RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 448 449 450 451 452 [453] 454 455 456 457 458 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2015,17:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 20 2015,18:51)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 20 2015,11:56)
Quote
That or he seriously expects Wesley to be jealous that Gary's life is unburdened with files and reference materials and supporting paperwork of various forms, and so could move to that cute spot under the bridge with very little effort.


Or Wesley is jealous that he can't make unsupported assertions and expect to have them accepted as a "theory" or "model".

How did you like Wesley's backing up of the "evolving intelligence" claim?

What did you find to be the most compelling evidence? The requirement that their Avidian can reach a goal (like a guided missile does)? LOL!!

It's light years beyond what you have, now isn't it?
He defended his position thoroughly and well, while you pranced around moving goalposts and lying out of both sides of your mouth.
Business as usual.  You have no evidence, no logic, no definitions, and, honestly, no clue.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2015,18:49   

Quote (NoName @ Mar. 20 2015,17:54)
It's light years beyond what you have, now isn't it?

It's decades behind, but where the "science" only has to look good on paper the money is still there.

--------------
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. 20 2015,18:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 20 2015,19:49)
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 20 2015,17:54)
It's light years beyond what you have, now isn't it?

It's decades behind, but where the "science" only has to look good on paper the money is still there.

More lies, Gary.  You know it, we know it.
You can't even define what does and does not count as intelligence.
Your "theory" rules out countless features of the universe best explained by intelligent cause, which rather scuttles your whole enterprise, now doesn't it?
Your software is ludicrous and has no more to do with natural intelligence than Boeing's manufacturing practices have to do with natural flight.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2015,19:05   

Quote (NoName @ Mar. 20 2015,18:59)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 20 2015,19:49)
 
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 20 2015,17:54)
It's light years beyond what you have, now isn't it?

It's decades behind, but where the "science" only has to look good on paper the money is still there.

More lies, Gary.  You know it, we know it.
You can't even define what does and does not count as intelligence.
Your "theory" rules out countless features of the universe best explained by intelligent cause, which rather scuttles your whole enterprise, now doesn't it?
Your software is ludicrous and has no more to do with natural intelligence than Boeing's manufacturing practices have to do with natural flight.

Actually, if we assign the most likely reference, that Gary is discussing his PSC VB partial re-implementation of Heiserman's 1970s vintage BASIC code, it fits except for the money part. Gary's sloppiness with pronouns lends credence to that. The only problem is that it would require some modicum of self-awareness on Gary's part to recognize it.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2015,19:47   

Well, he's still tied to his ridiculous conflation af a tool to investigate evolution and modeling whatever the heck he means at any given moment by 'intelligence.'. You have the former, he lies about having the latter.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2015,11:16   

Quote
How did you like Wesley's backing up of the "evolving intelligence" claim?


Perhaps when you finally provide your definition of "Intelligence" I can reply to this question.

It is not science when you do not define your terms.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2015,14:29   

From what I can gather a group of evolutionary biologists are using the public schools to teach an Avida based Darwinian theory that misrepresents what is actually going on in “cognitive science” and what cognitive scientists are working on. With the Google search engine now taking a "best guess" all that I have been explaining is already here anyway, including in what has been described as superhuman intelligence "future robot overlords" for us to welcome and/or beware of.

Instead of objective theory that systematically explains why IBM Watson and other systems indeed scientifically qualify as “intelligent” a branch of evolutionary biology is teaching subjective methods where unintelligent things like reaching a goal is good enough of a metric to use as a qualifier, even though such generalizations do not in reality work for those who actually model intelligence (cognitive scientists). Not even the Watson or Google machine intelligence now all around us right now wants anyone to take credit away from their meeting the systematic requirements that also makes sense along with what Arnold Trehub and David Heiserman explained about the basic systematic features of intelligence.

The need to misrepresent my work could be the tip of an iceberg that's in the way of scientific progress now being made in all of cognitive science. Something way bigger than me, where I'm just one of the passengers who needs to help keep watch for those in our way. I'll from here shout out the above alarm to at least cause Wesley to have to rearrange the deck chairs of what they are aboard, while I further work on the computer model that makes it possible for others elsewhere to not have to stop there.

