RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 439 440 441 442 443 [444] 445 446 447 448 449 ... >   
  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: Feb. 25 2015,06:45   

Give it up Wesley. It's now obvious why you and others are trashing my work.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,06:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,06:45)
Give it up Wesley. It's now obvious why you and others are trashing my work.

If it's obvious why can't you see it?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,06:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,07:45)
Give it up Wesley. It's now obvious why you and others are trashing my work.

It's always been obvious, even though you remain oblivious.  Your work is not science, has nothing to do with science, is incredibly poorly written, has no operational definitions, lacks all precision, has no explanatory power, contains internal contradictions, fails to match known facts about the world, lacks any factual basis in the real world, and has no value other than to keep you from wandering the streets pestering passers-by.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,07:24   

Quote (NoName @ Feb. 25 2015,14:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,07:45)
Give it up Wesley. It's now obvious why you and others are trashing my work.

It's always been obvious, even though you remain oblivious.  Your work is not science, has nothing to do with science, is incredibly poorly written, has no operational definitions, lacks all precision, has no explanatory power, contains internal contradictions, fails to match known facts about the world, lacks any factual basis in the real world, and has no value other than to keep you from wandering the streets pestering passers-by.

Shorter shining shit.

--------------
"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: Feb. 25 2015,07:26   

Quote (NoName @ Feb. 25 2015,06:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,07:45)
Give it up Wesley. It's now obvious why you and others are trashing my work.

It's always been obvious, even though you remain oblivious.  Your work is not science, has nothing to do with science, is incredibly poorly written, has no operational definitions, lacks all precision, has no explanatory power, contains internal contradictions, fails to match known facts about the world, lacks any factual basis in the real world, and has no value other than to keep you from wandering the streets pestering passers-by.

Given that many of Gary's complaints are based on projection, is Gary complaining that Wesley is opposed to Gary's work because it competes with Wesley's own research, so Wesley is jealous?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,07:33   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 25 2015,08:26)
Quote (NoName @ Feb. 25 2015,06:58)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,07:45)
Give it up Wesley. It's now obvious why you and others are trashing my work.

It's always been obvious, even though you remain oblivious.  Your work is not science, has nothing to do with science, is incredibly poorly written, has no operational definitions, lacks all precision, has no explanatory power, contains internal contradictions, fails to match known facts about the world, lacks any factual basis in the real world, and has no value other than to keep you from wandering the streets pestering passers-by.

Given that many of Gary's complaints are based on projection, is Gary complaining that Wesley is opposed to Gary's work because it competes with Wesley's own research, so Wesley is jealous?

I think at least some of the voices in his head take exactly this position.  Often enough he has taken stances that suggest he believes science to be hierarchical, winner-takes-all, competitive in a power sense rather than a 'marketplace of ideas' sense, and that everything, without exception is driven by personal investments.  In fact, he has gone so far as to take the stance that his work should be valued for the amount of effort he has put into it, and/or for the amount of "sacrifices" he has made to engage in it.  
He is intensely, personally, wounded that his work does not receive the accolades he personally thinks he is due.  He is unable to conceive of any reason why this should be the case other than personal jealousy or fierce protection of prejudicially chosen 'religious' dogma that rejects his brilliant insights.  That it comes down to the banal irrelevance and lunatic nature of his "theory" is literally inconceivable to him.
That this is insane is obvious in everything he does.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,08:29   

His sense of self importance and grandiosity coupled with his need to constantly type undirected subjective screeds not to mention the paranoia is definitely bordering on a few symptoms listed in the DSM.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,08:32   

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 25 2015,09:29)
His sense of self importance and grandiosity coupled with his need to constantly type undirected subjective screeds not to mention the paranoia is definitely bordering on a few symptoms listed in the DSM.

Bordering on as in visible from the rear view mirror?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,11:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,06:45)
Give it up Wesley. It's now obvious why you and others are trashing my work.

I think I have been clear enough for other readers. Maybe the highlighting helped Gary this time.

Claiming to incorporate Trehub models when no such thing is in the code, claiming to use Heiserman but stopping short of the stuff even Heiserman identified as necessary to even making educated guesses, claiming to have "neurons" just like those in published research when no trace of that exists in the code, and now claiming to have something of relevance to a question about evolving intelligence when Gary's stuff is strictly non- and anti-evolutionary, all of those are good reasons to call "foul" on a tissue of lies.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,16:06   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 25 2015,07:26)
....is Gary complaining that Wesley is opposed to Gary's work because it competes with Wesley's own research, so Wesley is jealous?

