Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 450 451 452 453 454 [455] 456 457 458 459 460 ... >

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2015,22:45    Or in other words when the illustration was written the very hard to model Baldwin Effect (effect of learned behavior on "evolution") was part of forum discussion (in another forum) and I included information in the illustration to show how that is accounted for in this model using a "particle system" to create the matter the virtual intelligent critters are made of. From what I learned such a model would have great scientific interest. Someone who spends longs hours trying to get particle systems to behave like real matter would likely have little problem seeing that I am showing them where look for the Baldwin Effect being demonstrated by their model. -------------- 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. 26 2015,23:27    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 27 2015,06:45) Or in other words when the illustration was written the very hard to model Baldwin Effect (effect of learned behavior on "evolution") was part of forum discussion (in another forum) and I included information in the illustration to show how that is accounted for in this model using a "particle system" to create the matter the virtual intelligent critters are made of. From what I learned such a model would have great scientific interest. Someone who spends longs hours trying to get particle systems to behave like real matter would likely have little problem seeing that I am showing them where look for the Baldwin Effect being demonstrated by their model. Fuck off Gary. Your crazed make believe world is worthless. -------------- "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

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2015,03:42    Quote See: Unified Particle Simulations and Interactions in Computer Animation [URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....PWbvH5k So, according to you, Pixar are at the cutting edge of biological science. Or are you saying that your "model" is just a crude animation and way behind CGI professionals? It still hasn't answered the question but that's only one in a long, long queue of avoided questions. You are not a cognitive scientist. You are at best a dishonest nutcase.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2015,13:17    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 26 2015,18:47) Baldwin Effect pathway. Zeeman Effect toenail. Photoelectric Effect ballet. Streisand Effect haircut. In the context of particle behaviour, they make just as much sense as "Baldwin Effect pathway".  What we're seeing is: Dunning-Kruger Effect nonsense. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,10:31    I just noticed a missing word typo in the above reply, which ended by saying: Someone who spends longs hours trying to get particle systems to behave like real matter would likely have little problem seeing that I am showing them where to look for the Baldwin Effect being demonstrated by their model. -------------- 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. 28 2015,10:54    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2015,11:31) I just noticed a missing word typo in the above reply, which ended by saying: Someone who spends longs hours trying to get particle systems to behave like real matter would likely have little problem seeing that I am showing them where to look for the Baldwin Effect being demonstrated by their model. You flaming idiot.  'Particle systems', without additional qualification, are inherently real matter. Your grasp of language exceeds your grasp of basic concepts; both are constant targets of abuse by you. Models are inherently misrepresentations.  They eliminate facts and effects that are not relevant to the purpose of the model.  Often, to the detriment of the model and to any 'insights' derived therefrom. But you're as clueless about modeling as you are about evolution.  Or basic English.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,11:06    Quote (NoName @ Mar. 28 2015,08:54) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2015,11:31) I just noticed a missing word typo in the above reply, which ended by saying: Someone who spends longs hours trying to get particle systems to behave like real matter would likely have little problem seeing that I am showing them where to look for the Baldwin Effect being demonstrated by their model. You flaming idiot.  'Particle systems', without additional qualification, are inherently real matter. Your grasp of language exceeds your grasp of basic concepts; both are constant targets of abuse by you. Models are inherently misrepresentations.  They eliminate facts and effects that are not relevant to the purpose of the model.  Often, to the detriment of the model and to any 'insights' derived therefrom. But you're as clueless about modeling as you are about evolution.  Or basic English. It's an interesting way of putting it, though.  Gary's "theory" requires elementary particles to have memory and learning ability, so as far as Gary is concerned, they must really have those properties.  No evidence necessary. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,11:18    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 28 2015,12:06) Quote (NoName @ Mar. 28 2015,08:54) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2015,11:31) I just noticed a missing word typo in the above reply, which ended by saying: Someone who spends longs hours trying to get particle systems to behave like real matter would likely have little problem seeing that I am showing them where to look for the Baldwin Effect being demonstrated by their model. You flaming idiot.  'Particle systems', without additional qualification, are inherently real matter. Your grasp of language exceeds your grasp of basic concepts; both are constant targets of abuse by you. Models are inherently misrepresentations.  They eliminate facts and effects that are not relevant to the purpose of the model.  Often, to the detriment of the model and to any 'insights' derived therefrom. But you're as clueless about modeling as you are about evolution.  Or basic English. It's an interesting way of putting it, though.  Gary's "theory" requires elementary particles to have memory and learning ability, so as far as Gary is concerned, they must really have those properties.  No evidence necessary. Facts are not Gary's friends.  So he much prefers to ignore them, or make up his own. As you point out, Gary cannot be bothered to present positive evidence for his swill.  Nor will he address the mountains of negative evidence, evidence that clearly shows that his 'work' offers nothing whatsoever to research in intelligence.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,11:19    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 28 2015,11:06) Gary's "theory" requires elementary particles to have memory and learning ability, That is not true. -------------- 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. 28 2015,11:49    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2015,19:19) Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 28 2015,11:06) Gary's "theory" requires elementary particles to have memory and learning ability, That is not true. It would be if particles could have a Baldwin Effect property twit. Anyway why are you now calling deh tiny things particles now? Your lies about molecules biting you on your ass? How aileimentary are your particles? -------------- "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: Mar. 28 2015,11:52    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2015,11:19)   Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 28 2015,11:06) Gary's "theory" requires elementary particles to have memory and learning ability, That is not true. Gary, your very first box says, "Behavior of matter, address memory, run motor control".  To anyone looking at your diagram, the clear implication is that you think that matter behaves, has memory, and runs motor controls.  The text just down the page reinforces this by listing the attributes for behavior (memory and motor control), and you did just refer to matter in particle physics having behavior.  If you intend otherwise, that merely shows that you are incompetent at explaining stuff.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,11:59    From my experience only those looking for a problem that does not exist are able to find one where the illustration requires all four (not two of four as behavior of matter does) requirements to qualify as "intelligent". -------------- 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. 28 2015,11:59    Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 28 2015,19:52) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2015,11:19)   Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 28 2015,11:06) Gary's "theory" requires elementary particles to have memory and learning ability, That is not true. Gary, your very first box says, "Behavior of matter, address memory, run motor control".  To anyone looking at your diagram, the clear implication is that you think that matter behaves, has memory, and runs motor controls.  The text just down the page reinforces this by listing the attributes for behavior (memory and motor control), and you did just refer to matter in particle physics having behavior.  If you intend otherwise, that merely shows that you are incompetent at explaining stuff. That's easy his particles are a lemon tree......Watson. -------------- "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