--------------
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. 21 2015,14:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2015,15:29)
From what I can gather a group of evolutionary biologists are using the public schools to teach an Avida based Darwinian theory that misrepresents what is actually going on in “cognitive science” and what cognitive scientists are working on.

You are not qualified to judge.
What on earth does evolutionary theory have to do with cognitive science, or the perversion you make of that discipline?  Nothing directly relevant, that's what.
Proving yet again that you are not competent to make these judgements.
 
Quote
With the Google search engine now taking a "best guess" all that I have been explaining is already here anyway, including in what has been described as superhuman intelligence "future robot overlords" for us to welcome and/or beware of.

You've explained nothing.  There is nothing in your twaddle that counts as explanatory.  Nor can your "theory" explain countless acts widely considered to be intelligent.
Among a near-infinity of other reasons, this is due to your refusal to qualify, let alone quantify, what you mean by 'intelligence'.  As has been pointed out repeatedly, without this you've got nothing.
 
Quote
Instead of objective theory that systematically explains why IBM Watson and other systems indeed scientifically qualify as “intelligent” a branch of evolutionary biology is teaching subjective methods where unintelligent things like reaching a goal is good enough of a metric to use as a qualifier, even though such generalizations do not in reality work for those who actually model intelligence (cognitive scientists).

We know you know nothing at all about cognitive science by your abuse of the standard terms and their standard meanings in that pile of steaming verbiage you persist in mislabeling a "theory."
Quote
Not even the Watson or Google machine intelligence now all around us right now wants anyone to take credit away from their meeting the systematic requirements that also makes sense along with what Arnold Trehub and David Heiserman explained about the basic systematic features of intelligence.

What, pray tell, do you imagine those 'systematic requirements' are that Watson and Google meet but Beethoven composing his Ninth Symphony fails to?  On the grounds of your own twaddle, musicians are not doing anything that requires intelligence until and unless they are writing the music down.  But as most people with IQs at or above room temperature are well aware, the act of composition precedes, and does not require, the act of notation.
 
Quote
The need to misrepresent my work could be the tip of an iceberg that's in the way of scientific progress now being made in all of cognitive science.

Show us one place, just one place, where your work has been misrepresented.  You can't.  Your work fails on its own complete lack of merit.  Your "theory" is not even junk science -- it isn't science at all, and can never be until you provide a great deal more than you even comprehend.
 
Quote
Something way bigger than me, where I'm just one of the passengers who needs to help keep watch for those in our way. I'll from here shout out the above alarm to at least cause Wesley to have to rearrange the deck chairs of what they are aboard, while I further work on the computer model that makes it possible for others elsewhere to not have to stop there.

Self-congratulatory bullshit mixed with whiny complaints duly noted.
Do you have anything new to say that you've not uttered countless times in your 7+ years of epic failure across the web?
How can you even hallucinate yourself as a success when you have convinced not one single person, anywhere, of the correctness, or even the coherency, of your "theory"?
Hmmm?
Sucks to be you, failure is your only accomplishment.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2015,14:51   

If you had any ability to explain, if your "theory"  had any explanatory capability whatsoever, you would man up and begin to address these questions and challenges.
That you continually fail to, pretending they have never been asked, is grounds enough for dismissing your effluent.
There's no need to "misrepresent" your nonsense -- it fails on its own.
Thanks to you.
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2014,09:31)
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?


  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2015,15:55   

Gary:

Quote

From what I can gather a group of evolutionary biologists are using the public schools to teach an Avida based Darwinian theory that misrepresents what is actually going on in “cognitive science” and what cognitive scientists are working on.


How about that, yet another claim from Gary that is plainly FALSE.