My best guess is their adversarial behavior has more to do with this:

 
Quote
September 2014: The National Science Foundation has awarded the Avida-ED project a five year $2.3m grant to support Avida-ED software and curriculum development, assessment studies, and a series of national faculty development workshops. Robert T. Pennock is the Principle Investigator, with Richard Lenski, Louise Mead, Charles Ofria and James Smith as Co-Principle Investigators.

http://avida-ed.msu.edu/....msu....msu.edu


--------------
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: Feb. 25 2015,16:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,17:06)
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 25 2015,07:26)
....is Gary complaining that Wesley is opposed to Gary's work because it competes with Wesley's own research, so Wesley is jealous?

My best guess is their adversarial behavior has more to do with this:

 
Quote
September 2014: The National Science Foundation has awarded the Avida-ED project a five year $2.3m grant to support Avida-ED software and curriculum development, assessment studies, and a series of national faculty development workshops. Robert T. Pennock is the Principle Investigator, with Richard Lenski, Louise Mead, Charles Ofria and James Smith as Co-Principle Investigators.

http://avida-ed.msu.edu/....msu....msu.edu

Yet another free hint for the hard-of-thinking:  they're not the ones making this adversarial.  You are.
You've got nothing, but it's far easier to assert that you're being "kept down by the man" than to do the real work necessary to be doing science.
That you don't understand science, whether as process or product, is just one of the many things that disqualify you from receiving any grant money.  You have nothing grant-worthy.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,16:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,16:06)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 25 2015,07:26)
....is Gary complaining that Wesley is opposed to Gary's work because it competes with Wesley's own research, so Wesley is jealous?

My best guess is their adversarial behavior has more to do with this:

     
Quote
September 2014: The National Science Foundation has awarded the Avida-ED project a five year $2.3m grant to support Avida-ED software and curriculum development, assessment studies, and a series of national faculty development workshops. Robert T. Pennock is the Principle Investigator, with Richard Lenski, Louise Mead, Charles Ofria and James Smith as Co-Principle Investigators.

http://avida-ed.msu.edu/....msu....msu.edu

Why on earth would the AVIDA project getting a grant give them any special reasons to object to your work (above and beyond the standard objections that everyone has raised against your nonsense all across the web)?


If they hadn't got the grant and you had, then it would be understandable if they were a bit miffed, but they are doing very interesting and high-quality science and got funding for it, and you are not relevant to any of that.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,17:25   

I left the DevoLab in 2009. While I am happy to hear that my former colleagues are having all kinds of success in their endeavors, it's a huge non sequitur to presume that a new grant that I'm not even part of is a factor in my critiques of Gary's crud now. Nor would a grant announced in late 2014 serve to explain the critiques I had already made before that point.

Crud is crud, and is subject to criticism on that basis.

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

    
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,17:42   

Quote
My best guess is their adversarial behavior has more to do with this:


THAT says an awful lot about your best guess.  

You don't even get yourself.  Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,17:51   

I got me a sick 4k TV with my Avida money, Gary.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,19:10   

I got a black helicopter.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,21:09   



--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,21:57   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2015,17:25)
I left the DevoLab in 2009. While I am happy to hear that my former colleagues are having all kinds of success in their endeavors, it's a huge non sequitur to presume that a new grant that I'm not even part of is a factor in my critiques of Gary's crud now. Nor would a grant announced in late 2014 serve to explain the critiques I had already made before that point.

Your Avida paper rides on the success of Avida as a whole. Everything boils down to vested interests coming first. The information about the grant was to show how much vested interest there actually is. And I used the word "their" instead of "his" to account for others who are abnormally adversarial, like you.

--------------
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: Feb. 25 2015,22:19   

And for everyone else (not the mudslingers in this forum) I have to mention that I had time to catch up on another discussion at the Kurzweil AI forum, which required me to go into more detail regarding FM radio history, my experience with the Federal Communications Commission, machine intelligence music appreciation, something about Lady Gaga few know about, and other things. It's one relatively short reply:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums....-692617

--------------
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: Feb. 25 2015,23:20   

And Wesley spams again!

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums....-692448

--------------
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: Feb. 25 2015,23:59   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 25 2015,07:26)
Given that many of Gary's complaints are based on projection, is Gary complaining that Wesley is opposed to Gary's work because it competes with Wesley's own research, so Wesley is jealous?

After seeing the spamming job they did in the Kurzweil AI forum I have to say that you are likely correct about his being jealous.