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,13:59    Once upon a time two elemental particles met up and fell in love. From their love an element developed (don't ask how, it's only a "theory"). This element met another element (not the same element...that's Yucky). From their love sprang a molecule with "intelligence". This molecule met a cell and between them they created an "intelligent" cell which somehow became a multicell (missing out single cell clusters... again Yucky). The "intelligence" had now increased exponentially and became a "model" (not that type of "model".. that's dirty.) and they all lived, happily ever after, in the imagination of somebody called Gaulin

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,14:04    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2015,12:59) From my experience only those looking for a problem that does not exist are able to find one where the illustration requires all four (not two of four as behavior of matter does) requirements to qualify as "intelligent". You have explicitly claimed that molecules learn. You have explicitly claimed that molecules are intelligent and operate according to the '4 fundamental levee;s' of intelligence. This clearly requires molecules to have motor control, the ability to guess, memory, etc. Your '4 levels' are completely nuts.  Are you beginning to catch on as to why? Which two are you asserting apply to molecules?  They have no motor control, they have no memory, they cannot guess, they do not learn.  Do please enlighten us, we haven't had a good laugh in far too long.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,14:52    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 28 2015,11:59) From my experience only those looking for a problem that does not exist are able to find one where the illustration requires all four (not two of four as behavior of matter does) requirements to qualify as "intelligent". Gary, as far as I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are completely deranged here.   JohnW @ Mar. 28 2015,11:06, said,     Quote Gary's "theory" requires elementary particles to have memory and learning ability  and you replied   Quote That is not true. That appears to be a lie on your part, given that your diagram is quite explicit about supposed behavior, particle physics, memory, and motor control. You followed up with     Quote From my experience only those looking for a problem that does not exist are able to find one where the illustration requires all four (not two of four as behavior of matter does) requirements to qualify as "intelligent". However, no one in the last round of conversation has said that you claimed particles / matter had intelligence, just that they supposedly exhibit behavior which purportedly involves memory and motor control.   You are wrong* on the particulars of your claims about elementary particles and molecules, but that aside you are denying your own words and then attacking others for stuff they did not say.  That's reprehensible, on all counts. In what way does a neutron have an addressable memory? *Although electrons have velocity (and velocity is a vector, so you are being redundant in adding direction), in what way do they have a motor?   You are just torturing words and meanings until you can get everything pigeon-holed some way, no matter how ridiculous, into your delusion.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,18:45    Re "In what way does a neutron have an addressable memory?" Return to sender... Address unknown... No such quantum number... No such photon...