If I were wrong, Gary would be able to show such "misrepresentation" of cognitive science. Gary has not and will not, for the simple reason that it hasn't happened.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2015,16:30   

The biggest misrepresentation of his own work is Gary's insistence that his effluent is a theory.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2015,13:22   

Quote
From what I can gather a group of evolutionary biologists are using the public schools to teach an Avida based Darwinian theory that misrepresents what is actually going on in “cognitive science” and what cognitive scientists are working on. With the Google search engine now taking a "best guess" all that I have been explaining is already here anyway, including in what has been described as superhuman intelligence "future robot overlords" for us to welcome and/or beware of.

Instead of objective theory that systematically explains why IBM Watson and other systems indeed scientifically qualify as “intelligent” a branch of evolutionary biology is teaching subjective methods where unintelligent things like reaching a goal is good enough of a metric to use as a qualifier, even though such generalizations do not in reality work for those who actually model intelligence (cognitive scientists). Not even the Watson or Google machine intelligence now all around us right now wants anyone to take credit away from their meeting the systematic requirements that also makes sense along with what Arnold Trehub and David Heiserman explained about the basic systematic features of intelligence.

The need to misrepresent my work could be the tip of an iceberg that's in the way of scientific progress now being made in all of cognitive science. Something way bigger than me, where I'm just one of the passengers who needs to help keep watch for those in our way. I'll from here shout out the above alarm to at least cause Wesley to have to rearrange the deck chairs of what they are aboard, while I further work on the computer model that makes it possible for others elsewhere to not have to stop there


A long screed just to say you have no definition for your misrepresentation of "Intelligence".

With no definitions you are not doing science.

BTW, how is your search for an unimolecular RNA coming along?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,07:06   

http://news.stanford.edu/news....15.html

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,07:28   

Quote
http://news.stanford.edu/news....15.html


Thanks, N. Wells, That is a fascinating article. Do you know if there is a video of the effect?

Of course, Gaulin is going to claim that this was predicted by his "theory" or is illustrated by his "model". Probably because his bug bumps into boundaries or something.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,07:42   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 23 2015,15:28)
Quote
http://news.stanford.edu/news....15.html


Thanks, N. Wells, That is a fascinating article. Do you know if there is a video of the effect?

Of course, Gaulin is going to claim that this was predicted by his "theory" or is illustrated by his "model". Probably because his bug bumps into boundaries or something.

Vid is embedded in the article plus there is a link in the side panel. (I'm using Chrome)
Why would they say droplets can "sense" when it's at least a few days before
the start of April?

--------------
"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. 23 2015,08:13   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 23 2015,07:42)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 23 2015,15:28)
 
Quote
http://news.stanford.edu/news....15.html


Thanks, N. Wells, That is a fascinating article. Do you know if there is a video of the effect?

Of course, Gaulin is going to claim that this was predicted by his "theory" or is illustrated by his "model". Probably because his bug bumps into boundaries or something.

Vid is embedded in the article plus there is a link in the side panel. (I'm using Chrome)
Why would they say droplets can "sense" when it's at least a few days before
the start of April?

The effect (which the embedded video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....H6SY4CY shows as deeply strange) is entirely explained by the droplets being influenced by adjacent droplets due to differential interactions between surface tension and evaporation.

They clearly shouldn't have said "sense", although it is an understandable metaphorical shorthand.  It appealed to me because it showed very "intelligent-looking" behavior that is completely explained by known physics and chemistry, and in part because their wrong (though understandable) use of "sense" is what leads to Gary if you overextend the metaphor without carefully considering what you are doing, such as by carefully setting out definitions.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,08:37   

So the Designer is propylene glycol?

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

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,08:52   

Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 23 2015,16:13)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 23 2015,07:42)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 23 2015,15:28)
   
Quote
http://news.stanford.edu/news....15.html


Thanks, N. Wells, That is a fascinating article. Do you know if there is a video of the effect?

Of course, Gaulin is going to claim that this was predicted by his "theory" or is illustrated by his "model". Probably because his bug bumps into boundaries or something.

Vid is embedded in the article plus there is a link in the side panel. (I'm using Chrome)
Why would they say droplets can "sense" when it's at least a few days before
the start of April?