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,01:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2015,07:59)
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 25 2015,07:26)
Given that many of Gary's complaints are based on projection, is Gary complaining that Wesley is opposed to Gary's work because it competes with Wesley's own research, so Wesley is jealous?

After seeing the spamming job they did in the Kurzweil AI forum I have to say that you are likely correct about his being jealous.

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!

TIN EAR!!!!!! JFC

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,02:15   

Let's see... responding to a question about evolving intelligence with relevant research concerning evolving intelligence is "spamming" to Gary, while responding to the same question with antievolutionary crud that doesn't even contain the things it is claimed to have is not spamming?

What a weird notion Gary has of conversation.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,02:30   

Gary seems a little... exercised... that I should participate in a thread he is in over at the Kurzweil forums. Not, of course, that he has anything topical to contribute there.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,02:39   

Wesley the title of the topic is "Where is the program equivalent of the single cell organism?" and you did not code "the program equivalent of the single cell organism" nor does the Avida model even have the ability to qualify and quantify "intelligence" as is required by the software they need.

Your belief that "environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors" is misleading wishful thinking. But along with all of your trash talking you did a fine job of demonstrating how deceptive you and others who call themselves "science defenders" actually are. You helped proved that the only science you and others care to defend is what you have vested interests in, and all the rest gets trashed. That's very sinister behavior.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,03:25   

Gary seems to have forgotten RBynum's further words that he quoted earlier, asserting that the full paragraph was what was relevant to the discussion:

   
Quote

I am aware of genetic algorithms but where is the program equivalent of a single cell organism that can evolve to a more complex state? It should be possible to start with a simple form and evolve to the intelligent form. While life took billions of years computers should evolve in a few years. Course I could just be impatient, computers have only been around a few decades. What seems like a long time is incredibly fast in evolutionary terms.


RBynum, the person asking for the information, seems to disagree with Gary's assessment of my contribution to the discussion.

Gary thinks that the results of experiments are "misleading wishful thinking", a complete inversion of the situation where I present evidence and Gary insists that "Let's pretend!" tells us something useful.

The rest seems to be Gary foaming at the mouth. Perhaps he is more than a little exercised. It's a wonder he has let me have the last word in that thread at the Kurzweil forums.

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

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,06:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2015,23:59)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 25 2015,07:26)
Given that many of Gary's complaints are based on projection, is Gary complaining that Wesley is opposed to Gary's work because it competes with Wesley's own research, so Wesley is jealous?

After seeing the spamming job they did in the Kurzweil AI forum I have to say that you are likely correct about his being jealous.

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!

Wesley is not a "they".  "Spamming" can be added to the long, long, long list of words whose meanings you do not understand.  Wesley added meaningfully to that conversation.  Usually over there, you are spamming ("Read my theory!!!!"), although in that thread you are mostly haring off on irrelevant personal stories.  

I don't think Wesley is jealous, and I never said that.  I said that I suspect that you think he is jealous.  That is an important distinction, but you, of course, prefer to ignore important distinctions.

Do you remember a conversation you had at
http://www.physforum.com/index.p....c=25430 ?
Quote
Quote
(gmilam @ Apr 1 2009, 10:57 PM) I see you using the word intelligent a lot. I don't see a definition in there.

EDIT: Here's an example of a definition from a link our friend Mick Derry gave us.
Quote
Consciousness is the field of awareness mediated by a dynamic organization of neural structures we call the conscious network.


Now you try it... I'll give you a headstart - Intelligence is __


[Your reply] Intelligence does not equal consciousness. But nice try.

This is hilarious, and you keep doing it: your reading comprehension and your ability to respond logically in a conversation are at times on par with your writing ability.  It's like watching a computer program fail at passing for human in a conversation.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,07:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2015,08:39)
Your belief that "environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors" is misleading wishful thinking.

So intelligent behaviours can emerge in a vacuum? Or perhaps in a black hole? Or on the surface of a star?

No doubt your 'theory' explains all this.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,08:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2015,03:39)
Wesley the title of the topic is "Where is the program equivalent of the single cell organism?" and you did not code "the program equivalent of the single cell organism"

Nor did you.  You have nothing even remotely resembling a single-cell organism as it exists in the real world.  You are arguably considerably further from that achievement than Avida is.   Your 'model' is not an organism, is not single cell, does not reproduce in any way whatsoever.  Your 'model' simply ignores all aspects of cellular chemistry, all of the internal processes of the cell, and makes the giant, and massively incorrect, assumption that  single cells can properly be called 'intelligent' and so can and should incorporate the vague, incoherent, and incorrect "principles" of your "theory".
 
