor cellular systems.
The  lack of consideration of energy effects, energy budgets, etc., is yet another fatal flaw of your wibble.
 
Quote
The model's detail was per Occam's razor limited to what is most important and necessary to explain about how ANY intelligence system works. I'm not going to please Wesley by destroying my own work.

If anyone wants to study ahead then see:
<Mathematical Model and Equivalent Circuit of Neuron>
http://www.zhang.pi.titech.ac.jp/en....n....n&print

The challenge is to adapt electronic models like this to also work for molecular and cellular systems. It's one of the electronic projects I am now working on in addition to the earlier mentioned timing strobe project.

We have already decisively dismissed your claim to modeling the bolded chunk in your text.  You are now on record as having set that to be the standard.  So be it.  You fail.
We have presented a set of challenges that any theory of intelligence must be able to account for.  Your model demonstrably fails.  Your "model" cannot account for a wide range of behaviors that count as 'intelligent'.  If it could, you would have shown how, you would have responded to the challenges the first time they were raised, hundreds of pages ago.  They've been raised on other sites that you infested before you shifted your attention here.  You've wasted years trying to pretend your "model" can do things everyone knows it cannot.

Your own work was created in a destroyed state.  It is a mishmash mess of garbled concepts, ill-conceived notions, and absurdist claims.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,13:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,17:10)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 20 2014,03:34)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,07:01)
Red-herring Wesley strikes again. Yawn.......

You've no idea what red herring means, do you Gary?

You saw somebody at UD using it and figured you'd drop it into a sentence, any sentence, and hope for the best.

In this case the red-herring being dragged around to mislead the audience.....

You have truly supped from the cup of Kairosfocus!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,13:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,12:10)
In this case the red-herring being dragged around to mislead the audience expects a computer model that has to accurately model behavior of matter/energy, molecular, cellular and multicellular systems to instead be made of artificial neurons, which in turn sabotages the theory by forcing it to go into neurological detail not yet known by science and limiting its core model to only multicellular brains in which case "intelligent cause" is no longer explainable by the model either.

That is some kinda sentence, right there.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,15:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,17:16)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32)
Let's start small however. �Describe ID in your own words.

Words should be fine. �However:
�  
Quote
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.

It looks like sentences might be a problem.

I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen. �And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard. �Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast. �Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result. �But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have. �It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either.

Just for the laughs, here's a post from Gary over 2 years ago.
How little things have changed.  His self-awareness seems to have plummeted, his writing ability is still utterly unhinged.
The grandiosity of his claims is undiminished.
He has, however, learned how to spell 'Darwin'.
How many guesses did you suppose that took him?
ROFLMAO

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,15:39   

Oh, good. The Diagram again. Now we're getting somewhere.

--------------
"[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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2014,23:08   

Gary's biggest problem is that he has taken the 'I' in the ID debate to mean something that has intelligence. Where conservative relgious believers fully understand that 'I' to be the god of the Christian bible, Gary if we are to give him nieve credit which I don't, seems to have taken the idea literally. That requires him to smuggle some unmeasureable and nefarious demon into a scientific proof that god exists.

Further proof if any needed that religion can make you crazy if ingested raw.

--------------
"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: Dec. 21 2014,00:09   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2014,13:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2014,12:10)
In this case the red-herring being dragged around to mislead the audience expects a computer model that has to accurately model behavior of matter/energy, molecular, cellular and multicellular systems to instead be made of artificial neurons, which in turn sabotages the theory by forcing it to go into neurological detail not yet known by science and limiting its core model to only multicellular brains in which case "intelligent cause" is no longer explainable by the model either.

That is some kinda sentence, right there.

What a mix of truth, falsity, tragedy, and atrocious writing!  No one is demanding that you build a model of artificial neurons, although that would indeed be a good way of resolving various issues.  However, we do indeed want accuracy, which you are astoundingly unwilling to discuss.  We want some kind of assurance that your formulas match what is really happening, when instead even your variable names seem a poor match to reality.  We need some evidence that the processes and agents that you call upon really exist and are capable of doing the things that you assert, but instead your assertions seem inadequate and inconsistent.

Quote
which in turn sabotages the theory
 It doesn't amount to a theory (and there's no promise that it ever will).

Quote
by forcing it to go into neurological detail not yet known by science
Let's restate that for emphasis
Quote
BY FORCING IT TO GO INTO NEUROLOGICAL DETAIL NOT YET KNOWN BY SCIENCE
 Don't you think that this might be a teensy clue about the depths of your cluelessness?

Quote
limiting its core model to only multicellular brains
Well, yes, or you need a clear redefinition of intelligence that justifies the extension of intelligence to non-multicellular non-brains, plus an operational definition so that we can quantify it and other people can measure it independently, plus some evidence that it actually exists in the forms that you claim and can do what you assert.

Quote
in which case "intelligent cause" is no longer explainable by the model either.
DING DING DING DING.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2014,04:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 21 2014,00:09)
......
No one is demanding that you build a model of artificial neurons, although that would indeed be a good way of resolving various issues.

I'm already experimenting with "Excitatory synapses" and a "Na+ channel" using LTSpice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....Ja2GS7c  

Very nice!

I'll let Wesley know whether I need help setting any component values.

--------------
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) < ... 416 417 418 419 420 [421] 422 423 424 425 426 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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