The effect (which the embedded video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....H6SY4CY shows as deeply strange) is entirely explained by the droplets being influenced by adjacent droplets due to differential interactions between surface tension and evaporation.

They clearly shouldn't have said "sense", although it is an understandable metaphorical shorthand.  It appealed to me because it showed very "intelligent-looking" behavior that is completely explained by known physics and chemistry, and in part because their wrong (though understandable) use of "sense" is what leads to Gary if you overextend the metaphor without carefully considering what you are doing, such as by carefully setting out definitions.

BINGO! Creationist rhetoric is deeply flawed due to its fundamentally (no pun intended)  false logic and complete inabilty/refusal to apply the scientific method. They talk about how they can feel they know something is designed and even make up fomulae that feel right.

Since they have no test for truth the ID crowd has tards like Gary running around saying EVERYTHING is intelligent based on no evidence.

I'd like to see Joe test Boltzman's constant by putting his heat in a microwave oven and then an urn of liquid nitrogen.

--------------
"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. 23 2015,16:35   

Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 23 2015,08:13)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 23 2015,07:42)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 23 2015,15:28)
   
Quote
http://news.stanford.edu/news....15.html


Thanks, N. Wells, That is a fascinating article. Do you know if there is a video of the effect?

Of course, Gaulin is going to claim that this was predicted by his "theory" or is illustrated by his "model". Probably because his bug bumps into boundaries or something.

Vid is embedded in the article plus there is a link in the side panel. (I'm using Chrome)
Why would they say droplets can "sense" when it's at least a few days before
the start of April?

The effect (which the embedded video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....H6SY4CY shows as deeply strange) is entirely explained by the droplets being influenced by adjacent droplets due to differential interactions between surface tension and evaporation.

They clearly shouldn't have said "sense", although it is an understandable metaphorical shorthand.  It appealed to me because it showed very "intelligent-looking" behavior that is completely explained by known physics and chemistry, and in part because their wrong (though understandable) use of "sense" is what leads to Gary if you overextend the metaphor without carefully considering what you are doing, such as by carefully setting out definitions.

Explain that to Wesley, and to all those who endlessly bark for "definitions" instead of actually experiment with cognitive models that explain how "intelligence" works.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,17:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2015,16:35)
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 23 2015,08:13)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 23 2015,07:42)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 23 2015,15:28)
   
Quote
http://news.stanford.edu/news....15.html


Thanks, N. Wells, That is a fascinating article. Do you know if there is a video of the effect?

Of course, Gaulin is going to claim that this was predicted by his "theory" or is illustrated by his "model". Probably because his bug bumps into boundaries or something.

Vid is embedded in the article plus there is a link in the side panel. (I'm using Chrome)
Why would they say droplets can "sense" when it's at least a few days before
the start of April?

The effect (which the embedded video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....H6SY4CY shows as deeply strange) is entirely explained by the droplets being influenced by adjacent droplets due to differential interactions between surface tension and evaporation.

They clearly shouldn't have said "sense", although it is an understandable metaphorical shorthand.  It appealed to me because it showed very "intelligent-looking" behavior that is completely explained by known physics and chemistry, and in part because their wrong (though understandable) use of "sense" is what leads to Gary if you overextend the metaphor without carefully considering what you are doing, such as by carefully setting out definitions.

Explain that to Wesley, and to all those who endlessly bark for "definitions" instead of actually experiment with cognitive models that explain how "intelligence" works.

This from a guy who has no idea what experimentation entails and has never done a real-science experiment in his life, at least not one that has been properly designed and documented.  This is also a guy who doesn't know the difference between a demonstration and an experiment.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,18:27   

Definitions for what something looks like do not explain how something works. Therefore if all you even have is one more definition to add to the thousands that already exists then as far as science is concerned you still have nothing scientifically useful.

The only ones demanding "definitions" are the arm-chair warriors in need of keeping the discussion as dumbed-down as possible.