Quote
nor does the Avida model even have the ability to qualify and quantify "intelligence" as is required by the software they need.

Why does Avida need to qualify and/or quantify 'intelligence'?  It is your assertion, based on an undefined, vague, and general term that, as it stands, has no place in single-cell modeling whatsoever.   Nor, to be fair, in any other place in science for so long as it remains an undefined vague generalization with neither concrete operational definition nor concrete real-world examples qualified to fit under the presumptive operational definition.
You continue to not get this vital point.  It is arguably the single most fatal flaw of your enterprise -- you don't know what you're talking about.  That this is true is proven by the fact that you have no definition of 'intelligence'.  At best you have a post hoc pseudo-ostensive self-referential pile of verbiage that you justify by pointing to pre-selected examples.  Dishonest, confused, incoherent, vague generalization, illogical, and just, well, WRONG.
 
Quote
Your belief that "environmental constraints and historical contingency play a role in the emergence of intelligent behaviors" is misleading wishful thinking. But along with all of your trash talking you did a fine job of demonstrating how deceptive you and others who call themselves "science defenders" actually are. You helped proved that the only science you and others care to defend is what you have vested interests in, and all the rest gets trashed. That's very sinister behavior.

You continue to mistake justified conclusions with assumptions.  That's probably because all you ever work with are your own assumptions, unjustified as they are, for conclusions.
You compound the error by insisting that all the biological science that supports, with facts, evidence, definitions, hypotheses and theories are 'wishful thinking' and your work is somehow, by contrast, 'real-science'.  That's psychotic delusion at its best.  Literally.
Have you noticed in your current rage that Wesley is not the only one who "trash talks" your "theory"?  In point of fact, everyone who  deigns to spend a few minutes with it and comment on what they've found has pointed out that the best parts of it are trash, the remainder is verbal effluent.
You have not one single supporter anywhere in science.
You have to lie and steal inferred support from people who's work you manifestly do not understand and demonstrably have not included in your work.
And that, all by itself, is sufficient to obliterate your pitiful claims that your opponents are driven by self-interest.
And, by the way, we're supposed to believe that you are not?  That you are in this without any self-interest, that you're doing this work not for personal recognition, glory, triumph, and financial reward, all things that you are bitter you have not received?  ROFLMAO
The one with an agenda here, the one with sinister and deplorable motives, based entirely on a vested anti-science self-interest compounded by delusions of adequacy is you.
Which is, yet again, part of why you have convinced no one, found not one single supporter, and are routinely laughed at and scorned wherever you go.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,08:54   

As if it were needed, but here you go Gary, proof positive that you are not doing science, that you are no part of the scientific enterprise, and that you do not even comprehend science in any respect.
You not only cannot, you have not ever even attempted to, answer even a single one of the following questions nor addressed or attempted to address even a single one of the issues raised.
True researchers are ready to address such things at a moment's notice, take every opportunity to do so or to show how the questions and/or issues are miscast or irrelevant to the goals of the topic in question.
 
Quote
[by N.Wells]You've got a whole lot of transparent and ineffective distraction going on, Gary.
As NoName said earlier,
     
Quote
Stop deflecting, distracting, and denying.  Man up and deal with the facts on the ground:

A phenomenon is not properly called 'emergent' when it arises from a set of phenomena to which it is properly called 'self-similar'.  And vice versa.
Not all acts of 'intelligence' are motor acts, yet your "theory" insists otherwise.  This flies in the face of your assertion that your, or any competing, "theory" must "explain how ANY intelligence system works."
Deal with the fact that you smuggle 'intelligence' into your module with the undefined and uncharacterized 'guess' function.
Deal with the fact that 'guess' does not equal 'plan'.  Your "theory" is useless as a 'theory of intelligence' if it cannot deal with plans and planning.
Deal with the fact that many acts of intelligence involve imagination, and your "theory" does not deal with imagination at all.
Deal with the fact that some of the most crucial constraints on life are thermodynamic and that your "theory" simply ignores any and all thermodynamic issues.
Etc.

     
Quote
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’?)


And questions from me:
     
Quote
Why is your rubbish not made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's rubbish?

     
Quote

It is also unreasonable to expect out of place detail that would limit the theory to only one level of intelligence (brains) of a model that has to work for any behavior, intelligent or not.


Since you see intelligence darn near everywhere at all levels, in your opinion what behavior would qualify as not intelligent, and why?
...

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

Pages: (622) < ... 439 440 441 442 443 [444] 445 446 447 448 449 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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