RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 441 442 443 444 445 [446] 447 448 449 450 451 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,10:26   

But when something is offered that has nothing to do with the topic, that is spam, by any reasonable definition. Calling out spam as spam is a commendable activity.

Gary's just sore because it is so obviously true that he failed to deliver what RBynum asked for. Not that he can admit that.

Gary's dismissal of Evo Devo or evolution in general is precisely as valuable as Gary's opinion that a model that is claimed to have NEURONS just like those used by Lehman and Stanley doesn't, you know, actually need them.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,10:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2015,10:57)
Quote
The funny thing is that if Gary had coded Heiserman's  "gamma" class of robot, he could claim to have something that Heiserman would have said could make educated guesses *and* arguably have a form of introspection.


...  Therefore in the greater AI Evo Devo Universe your need to rely on "evo" words to win an argument is just an example to show what can happen by letting them go to your head. For the sake of science chanting a seemingly magic word must never give you special privileges, or a scientific right to silence what I have to share with others by labeling my work as spam.

Dishonesty and massive confusion of map with territory.

Do take note Gary that you are making all the classic mistakes that led to psychology being mired down in what have been called 'homunculus' theories.  Insofar (and that's not very far at all) as you make sense or string a semi-coherent notion together, you wind up simply embedding what you're trying to explain as an element of the explanation.  That's not how it works, and in this area it's what makes your work a homunculus "theory".  Witness your use of 'guess', for example.

Words have meanings in the real world, Gary.  Nobody but you (in this discussion at least) tosses them around like virtual magic wands.  You are the one who abuses terminology, who makes fundamental mistakes of meaning, who uses words dishonestly.  Your are the magical thinker here, we all see it, except possibly you.

The AI Evo Devo Universe disregards you on the merits, or rather the entire lack of merit, of your work.  The words they use are defined, justified, and backed up by evidence.
You just have other people's words that you misappropriate in eternally failed attempts to put lipstick on the dead pig carcass you drag around and attempt to get people to care about.

But as always, epic fail.  You can support none of your charges against others.
You can refute or undercut none of the charges brought against you or your work.
And we all know it.  At this point, we're in it for the laughs, the work has all be done.  You've got nothing but fulminating delusions of adequacy.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,12:25   

Why does Gary diss Heiserman?

Gary:

   
Quote
Gamma is an entirely separate algorithm, which is in addition to the Beta algorithm base code that is either way still there. When Gamma is periodically busy scanning through all of memory to form connections in the data the system is in what is best described as a sleep mode where it is entirely unaware of what's going on while doing that long task, especially for gigabytes of memory space.

It's possible Gamma relates to why we sleep but either way it's not a requirement for the intelligence that comes from the core Beta algorithm that fills memory in the first place.


Heiserman (1981, p.270):

   
Quote

A Gamma-Class machine represents the next logical step in this evolution of  intelligent robot machines. Like its Beta-Class ancestor, a Gamma machine lives in the present and has recall of past events. The real hallmark of a Gamma creature, however, is its ability to anticipate events that have not yet occurred. It has the ability to enhance the quality of its present condition by drawing upon remembered experiences and generalizing them to future conditions.


And from p. 271:

   
Quote

A Gamma-Class machine searches its memory for the relevant conditions of problems and then attempts to fit the relevant ideas into a framework of non-relevant surroundings that might occur in the future. It is thus prepared to deal with the situation under a variety of different conditions.


And then on p. 272:

   
Quote

But now suppose this same BETA creature, the one that has established a habit pattern of motion made up of 5 different condition-response situations, has a built-in GAMMA mechanism. In this case, the system is sensitive to confidence levels of 4. The moment it finds a confidence level of 4, the GAMMA creature breaks down the situation into its most relevant components, searching its own memory for those same elements as they exist in bits and pieces at very low confidence levels (0 or 1, to be exact.) Upon discovering the relevant elements of a successful response residing in memory and carrying very low confidence levels, GAMMA inserts the successful elements into those places. What works quite well under similar conditions not yet encountered on a first-hand basis.