--------------
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. 23 2015,18:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2015,19:27)
Definitions for what something looks like do not explain how something works. Therefore if all you even have is one more definition to add to the thousands that already exists then as far as science is concerned you still have nothing scientifically useful.

The only ones demanding "definitions" are the arm-chair warriors in need of keeping the discussion as dumbed-down as possible.

You idiot -- definitions are to delimit what you are talking about so everyone can be in agreement on the item/phenomenon in question.
Tossing around a word like 'intelligent' the way you do provide less than nothing.  Certainly it provides no grounds for any experimentation, demonstration, or explanation whatsoever.
We keep having to explain this to you.
Sadly, you've never explained anything at all, least of all with the pile of verbal mush you mis-label as a 'theory'.

The only ones demanding definitions are the people who think it's important to know what you are talking about.
You, who are obviously delighted to speak only on topics you know nothing about, dispense with definitions as they would only get in your way.
We all know it, we all see it, only you think your stance lives on the same planet as 'rational'.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,18:56   

Quote (NoName @ Mar. 23 2015,18:49)
You idiot -- definitions are to delimit what you are talking about so everyone can be in agreement on the item/phenomenon in question.

The phenomenon to explain (how it works) is called "intelligence".

Maybe in another 400 pages or so you'll know what the word "intelligence" means. If you need a proper "definition" then look it up in a "dictionary".

--------------
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. 23 2015,19:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2015,19:56)
Quote (NoName @ Mar. 23 2015,18:49)
You idiot -- definitions are to delimit what you are talking about so everyone can be in agreement on the item/phenomenon in question.

The phenomenon to explain (how it works) is called "intelligence".

Maybe in another 400 pages or so you'll know what the word "intelligence" means. If you need a proper "definition" then look it up in a "dictionary".

The word is not univocal.
The phenomenon you think you are addressing is neither well qualified, well constrained, nor well quantified.
No one, least of all you, have a clue what phenomenon you mean by 'intelligence.'
That's not the least of your problems, nor the greatest, but it's a fatal flaw all on its own.
Worse, we know from your "theory" that your notion is incoherent, internally and contextually contradictory, and relies on the abuse, nay, misuse of standard well-defined terms.  Like 'learn' for instance.
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd answer some of the many questions you've been running away from for months and years.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,19:49   

Quote
Explain that to Wesley, and to all those who endlessly bark for "definitions" instead of actually experiment with cognitive models that explain how "intelligence" works.
That is an impressively moronic comment.  You misunderstand. YOU are in dire need of operational definitions, and you are in great need of regular definitions as well, for pretty much every technical term that you use (or, more accurately, abuse).  Wesley, on the other hand, is doing fine with his word usage and definitions. Also, you have yet to do any actual valid experiments.  The Stanford group did some great experiments, but their loose language regarding "sense" has got them into trouble (that's where the comparison to you is apt), although they redeem themselves with their discussion of "artificial chemotaxis". 

     
Quote
Definitions for what something looks like do not explain how something works. Therefore if all you even have is one more definition to add to the thousands that already exists then as far as science is concerned you still have nothing scientifically useful.  The only ones demanding "definitions" are the arm-chair warriors in need of keeping the discussion as dumbed-down as possible.
 Now that is spectacularly moronic.  Definitions are what makes science possible.  You lack operational definitions and you are not following standard definitions.  Science does not require investigators to use standard terminology, but if you are to be taken seriously when using non-standard and/or ambiguous terminology, scientific practice does require you to redefine your terms to identify their meaning precisely, and then stick to your redefinitions.  You have not done this in any reasonable manner, so you are making impossible for anyone to take you seriously.  Definitions are about what something IS (a concise statement of its essential and distinguishing characteristics) and how it can be identified and distinguished from other things that are similar but not identical.  They do not begin and end with "what it looks like" and mostly likely are not about how something works, so you are largely wrong at both ends of that first sentence.  It is true that there are many definitions of intelligence, but this just makes it much more important that you state explicitly the specific meaning that you intend to follow, and that you proceed to stick to it, rather than skipping from one version to the next and playing word games to smuggle in desired conclusions.  If you were actually doing science, you'd be a disgrace to the field, but instead you are just disgracing yourself.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,20:50   

In order to get science work done I must ignore the most recent accusations from inquisitors.