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2015,23:25    The Treachery of Images. Gary only thinks superficially in simple images and literal meanings. There is no ability to do deep fundamental analysis. Gary name this artist. -------------- "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

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2015,15:38    [/QUOTE]The Treachery of Images. Gary only thinks superficially in simple images and literal meanings. There is no ability to do deep fundamental analysis. Gary name this artist.[QUOTE] Ah! Merci, cette un Neuron!

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2015,08:39    The following, quoted directly from a comment on The Panda's Thumb made about Dembski, Ewert and Marks work is precisely why any and all claims Gary makes to having a 'model', let alone a useful model are insane.  I've bolded and italicized the particularly relevant portion. In Gary's case, the problem is compounded by his complete inability to specify, in any operational fashion, just what he means by the key term 'intelligence'.   Quote Mike Elzinga said:   Quote Tom English said: They don't model. They analyze modeling. They certainly don't model; but I don't see much evidence that they understand anything about "analyzing" models either.  They would have to exhibit an understanding of the physical laws that pertain to the things being modeled; and they don't.  They don't reference any papers in science that do any of this kind of modeling; e.g., the Nobel Prize winning work on complex biological molecules. To those of us who have actually had to do image processing and computer modeling as well as mathematically analyze the computer programs for things like efficiency as well as for comparisons of stochastic outcomes with mathematical predictions, nothing that Dembski, et. al. do appears to match the reality of that kind of work. Modeling of the real world means one has to fold into the algorithms the observed properties and behaviors of the objects one is modeling; and that means one has to know the biology, chemistry, and the physics.   I don't see any evidence that Dembski et. al. actually know any of this; or even care, for that matter.  All of these papers are concerned with what is essentially "Easter egging."  After cutting through all the fog and pretentious lard they slather onto their "calculations," one finds nothing but trivia that adds nothing of value to the areas of computer science either. Since ID/creationism has always been like this, it seems apparent to me that all this crap is being generated for a political base that needs to be "assured" that they are fighting for "truth in science" in order to maintain their conviction and drive for their political operations.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2015,01:31    Instead of wasting time arguing here I have been working on the ID Lab. All the while I was getting urges to write a progress report, but kept saying to myself to hurry up and finish the darn thing. I can now safely say I found "the trick to it" that made it real easy to add a Grid Network to the system. Once included in sensory (like Bump and any other sensory is added) it has a sense of what "Magnitude" and "Direction" of a vector is, as do we from that being how our navigation system "sees it". It then has a for-real "internal world model" of itself to act upon, or later can use to let their imagination run free inside. How well it learns to get to another place is stunning. At the moment it is challenging itself to sit in the exact center of a place it is attracted to the center of, like a nest. The exact point it can work hard to get in the middle of just right is "in its head" though it could be where the center of a nest or other place to snuggle into is located. I'm now right at the part where after establishing an ideal grid geometry there is then the need to be "close enough" with signals that when shown all mapped out (as in latest research showing same thing) results in fine tuning of the grid to anchor points that distort the map's regular geometry. Compared to all else I had to code that part should be easy. Though it will then need a lot of cleaning up, after having been reduced to a much smaller amount of code. But that too is just routine coding. The challenge has been to get this far with it! -------------- 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.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 06 2015,01:40    I'll just leave this here, it makes more sense. Unwin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 09 2015,22:28    This is  now accounted for in the model: Reality is distorted in brain's maps http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....508.htm "Shearing-induced asymmetry in entorhinal grid cells" by Tor Stensola, Hanne Stensola, May-Britt Moser & Edvard I. Moser, Nature http://www.nature.com/nature.....51.html "Grid cell symmetry is shaped by environmental geometry" by Julija Krupic, Marius Bauza, Stephen Burton, Caswell Barry & John O’Keefe, Nature http://www.nature.com/nature.....53.html A very simple adjustment did indeed solve the symmetry problem that was making it difficult for the critter to find the feeder after reaching the place where it was located. Only a few lines of code was needed. I'm now experimenting with that new addition. There also seems to have been progress made in understanding how grid aligned spatial memory systems are being addressed in biological brains. The