In a manner of speaking, GAMMA generates theories about what should work under untested conditions. The theories are well founded, being based upon elements of responses that have been quite successful in the past. A GAMMA creature performs this sort of routine on every response in memory that carries a confidence level of 4. Once the job is done, there are few condition-response places in memory left untouched.


Heiserman's description doesn't evoke "sleep". That's Gary's fantasy. Heiserman even discusses the length of time needed to perform Gamma operations (p. 278):

 
Quote

Whenever GAMMA is "thinking" through its memory and devising theories, all creature activity on the screen comes to a halt.


Heiserman's analogical metaphor is thinking and theory production, not sleep. Why should we accept that Gary knows better than Heiserman what to term the Gamma operation and insist on calling it "sleep"?

Why does Gary diss Heiserman?

Edit: fix typos.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 28 2015,22:40

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

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,13:01   

Quote
The theory I work on does not have this problem. Its terminology is more precise and has no gray areas to argue over, by making it possible to eliminate all the patch-up phrases and generalizations including "evolution" and "evolved" by being specific as to whether the development was species related, or development of a single individual of a molecular, cellular, or multicellular species. This streamlining of terminology is necessary for a theory to remain consistent with other emerging theories such as "chromosome speciation" where a reproductive barrier can be traced back to a single individual who had a chromosome rearrangement that caused almost immediate speciation to occur, or in other words only one individual caused the speciation to happen.

ROFLMAO.  Your not-a-theory consists almost entirely of gray areas and imprecisions, and smuggling conclusions in by abusing words and being non-specific.  

Let's take one more example of how incompetent you are at all this.  You keep emphasizing that your premise is that [paraphrased slightly] "Certain features of the universe and of living things are designed ........".  A premise can be defined as a proposition used as evidence in an argument, a foundational assumption upon which a conclusion is based, an argument from which a conclusion is drawn, or a statement that is assumed to be true for the basis of further investigation.  First up, as several of us have noted before, your statement is non-specific, and therefore pointless.  No one disputes that certain features of the universe and living things are designed [e.g., the Mona Lisa and beaver dams], so until you get off the pot and designate some specific features as designed that were previously not generally accepted as designed or until you come up with a process for discriminating designed features from non-designed ones that can be applied successfully in problematic areas, you haven't got anything worth talking about.  The DI wants that absolutely useless locution solely so that they can smuggle in the conclusion that humans may have been / were designed by a deity.

Second and worse, that statement should never be your premise, because you want that to be your conclusion.  That's not what a premise is.  Actually using it as a premise would be assuming your conclusions.

Third, and even worse yet, you are indeed using that statement as your premise, because you aren't introducing any support for that conclusion and are merely making a hollow assertion that ultimately rests solely on your unsupported belief in your "premise".  NoName has already pointed out other places that you do this. 

In addition, you haven't documented the existence of intelligence at the critical levels that you assert.  You haven't provided a workable operational definition, so you couldn't measure it if it bit you.  You haven't documented design, and in fact "design" stands in contradiction to your continued assertion of intelligence "emerging" and being "self-similar" at all levels.  Moreover, your theory has none of the determining characteristics of a theory.  

In short, any reference by you to the "premise of your 'theory of intelligent design' " would involve lies and/or fatal problems with each and every one of the four nouns in that expression.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,14:51   

Gary probably thinks his anti-Evo-Devo rant is validated by the days of chirping crickets in that thread afterward. Hoot!

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2015,00:54   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 28 2015,14:51)
Gary probably thinks his anti-Evo-Devo rant is validated by the days of chirping crickets in that thread afterward. Hoot!

Though you expected something else it was written to go along with all else as a very PRO-Evo-Devo rant against what YOU are now doing by trying to look-smart with "Evo" words while ignoring the "Devo" development part that I explain with computer models and theory of operation. You are still trying to get away with taking the Devo out of Evo-Devo by ignoring that it exists and must first be explained before being able to understand the speciation mechanism, from which species Devo. It's like trying to cross a long divide with your cart before the horse. The only thing for certain is that journey will likely not go as well as planned for you.

Chirping critics afterwards indicates that none in that forum or the Phd's on the list found anything to get in an uproar over. And that is a good thing. For me there was a sigh of relief from the lack of scientific controversy.

Science teachers do not normally want to get caught up in a conflict with the community they are expected to represent in their teachings. There is no better way I can think of to show that than be the only one to respond to that topic that was left with just that left written on the blackboard.

The only conflict is from what you see in my rant against what you are doing by ignoring all the Devo in a topic titled "Where is the program equivalent of the single cell organism?" by declaring victory with what you are using as a look-smart word after not really answering RBynum's question. Their need to relate that question to multicellular intelligence up to the level of human was a job well done in regards to what the theory is explaining how to separate, according to basic circuit systematics. The model only needing Hebbian type learning from duplication of existing data (Best Guesses happening at even at the gene level) makes it possible for it to cover all levels they need more information on.

Taking a cellular intelligence related question in those directions including "evo" is expected from someone who has the basic idea of what the model and theory helps explain. So for me it's recognizing rare talent in thinking that way, where my explaining what I know from having had to many times ask the same is useful information they have a good chance of making sense of. If I said nothing then it would be like dissing the ongoing forum discussion in a not really participating in the forum discussion way. Among all the topics that get posted are ones like that where my input is needed to help keep the forum going in a way that Ray Kurzweil needs for it to be the place where the AI science minds of the internet still end up back at after going off to Reddit and elsewhere. As it is now even if the singularity predictions turn out a surprising way it was still scientifically fun to be on the journey of adventure and the music work he likes to keep him going after that, no love lost ever.

For the sake of the scientists you plugged along with Avida it was best that I don't mind your mentioning their existing. More power to them and all that. No conflict there either. So of course in regards to what you expected to become an issue or needed a long discussion over it's crickets at the AI forum.

Science teachers have that as evidence for there really being no real scientific controversy at all over what I have been explaining. They can go on that and what I just explained to know what does not get them in any trouble with scientists who study how intelligence works or are Evo Devo minded. So in that respect your needing to try finding a scientific issue somewhere is more or less expected. Not finding any priceless.

--------------
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: Mar. 01 2015,06:44   

Confirmed. Gary might as well have just said "Yes".

Interesting that Gary hasn't ventured a reply about his abuse of Heiserman, or NEURONS. That must also be validated by his silence.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2015,07:57   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2015,07:44)
Confirmed. Gary might as well have just said "Yes".

Interesting that Gary hasn't ventured a reply about his abuse of Heiserman, or NEURONS. That must also be validated by his silence.

As must his tacit confirmation of lying about other posters, and his inability to support his "theory" against questions or challenges.  As well as his tacit agreement that he steals the ideas of others and tortures them into fantasies that he can claim support his 'decidedly-not-ideas'.

All Gary is really about is holding a massive pity party for himself that he invests time and energy in getting others to be involved in.  Opposition, commentary, bad weather, dental issues, they're all grist for the mill of "I'm special but I get abused, wah, wah, wah, look, over there!"

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2015,08:54   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2015,14:44)
Confirmed. Gary might as well have just said "Yes".

Interesting that Gary hasn't ventured a reply about his abuse of Heiserman, or NEURONS. That must also be validated by his silence.

How can you tell? It looks like his last post was proofread by a homeless alcoholic......with dyslexia!

--------------
"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: Mar. 01 2015,20:37   

As a result of Wesley having me polishing up lines of code from my newest ID Lab code (for Best or Random guesses that add Hebbian type "Gamma" David Heiserman accomplished by scanning memory) I kept going on the rest. It now avoids the walls really good!

I'm now working on the Grid Network module. I found that what the two earlier mentioned papers from Moser and O'Keefe are saying about the hexagonal symmetry changing in response to shape and size of environment and local landmarks solves problems galore from not having done so in the first place. Looks easy enough to account for that grid behavior.

It's best that I keep up with cognitive science, by adding what's new from there to the ID Lab.

--------------
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: Mar. 01 2015,20:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 02 2015,04:37)
As a result of Wesley having me polishing up lines of code from my newest ID Lab code (for Best or Random guesses that add Hebbian type "Gamma" David Heiserman accomplished by scanning memory) I kept going on the rest. It now avoids the walls really good!

I'm now working on the Grid Network module. I found that what the two earlier mentioned papers from Moser and O'Keefe are saying about the hexagonal symmetry changing in response to shape and size of environment and local landmarks solves problems galore from not having done so in the first place. Looks easy enough to account for that grid behavior.

It's best that I keep up with cognitive science, by adding what's new from there to the ID Lab.

Stop lying Gary you make baby Jesus cry.

--------------
"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: Mar. 01 2015,23:25   

Heiserman's Gamma operations are not Hebbian. Maybe Beta was as far as Gary read. Certainly Gary's comments about Gamma being best regarded as "sleep" lend credence to the conjecture.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2015,09:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 01 2015,21:37)
As a result of Wesley having me polishing up lines of code from my newest ID Lab code (for Best or Random guesses that add Hebbian type "Gamma" David Heiserman accomplished by scanning memory) I kept going on the rest. It now avoids the walls really good!

I'm now working on the Grid Network module. I found that what the two earlier mentioned papers from Moser and O'Keefe are saying about the hexagonal symmetry changing in response to shape and size of environment and local landmarks solves problems galore from not having done so in the first place. Looks easy enough to account for that grid behavior.

It's best that I keep up with cognitive science, by adding what's new from there to the ID Lab.

It would be better if you started with it.

As has been noted before, you are not even remotely in line with such factors as the standard Cognitive Science definition of 'learn'.  You violate the standards and formalizations of Cognitive Science in everything you do.

What you do is no part of Cognitive Science, just as the feces monkeys fling at zoo visitors are no part of the zoo visitors.  And for the same reason -- you're just throwing shit around.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2015,10:38   

And others have noted this before, but there's nothing Hebbian in Gary's PSC code base I examined previously. Hebbian learning is about neural plasticity, and there's nothing neural in Gary's PSC VB code I looked at.

All Gary seems to have vis a vis Hebbian learning is a bunch of "Let's Pretend!" bloviation. And, of course, digression and projection.

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

    
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2015,11:25   

Wes puts it mildly:  
Quote
Gary probably thinks his anti-Evo-Devo rant is validated by the days of chirping crickets in that thread afterward. Hoot!


WELL SPAKE!  :)  :)  :)

Personally, I think that crickets are blowing those letterbox thoughts around in Goo Goo's empty head.  

YO, GOO GOO, LET'S HEAR SOME MORE OF THAT HOOTSPEAK!  HIT US WITH YER BEST SHOT. . . .

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2015,11:52   

Did we finally get to you?

Can you hear me, Dr. Goo?

;)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2015,00:38   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2015,23:25)
Heiserman's Gamma operations are not Hebbian. Maybe Beta was as far as Gary read. Certainly Gary's comments about Gamma being best regarded as "sleep" lend credence to the conjecture.

What David Heiserman accomplished with an add-on routine he called a "Gamma" is fine for Rodney, but the model I am working on only allows that part of the brain to reduce down to the math/logic of what is right not being discovered in the labs of Nobel prize winners John O'Keefe, May-Britt and Edvard Moser.

The scientists you would say I "pester" don't have time or care to go into how David Heiserman added a little higher reasoning skill to the Beta system. What most matters is how I accomplish what "Gamma" contains using the information in their papers showing how a real rat brain works.

Hopefully I gave good enough reason to explain why I used my free time to code in some ideas I had earlier in the day to greatly simply the hexagonal math using a rectangular (instead of rhombus shaped) network coordinate system. I'm going over everything to make it as minimal code as can be, and easier to figure out. Where I left off I was getting into math galore by not localizing a place to local landmark. What was not needed has been eliminated from the code, while the rest that distorts the grid spacing is turning out real easy to account for.

I'll check back in after getting the GridNet module ready to go.

--------------
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: Mar. 04 2015,06:08   

Gary comes up with another delusion. I've never said that Gary "pestered" a scientist, only Casey Luskin.

Gary indulges in another bout of "Let's Pretend!" that there is a relation of some sort between Heiserman and more recent neuroscience dealing with place and grid cells. There is nothing beyond Gary's suggestion to substantiate any such thing. (And Gary is careful to disclaim that more recent practitioners will have taken any notice of Heiserman. How ... convenient.) Nor does that suggestion appear to have any greater merit than Gary's previous suggestion that Hebbian learning and Heiserman's concepts were related. Nor does Gary develop what, exactly, the implementation of this correspondence is supposed to be. Nor is it likely that Gary's attempts at description would be useful. It is only afterwards in an audit of the code itself that one can determine what is actually implemented when it comes to Gary's claims. As we have previously found, the claims tend to be overblown, as when Gary claimed to have "Trehub models" but they weren't in the PSC VB code, or when Gary claimed to have Heiserman educated guess stuff but no trace of Gamma is in the PSC VB code, or when Gary claimed to have NEURONS like Lehman and Stanley but no trace of any neural model whatsoever appears in his PSC VB code.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2015,18:28   

Then Wesley you are most welcome to explain how "Gamma" relates to how our brains work. I might even learn a thing or two. But either way the model must have a Grid network navigation system in addressing of the Beta level systematics David Heiserman explained.

You can take your time explaining as much detail as you think necessary, while I get some coding work done.

--------------
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: Mar. 04 2015,21:15   

Gary is confused again. I haven't premised any claims of mine on a construct from Heiserman. Gary, however, has. If Gary wants us to take his claims seriously, he gets to seriously support them. I'm fine with just pointing out the obvious flaws in Gary's treatment of the topic. And Gary seems to be incapable of doing anything that would actually support his claims.

As expected, Gary merely serves up another heaping helping of digression and projection.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2015,07:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 04 2015,19:28)
Then Wesley you are most welcome to explain how "Gamma" relates to how our brains work. I might even learn a thing or two. But either way the model must have a Grid network navigation system in addressing of the Beta level systematics David Heiserman explained.

You can take your time explaining as much detail as you think necessary, while I get some coding work done.

As Wes noted, these responsibilities are all yours.
You need to explain how "Gamma" relates to intelligence.
You then need to explain how intelligence relates to brains -- you assert the existence of intelligence in quite a few categories of things which have neither  brains nor brain analogs.
The odds of you learning 'a thing or two' are infinitely low, as demonstrated by your drunkard's walk across science blogs over the last 7+ years.
It has been shown that models of how the brain works do not, in fact, "require" a 'grid navigation system" to function.
It has been shown that intelligent action can occur without explicit navigation and that explicit navigation does not appear to be implemented in any sort of simplistic grid-based system.  That some cases can be modeled using such a grid-based system does not speak at all to the question of whether such a system is required or used in nature.  That eagles catch moving prey in a fashion that can be modeled using calculus does not mean that eagles perform calculus to capture prey.
Your fascination for models and modeling ignores the very real facts that models are always limited, always abstract away facts that are deemed less relevant or not needed for a particular purpose.  Indeed, models are the very picture of what you deride as "generalizations", yet with fewer explanatory features or rigor than an actual usable generalization.
So you can take your time explaining as much detail as you think necessary to support your baseless assertions.
It's going to take quite a while, we're sure, as you've never explained any of your assertions to date.
Your coding is irrelevant, not least because it has no explanatory power.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2015,21:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 05 2015,02:28)
Then Wesley you are most welcome to explain how "Gamma" relates to how our brains work. I might even learn a thing or two. But either way the model must have a Grid network navigation system in addressing of the Beta level systematics David Heiserman explained.

You can take your time explaining as much detail as you think necessary, while I get some coding work done.

Go to it, if then boy and while your at it put some code in for a neuron!

--------------
"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: Mar. 07 2015,09:45   

I an NOT going to spend my only day off from work answering to Wesley's nonconstructive demands preventing me from getting any work on the computer model I am responsible for.

My saying that I do not want or need to explain how David Heiserman's "Gamma" relates to a real brain should have been the end of discussion.

--------------
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: Mar. 07 2015,09:53   

Typo again!

I an NOT going to spend my only day off from work answering to Wesley's nonconstructive demands preventing me from getting any work done on the computer model I am responsible for.

I can also add that I just went a month with no pay and the small amount I did finally get yesterday evening is a good sign that all the work was not for nothing, but my having to fund everything on my own while academia gets millions for the usual ho-hum is so unfair it should be criminal.

--------------
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: Mar. 07 2015,10:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 07 2015,10:53)
Typo again!

I an NOT going to spend my only day off from work answering to Wesley's nonconstructive demands preventing me from getting any work done on the computer model I am responsible for.

I can also add that I just went a month with no pay and the small amount I did finally get yesterday evening is a good sign that all the work was not for nothing, but my having to fund everything on my own while academia gets millions for the usual ho-hum is so unfair it should be criminal.

Well of course you're not.  We'd be surprised, nay astonished, if you were to start answering questions at this point.
Your ability to determine whether the questions are relevant or not are on a par with your ability to determine what is and is not 'science' and your ability to detect or provide evidence.

Your computer "model", your computer code, is of interest or relevance only to yourself.
We don't care.  But it keeps you out of bars and off the streets, so go for it.
The "theory" can wait, as it has for all these years.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2015,11:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 07 2015,09:53)
I can also add that I just went a month with no pay and the small amount I did finally get yesterday evening is a good sign that all the work was not for nothing, but my having to fund everything on my own while academia gets millions for the usual ho-hum is so unfair it should be criminal.

The quality of your judgement concerning the value of academic research is right down there with the quality of your judgement of your own work.  

Your work is largely invisible because you aren't publicizing it anywhere but in obscure corners of the web.  Worse, it is useless because you won't (and can't) provide supporting evidence to back up your presently empty assertions, operational definitions, and so forth and so on.  Worse than that, your writing veers into incomprehensible, and even worse than that yet, to the extent that your meaning is decipherable and not trivial, it gives every appearance of being illogical and wrong.  If it were more visible and of any value or interest whatsoever, you'd have people expressing interest in it, using it, and citing it.  Science is full of people trying to get a competitive edge and get their name associated with overthrowing an old idea or establishing a new one, so if your nonsense had any value whatsoever, someone would be using it (and probably trying to get their name on it somehow). And yet, what do we hear? ...... crickets.  Heck, there are still people trying to investigate cold fusion, and others fighting solidly established ideas like anthropogenic climate change and some dinosaurs having had feathers, and if ideas that bad can still get champions, exactly how worthless must your ideas be that nobody wants to appropriate them?

Do yourself some good and go and do something useful for yourself and your family.  This isn't it.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2015,13:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 07 2015,15:53)
I can also add that I just went a month with no pay and the small amount I did finally get yesterday evening is a good sign that all the work was not for nothing, but my having to fund everything on my own while academia gets millions for the usual ho-hum is so unfair it should be criminal.

Cut off your ear, Gary.

Might help.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2015,15:34   

It's actually fairly amazing that Gary still doesn't grasp that he can't 'explain' "intelligence" until he knows what it is.
He can't share with others what he 'knows' without producing an operational definition of the term.
Until he does that, which he has resisted all along, his work is the equivalent of someone trying to 'explain' the act of flying by taking notes on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show and modeling on the computer the color palette used on the show.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2015,18:50   

It's quite clear that Gary's claims in any other language would be called lies.
Pity he can't cash them in he could afford to fix his teeth.

--------------
"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: Mar. 07 2015,21:50   

The grid cell network neurons use on/off inputs and outputs, as real (spiking) neurons do, to produce a field with force vectors that point around barriers along the way towards an attractor. When shown over time other signals also have neural analogies.

The nutcases in this forum are just talking trash that they should better than misrepresent, but in a forum like this they're just scum that gets away with saying anything.

--------------
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) < ... 441 442 443 444 445 [446] 447 448 449 450 451 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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