The new grid network software I was working on came out looking great. The field-to-field connections are made with a color coded membrane, axon hillock, axon and synapse. I found that on one of the (now visible) half cycles the field force leads towards the attractor, then in the next half cycle the field force leads away from the (no longer an) "attractor".

I still have plenty of work to do before being ready to upload code, but I'm still making some progress.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,21:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2015,20:50)
In order to get science work done I must ignore the most recent accusations from inquisitors.

The new grid network software I was working on came out looking great. The field-to-field connections are made with a color coded membrane, axon hillock, axon and synapse. I found that on one of the (now visible) half cycles the field force leads towards the attractor, then in the next half cycle the field force leads away from the (no longer an) "attractor".

I still have plenty of work to do before being ready to upload code, but I'm still making some progress.

We aren't inquisitors.
(You are having trouble with definitions again.  The definition of Inquisitors is "Inquisitors were agents of the Medieval Inquisition established by the Roman Catholic Church, and of the subsequent Spanish Inquisition, Portuguese Inquisition and Roman Inquisition."*)
We aren't even figurative or metaphorical inquisitors: none of us are threatening to put you in the rack or burn you to death for your heresies.

(*Note: that definition doesn't tell you what they looked like, nor does it explain how or why they inquisited.)

To get any worthwhile science done, you need to do what we are urging you to do, because without it, you have absolutely nothing of any worth.

 
Quote
but I'm still making some progress.
 That's the problem - you aren't making any progress whatsoever.  You can't until you resolve a whole pile of fundamental problems.  Until then, you are merely deluding yourself.  How is that a worthwhile use of your time?

If you want to convince other people of something, you have to convince THEM.  Convincing yourself and failing to convince them does not count.  Look at your reception across the internet - you are clearly failing to convince anyone beyond yourself.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,21:18   

Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 23 2015,19:49)
You lack operational definitions and you are not following standard definitions.

I do have to point out this gem that translates to "Repeat exactly what Wesley, N.Wells and the other so-called science defenders command you to say or be bullied."

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,22:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2015,21:18)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 23 2015,19:49)
You lack operational definitions and you are not following standard definitions.

I do have to point out this gem that translates to "Repeat exactly what Wesley, N.Wells and the other so-called science defenders command you to say or be bullied."

And another epic fail from Gary.  No, we are not COMMANDING you to SAY anything.  We are saying that science has standard procedures that are uniformly accepted, and we are pointing out that you are violating them and that what you are doing is therefore not science.  We are also saying that if you want your stuff to be accepted as science, it needs to fulfill many qualifications that it currently lacks, because until you resolve those problems you will fail at convincing anyone who knows anything about science.

What "that gem" translates to is "You lack operational definitions and you are not following standard definitions."

Now hand over your lunch money.
(/snark)

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2015,22:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2015,20:50)
In order to get science work done I must ignore the most recent accusations from inquisitors.

The new grid network software I was working on came out looking great. The field-to-field connections are made with a color coded membrane, axon hillock, axon and synapse. I found that on one of the (now visible) half cycles the field force leads towards the attractor, then in the next half cycle the field force leads away from the (no longer an) "attractor".

I still have plenty of work to do before being ready to upload code, but I'm still making some progress.

The Inquisition was a time of terrible persecution, as hordes of enforcers of the Holy Faith ran riot with defunding of cranks and crackpots, as well as responding sarcastically to same in medieval forums wherein superbugs were advanced as the result of molecular intelligence.

It was horrible, as useless dullards were forced to find day jobs and were deprived of the fame and fortune that boring fantasies richly deserve.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition?  Whoever said that didn't know Gary, nor the true horrors of the lack of subsidies for mental wankery.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

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

Pages: (622) < ... 448 449 450 451 452 [453] 454 455 456 457 458 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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