paper is not open access but I got the basic idea of how it works (and maybe can be added to the model) by reading the news article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....erstand Since the computer model already has all the coordinates of everything in the environment there is no rush to add this lower level brain processing, which would result in the recalculation of the same numbers anyway. I'm primarily interested in what makes something intelligent so "alive". Not that adding swirling addressing elements to picture of what is going on inside its brain would not help show the liveliness. -------------- 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: April 10 2015,13:32    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 09 2015,22:28) This is  now accounted for in the model: Reality is distorted in brain's maps http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....508.htm "Shearing-induced asymmetry in entorhinal grid cells" by Tor Stensola, Hanne Stensola, May-Britt Moser & Edvard I. Moser, Nature http://www.nature.com/nature.....51.html "Grid cell symmetry is shaped by environmental geometry" by Julija Krupic, Marius Bauza, Stephen Burton, Caswell Barry & John O’Keefe, Nature http://www.nature.com/nature.....53.html A very simple adjustment did indeed solve the symmetry problem that was making it difficult for the critter to find the feeder after reaching the place where it was located. Only a few lines of code was needed. I'm now experimenting with that new addition. There also seems to have been progress made in understanding how grid aligned spatial memory systems are being addressed in biological brains. The paper is not open access but I got the basic idea of how it works (and maybe can be added to the model) by reading the news article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....erstand Since the computer model already has all the coordinates of everything in the environment there is no rush to add this lower level brain processing, which would result in the recalculation of the same numbers anyway. I'm primarily interested in what makes something intelligent so "alive". Not that adding swirling addressing elements to picture of what is going on inside its brain would not help show the liveliness. A quote from the Science Daily piece: Quote The findings give us more clues as to how our internal maps interact with the surroundings. Now we’ll have to figure out in detail how the information about the orientation of walls and boundaries in the surroundings reach the grid maps, and how this information is processed. Perhaps border cells will prove to hold the answer to this, we do not know this for sure yet. You had better hurry up and let them know you have it figured out!! As for the two Nature links, if I were a betting man I would wager that you didn't read anything more than the abstracts, but that's all you need in Real-Science, I guess. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,16:18    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 10 2015,13:32) As for the two Nature links, if I were a betting man I would wager that you didn't read anything more than the abstracts, but that's all you need in Real-Science, I guess. Go to hell you piece of shit. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,16:49    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 10 2015,16:18) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 10 2015,13:32) As for the two Nature links, if I were a betting man I would wager that you didn't read anything more than the abstracts, but that's all you need in Real-Science, I guess. Go to hell you piece of shit. Translation from the Gaulinese: "yes, you're right, but I'm not honest enough to admit it, correct the behavior, and proceed like a mature adult, so I'll just spew insults at my intellectual betters." -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,16:56    The way the "scientific process" now works you must be a political hack like Texas Teach or else the political hacks running US academia have to punish 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: April 10 2015,17:08    The US taxpayers are being ripped off really badly by educrats who see no problem keeping the US public schools at least 10 years behind in science, just like they are! Everything seems very up to date, to those who are happily living in past. -------------- 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.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,17:25    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 09 2015,20:28) Not that adding swirling addressing elements to picture of what is going on inside its brain would not help show the liveliness. Shorter than most Sentence Of The Week Award winners, but no more lucid. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,17:56    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 10 2015,16:18) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 10 2015,13:32) As for the two Nature links, if I were a betting man I would wager that you didn't read anything more than the abstracts, but that's all you need in Real-Science, I guess. Go to hell you piece of shit. Nice. Don't you think it's scientifically unethical to reference research papers you haven't read and wouldn't understand if you did read them? -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Pages: (622) < ... 450 451 452 453 454 [455] 456 457 458 459 460 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard