RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 454 455 456 457 458 [459] 460 461 462 463 464 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2015,11:18   

I can imagine Gaulin buying an IKEA bookcase and insisting that it made a chair when he put it together.

Quote
I'll bet Gary's wife dreams of going to Ikea for an argument.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2015,14:16   

Quote (ChemiCat @ April 17 2015,12:18)
I can imagine Gaulin buying an IKEA bookcase and insisting that it made a chair when he put it together.

Eames reviewed it and said it was awesome.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2015,15:37   

Quote
Eames reviewed it and said it was awesome.


And Planet Source Code said they would look at it when they had time but still gave it a globe.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2015,15:07   

I have been reviewing one of the earlier mentioned websites:

http://blog.brainfacts.org/2013.......NSG6eM_

And a theory where as in my grid cell network models at Planet Source Code there are directional vectors (they described as moving "activity bumps") at every active hexagonal "patch" in the network.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....0120521



For comparison:



--------------
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: April 19 2015,05:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 18 2015,23:07)
I have been reviewing one of the earlier mentioned websites:

http://blog.brainfacts.org/2013.......NSG6eM_

And a theory where as in my grid cell network models at Planet Source Code there are directional vectors (they described as moving "activity bumps") at every active hexagonal "patch" in the network.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....0120521



For comparison:


A witches broom to an airplane.

--------------
"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 19 2015,15:04   

So, Gaulin, still "borrowing" other peoples' work and claiming it fits with your B-S.

You didn't even read the paper or you would see that it has absolutely nothing to do with your "model" at all.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2015,16:37   

I have been carefully studing this review of modeling methods and evidence. It's the best yet for explaining the details needed for a two hemisphere system that works from visual and other sensory information.

Grid cells and cortical representation, by Edvard I. Moser, Yasser Roudi, Menno P. Witter, Clifford Kentros, Tobias Bonhoeffer and May-Britt Moser. June 2014
http://www.researchgate.net/profile....000.pdf

The way the pdf downloads through the researchgate portal straight into a folder it seems like it's meant to be featured with the software. Quoting what it says in comments for the code that comes after it has already been a big help in coding, and explaining how it works.

With several more questions having been answered the direction is towards a two grid system, one grid per hemisphere, anchored to the rotation of the cue card around its environment, with average wavelength increase from one module to the next by a factor of 1.4 and so forth.

--------------
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 19 2015,17:12   

Oh and wavelength increase causes a change in radius that a module maps out. It's either hexagonal or a hexagonally arranged circle.

I dread Wesley and others demanding I show some hidden waves like on an oscilloscope when the waves in question go out in all directions, not one.

--------------
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: April 19 2015,21:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 19 2015,17:12)
Oh and wavelength increase causes a change in radius that a module maps out. It's either hexagonal or a hexagonally arranged circle.

I dread Wesley and others demanding I show some hidden waves like on an oscilloscope when the waves in question go out in all directions, not one.


This bit of stuff does raise some interesting questions. If Gary isn't checking wave properties at any points because "waves ... go out in all directions", how does he know what the waves are actually doing?

I can point to a casual discussion I had of a blooper in an NCIS epsiode that bears upon the issue of "waves ... go out in all directions".

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2015,00:26   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 19 2015,21:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 19 2015,17:12)
Oh and wavelength increase causes a change in radius that a module maps out. It's either hexagonal or a hexagonally arranged circle.

I dread Wesley and others demanding I show some hidden waves like on an oscilloscope when the waves in question go out in all directions, not one.


This bit of stuff does raise some interesting questions. If Gary isn't checking wave properties at any points because "waves ... go out in all directions", how does he know what the waves are actually doing?

I can point to a casual discussion I had of a blooper in an NCIS epsiode that bears upon the issue of "waves ... go out in all directions".

What makes this model of interest to AI is the easy to produce self-navigation that it already demonstrates just fine. Demonstrating something Neuroscience may in the future explain happening in our brain's navigation system is icing on the cake. Either way the model demonstrates what grid and other cells combined provide to navigation without a million lines of code that will only run on a supercomputer.

You just keep demanding detail until you're past what neuroscience is able to explain, or practical on a PC. What a science stopper that is.

--------------
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 20 2015,00:42   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 19 2015,19:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 19 2015,17:12)
Oh and wavelength increase causes a change in radius that a module maps out. It's either hexagonal or a hexagonally arranged circle.

I dread Wesley and others demanding I show some hidden waves like on an oscilloscope when the waves in question go out in all directions, not one.


This bit of stuff does raise some interesting questions. If Gary isn't checking wave properties at any points because "waves ... go out in all directions", how does he know what the waves are actually doing?

I can point to a casual discussion I had of a blooper in an NCIS epsiode that bears upon the issue of "waves ... go out in all directions".

Never mind all that, Dr E; you missed the most interesting question of all.  I'd like to know how to arrange a circle hexagonally.

--------------
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: April 20 2015,00:47   

Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2015,00:42)
I'd like to know how to arrange a circle hexagonally.



Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation around Repelling border/boundary cell mapped hazards or barriers

--------------
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 20 2015,10:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2015,00:47)
 
Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2015,00:42)
I'd like to know how to arrange a circle hexagonally.



Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation around Repelling border/boundary cell mapped hazards or barriers

These go to eleven.



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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2015,13:31   

Quote
Demonstrating something Neuroscience may in the future explain happening in our brain's navigation system is icing on the cake.

This is exactly why k.e. mentioned witches' brooms vs aeroplanes.  Without good ground-truthing and modelling from fundamental principles, whether it is actually correct or not, the postulated cause of flight might as well be angel wings or jet-power witch flatulence.

Also, even if you do end up producing a decent model of navigation using place and grid cells, that won't say anything about speciation, emergence of intelligence, cellular intelligence, or how place and grid cells came about in the first place, or any of your other unsupported assertions.  Nor does it address the problem that (according to your own criteria) your nonsense has been made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's more recent, somewhat more published, and vastly more comprehensive nonsense.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2015,13:16   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 20 2015,13:31)
Quote
Demonstrating something Neuroscience may in the future explain happening in our brain's navigation system is icing on the cake.

This is exactly why k.e. mentioned witches' brooms vs aeroplanes.  Without good ground-truthing and modelling from fundamental principles, whether it is actually correct or not, the postulated cause of flight might as well be angel wings or jet-power witch flatulence.

Also, even if you do end up producing a decent model of navigation using place and grid cells, that won't say anything about speciation, emergence of intelligence, cellular intelligence, or how place and grid cells came about in the first place, or any of your other unsupported assertions.  Nor does it address the problem that (according to your own criteria) your nonsense has been made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's more recent, somewhat more published, and vastly more comprehensive nonsense.

You don't even study what the "fundamental principles" are. Or have a model of your own that is at least useful to AI.

Grandstanding about "ground-truthing" is just more of the usual changing of the subject away from models already doing a fine job of explaining the fundamental principles of intelligence modeling, at all levels of biology.

--------------
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: April 22 2015,21:13   

[quote=GaryGaulin,April 22 2015,13:16][/quote]
 
Quote
You don't even study what the "fundamental principles" are.

Says the guy who can't and won't define his basic terms, doesn't have operational definitions, screws up basic concepts, and can't provide any hard evidence to back up any of his controversial claims.

 
Quote
Or have a model of your own that is at least useful to AI.
 I'm not the person claiming that such a model exists.  Also, nothing you have written has as yet shown any evidence of being useful to anyone.

 
Quote
Grandstanding about "ground-truthing"

You are dismissing an essential part of the scientific process.  Without it, your stuff is not distinguishable from rubbish.

 
Quote
is just more of the usual changing of the subject away
I've been consistently on point - you're the one who keeps adding irrelevant music videos and jumping from topic to topic whenever things get embarrassing for you.

 
Quote
from models already doing a fine job of explaining the fundamental principles of intelligence modeling, at all levels of biology.
Assuming facts not in evidence (right back to you needing to do some ground-truthing).  

You can't just assert molecular intelligence and intelligence without neurons and brains: you need to provide some supporting evidence, at all levels of biology.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,01:27   

Quote
I have been carefully studing this review of modeling methods and evidence.


Does this mean that you are copulating with or to it?

It is for mistakes like this that your "theory" and "model" are a meaningless pile of rubbish. It is only suitable for landfill as it is not recyclable.

Your mistaken concepts of "molecular intelligence", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" are not grounded with scientific evidence, as has been pointed out by N. Wells over and over again. For a start you ignore cellular clusters because they kick a big hole in your "theory".

You have added nothing to cognitive science, in fact adoption of your "theory/model" would send the research backwards not forwards.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,05:13   

Moser et al. 2014:

 
Quote

Assumptions about recurrent connectivity

Attractor models of grid cells require neurons to be connected to each other, directly or indirectly, by way of synaptic weights that depend on the phase difference between neurons.


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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,08:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 23 2015,05:13)
Moser et al. 2014:

 
Quote

Assumptions about recurrent connectivity

Attractor models of grid cells require neurons to be connected to each other, directly or indirectly, by way of synaptic weights that depend on the phase difference between neurons.

The model already has that. I even showed you how this was accomplished.

Are you saying I need to quote the sentence in program comments (for the code lines that depend on the phase difference between neurons)?

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

   
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,13:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 16 2015,15:32)
The description for the grid model currently at Planet Source Code was before hand reviewed by Edvard Moser and other experts in the field. And I plan to keep it that way.

I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Gary, you are a documented liar when it comes to your claims about outside reviews pertaining to the monument of a wasted life you label your real-science "theory".

A little trip down memory lane:

 
Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2013,03:16)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 04 2013,05:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.

Let's see what Gary describes as 'doing very well'

     
Quote
I am looking for honest unbiased opinon (informal peer-review) of the following theory......blah....blah...


     
Quote
You gotta be fucking kidding me. We all see through your bullshit, Gary. Get your creationist ass off this forum.


     
Quote
Just perusing through the paper so far, I might read the entire thing at some point, I find that there are at least a few unprovable assumptions which could greatly influence the interpretation of whatever data you have collected:


     
Quote
Your paper is flawed in it's fundamental premise of non-randomness. I'd not spend any more time trying to 'prove' it, and go enjoy a nice round of golf or something.


     
Quote
Two words: Bull shit.


     
Quote
It's a hypothesis at best. A theory requires evidence, experiments to support your hypothesis.


     
Quote
So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that.


     
Quote
I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!


     
Quote
I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.


....and that's all within two pages.

Gary, if that's an example of your theory doing 'very well' I'd hate to see it take a beating. (Incidentally it'll come as no surprise that Gary drags the Stalin trope out as soon as he can.)

Of further note...(I'm sounding like Batsh^t_77, here) Gary says....

     
Quote
The Theory of Intelligent Design is halfway between science and religion, where they interface. Only have to make it scientifically coherent in order to bridge the gap.


Oh, Gary.


 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 04 2013,16:11)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2013,22:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.

If I interpret GG correctly...which, given his utter failure to recognize intelligent use of the English language, is not certain...he has provided a link to a forum he believes exemplifies "how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present."

Let's examine that link:

The forum entry was started 2 months ago.

There are 4 "voices" providing 10 posted comments. Gary is obviously one of the posters. As Gary notes, Wes is another. Gary is the source for 5 of the comments, while Wes contributes 1.

The other 4 comments are provided by asimov1 with 4 and Mnemomem with 1.

Questions for Gary (which he will avoid answering, of course):

1. Who are asimov1 and Mnemomeme and what book(s) have they written and/or what cognitive systems have they developed which make them experts in the field of cognitive science?

2. How does a forum entry that is only 2 months old, and has only 4 replies from only 2 people outside of yourself and Wes spanning a couple of weeks, show that the "other forum has long known about [your] theory writing project"? Seriously...4 comments over 2 months is doing well and constitutes a long time?

3. How do you know Wes' post did not surprise them since there are no posts after that from which to draw any such conclusion?

4. If things were going "very well" for you in that forum and if your so-called "theory" had any merit, why were there not more cognitive science experts commenting on your work? Why haven't you continued to post? It's been over 2 months since Wes' post with none following his by anyone?

Now, let's also look at the post from asimov1 immediately preceding Wes' for an example of the reception Gary's drivel received from a "cognitive science expert" (my bolding):

� � � � � �    
Quote
Most AI is virtual, it lives in a digital universe , it is physically embedded in that universe. Whenever the AI is thinking or doing something that virtual universe slows down or stops altogether, the flow of time has ceased....if you get me...now this is way different from reality isn't it !

My thoughts

If thats what your creating then your not really creating AI that would be fit for our universe, just fit for the Matrix you created for it to live in, that Matrix like universe has completely different laws of physics to ours ( and other matrix like universes ), prolly less dimensions, heck even time works in a very different way !....to a certain extent your learning to do the wrong thing in the wrong kind of universe. your not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really


Maybe it's just me, but I would not consider that to be an endorsement that your pathetic little VB bug models intelligence in the real world or makes a scientific contribution in any way whatsoever.

So...essentially, your post I quoted above is one big, fat, exaggerated lie.

The only semblance of a true statement in your quote is that "A number of them studied it,..." since 3 people (including Wes) read through your heap of parrot droppings.

Yes, in one small instance you were correct...3 is a number.

Congratulations.


Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 15 2015,20:46)
According to Gary,      
Quote
That is from an overall constructive discussion (which over three years ago ended) from the first topic I ever posted in that forum!  

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....t-31405

It's an example of what happens when my IDeas are not battled using "wretched arguments in enormous, repetitive, voluminosity, as seen in this thread..."

At the Kurzweil AI forum the theory issue is now ancient history. The regular members understand what I was saying as it pertains to cognitive science and biology. Forum staff do not mind the computer models and other things that came out of discussion. I help show how valuable of a service they are to someone like me.
 

Well, that certainly seems to put us in our place.  Guaranteed experts generally understood his points and did not object, and a good and productive conversation was had by all.  But wait, this is Gary talking!  Have we learned that Gary is always careful and never makes false assertions, or is there just occasionally, just once in a while, a little tiny gap, barely noticeable really, between Gary and reality as everyone else knows it?  Aw heck, I'm almost starting to feel guilty about checking up on whatever he says.........

So, following Tony's fine example, let's distill that Kurzweil thread for the essence of various people's opinions about Gary's ideas:

Provoketur:          
Quote

lie more and continue to ignore anyone that makes concrete observations.

Its like having a discussion with redq. hardly worth the effort.




Quotheraving:          
Quote
There's so many flaws with this that it's hard to know where to begin so I'll pick each apart in the order they appear. .... This displays either a complete misunderstanding of what intelligence implies or worse an attempt at redefinition of terms. In my experience such redefinitions are signs of sophism and semantic gymnastics similar to redefining black as 'dark grey' in order to have a basis to argue incrementally towards the statement that black is white.

This not only fails to "operationally define intelligence" but also manages to be a tautology and so vague as to be essentially meaningless.  All you do is state the obvious (intelligence producing algorithms allow electronic intelligence) and offer this up as though it were proof that a constituents behaviour explains the behaviour of the whole which is not only no kind of support for your later argument but is patently false. There are numerous examples of systems where their behaviour arises as an emergent property at a certain scale rather than as an inherent property at all scales.

You are mixing things up.  Traditional 'religious' Intelligent design only requires that complex organisms be the result of an intelligent creator. Your 'theory' which you term intelligent design however argues that intelligence is an innate property existing at all scales and that each higher strata is produced as a result of intelligent behaviour of the strata below.  For this to be called intelligent design you must first show that the behaviour of lower scales is actually intelligent (capable of choosing a better course of action from a range of less favorable responses) and that the higher levels are designed (made intentionally) you manage neither.
........................

Non random implies order which implies rules, it does not imply intelligence.  Stating that ordered behaviour at the atomic behaviour allows for further complexity of behaviour at the molecular layer is nothing more than stating the obvious, calling this intelligence rather than simply complex behaviour however is a mistake.

............................

Again you ascribe purpose to selection displaying a poor understanding of Darwinism.
Yes the genome is the end result of previous iterations of mutation which were each a succesful adaptation, but it does not therefore constitute true memory, the ability to consciously choose between options, let alone the ability to model the environment

...........................


You claim much but deliver less than nothing. Essentially this whole stinky and shaky edifice is based on nothing more than unsupported claims and a casual redefinition and/or misapplication of basic terms such as intelligence, memory and choice.  To my eyes this is an object lesson on the need for clear definitions of important terms.



................................

My point is that each scale is different and that this difference renders the term intelligence inapplicable and the entire basis for his argument moot  Not to mention it completely fails at it's claim to show an alternative to natural selection.   So less troll food and more wild unsupported claims and a poor choice of name.


....................

I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!
Though first you should clearly define your terms and provide a strong and logically sound argument with pertinent evidence as support.  However you haven't provided any real evidence, and certainly nothing that would convince anyone with a passing familiarity in highschool level science.
You do however build an argument resting on unsupported claims, misapplied terms and stating the obvious as though it supported your argument when it doesn't. Ultimately producing what amounts to little more than an exercise in sophistry.



           
Quote
Gary:  Or in other words you demand a unscientific explanation that does not follow any known scientific laws/theories, so that you continue to believe that a scientific explanation is unscientific.


No, quite the opposite really.  I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.

Handwaving away fundamental problems does not make your essential premise any more sound, nor any less an exercise in semantics rather than science.


..........................

However this goes far beyond poor use of language.  It begins with messy semantics, generating confusion by shifting between levels that should be considered on their own virtues and described by reference to their own particular behaviours, then uses the resultant confusions to support conclusions that are laughably and patently false. Which is why I consider this argument specious... it's nearly a textbook example of sophistry.


............................

Your language here is mangled, but even when corrected (ironically by a "best guess") your idea has obviously confused levels of abstraction. ...........You have erected a straw man, namely that some "atheistic contamination of science" relies on a false idea (that being the randomness of chemical reactions) to support their anti-ID anti-Creationist worldview, but nothing could be further from the truth.
With all due respect, and apologies if I have gotten something basically wrong, but If even a crackpot like me can come along and without much trouble DESTROY your silly thinking (or knowing propaganda, if you are that cynical), what chance do you think you stand against real scientists? The thought that you want to contaminate science with this crap, and that you think science is currently contaminated by opposite notions, is troubling to me.




EyeOrderChaos:          
Quote
 Deepak Chopra has been churning out this kind of stuff too  ...........
I think it's obvious that they are thoughts about human bias, motivations, comfort levels; I think it's obvious how it pertains to the subject; I think it's obvious that you want to appear to be trying, begging, pleading to keep the debate here in the realm of science but sir we are not even close to science yet, starting with your submission.



................................

The consensus so far is that you are not being logically coherent in your use, your intended application, of the word "intelligence", and in your assertions of what the scientific consensus is regarding random versus nonrandom behaviors of various configurations of matter. I would agree with these criticicms. However, don't let any of that discourage you, how to arrive at an operational definition of intelligence is not without controversy, I think, and if you think you are really on to something why not keep pluggin away at it? Also, why not learn from the criticisms while youre at it?. To be honest though, I don't think you have the makings of a good theory, because your definition of intelligence involves a tautology, an ontological indeterminism: "It's intelligent because it's purposeful because it's optimized for the environment because it's designed because it's purposeful because it's intelligent". Plus, I don't think your understanding of what randomness is and isn't and what it does and does not import to the "design" arguments is very good.



Field Man:          
Quote
So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that.



{i}Pan:          
Quote
 The VERY FACT that you are doing your utmost to evade and dodge these questions makes EVERYTHING you do from this point SUSPICIOUS.  The FACT that you are doing everything you can to slide past these direct and simple questions shows that you are not being honest.


Yessiree Bob, ringing endorsements, every last one of them.


--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,17:35   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,13:31)
I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Yes I can see the giant pile of manure you just dumped on this thread.

I'm sure your fellow mud-slingers will be proud of the stench.

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

   
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,18:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,16:35)
     
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,13:31)
I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Yes I can see the giant pile of manure you just dumped on this thread.

I'm sure your fellow mud-slingers will be proud of the stench.

Sorry Gary, it is not manure, and it is not mudslinging, simply documented proof of your exaggerated lies lest anyone be deceived by your pathetic, idiotic claims of positive reviews.

What is a steaming pile of shite is the 40+ pages you call a "theory" that you have crapped all over the internet and that has been flushed away everywhere you go.

The only stench here is the overpowering reek of rejection that follows you wherever you go.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,18:51   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,18:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,16:35)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,13:31)
I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Yes I can see the giant pile of manure you just dumped on this thread.

I'm sure your fellow mud-slingers will be proud of the stench.

Sorry Gary, it is not manure, and it is not mudslinging, simply documented proof of your exaggerated lies lest anyone be deceived by your pathetic, idiotic claims of positive reviews.

What is a steaming pile of shite is the 40+ pages you call a "theory" that you have crapped all over the internet and that has been flushed away everywhere you go.

The only stench here is the overpowering reek of rejection that follows you wherever you go.

And the tales grow taller on down the line.

It's sad how nutcase junk like this just goes with the science territory I'm in.

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

   
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,19:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,17:51)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,18:42)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,16:35)
               
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,13:31)
I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Yes I can see the giant pile of manure you just dumped on this thread.

I'm sure your fellow mud-slingers will be proud of the stench.

Sorry Gary, it is not manure, and it is not mudslinging, simply documented proof of your exaggerated lies lest anyone be deceived by your pathetic, idiotic claims of positive reviews.

What is a steaming pile of shite is the 40+ pages you call a "theory" that you have crapped all over the internet and that has been flushed away everywhere you go.

The only stench here is the overpowering reek of rejection that follows you wherever you go.

And the tales grow taller on down the line.

It's sad how nutcase junk like this just goes with the science territory I'm in.

Tell us Gary...where is the tale I tell?

Everything I have said or pointed out is true and you are incapable of showing otherwise.

Tell us Gary...what science territory are you in?

By all accounts, everywhere you have introduced your "real-science" it has been judged as absolutely lacking in any science. It has been repeatedly demonstrated you know little, if any, science.

As a matter of fact, in the quoted text above, people you yourself have identified as "cognitive science experts" have pointed out that:

"a coherent logical argument [is] supported by pertinent evidence and [is] ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order to [be] viewed as a scientific theory... You [Gary] singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific."

and

"you're not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really"

Rather than avoiding reality and simply mudslinging empty words as you have just done, show me to be incorrect.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,19:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,17:51)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,18:42)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,16:35)
           
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,13:31)
I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Yes I can see the giant pile of manure you just dumped on this thread.

I'm sure your fellow mud-slingers will be proud of the stench.

Sorry Gary, it is not manure, and it is not mudslinging, simply documented proof of your exaggerated lies lest anyone be deceived by your pathetic, idiotic claims of positive reviews.

What is a steaming pile of shite is the 40+ pages you call a "theory" that you have crapped all over the internet and that has been flushed away everywhere you go.

The only stench here is the overpowering reek of rejection that follows you wherever you go.

And the tales grow taller on down the line.

It's sad how nutcase junk like this just goes with the science territory I'm in.

BTW, this all started with a very tall tale from you:

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 16 2015,15:32)
The description for the grid model currently at Planet Source Code was before hand reviewed by Edvard Moser and other experts in the field. And I plan to keep it that way.


So show us where Edvard Moser has ever reviewed anything you have produced.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,19:52   

I'm happy to report that the critter now has proprioception, which greatly improved its behavior! And it was easier than I thought. Uses the same map grid.

After going over the network geometry from an average grid scale increase by a constant factor of 1.4 there is a center region for a couple of hexagonally spaced radials (as in retinal foveal area) surrounded by concentric circles that do not pack together hexagonally. Like this but 12 pixels per ring:


http://www.ghuth.com/2010....-retina

Since the number of map "modules" needed for its small arena is only enough to cover a hexagonally spaced central region (where as in fovea there is a relatively even distribution scale inside) mapping large terrain almost to infinity can be a later fancy addition to the model. At this point in experiments I would not even know what to do with thousands of miles of map space for a critter only as big as a bug, who only needs an environment the size of a jar.

I'll next need to set grid rotation to external cue's. Then I'll be ready to turn on the moving invisible shock zone back on again! Avidians welcomed!! Bwahahahaaaa!!!

--------------
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 23 2015,20:02   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,19:23)
So show us where Edvard Moser has ever reviewed anything you have produced.

I sent him an email. He sent an encouraging email back.

And that was before he became a Nobel winner, not after.

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

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,20:36   

Gary, you say....

Quote
The description for the grid model currently at Planet Source Code was before hand reviewed by Edvard Moser and other experts in the field. And I plan to keep it that way.


So the grid model wasn't actually reviewed by Moser et al; only its description.

Brilliant.

When I get around to finishing my book on wizards I'll be sure to get J.K. Rowling to endorse the dust jacket.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,21:14   

Quote (Woodbine @ April 23 2015,20:36)
Gary, you say....

 
Quote
The description for the grid model currently at Planet Source Code was before hand reviewed by Edvard Moser and other experts in the field. And I plan to keep it that way.


So the grid model wasn't actually reviewed by Moser et al; only its description.

Brilliant.

When I get around to finishing my book on wizards I'll be sure to get J.K. Rowling to endorse the dust jacket.

Well at least it was "hand reviewed".  That's far superior to being assembly line reviewed.  

Maybe Gary can slap an artisan-reviewed stick on his "model" to appeal to the hipster scientists (you know, the ones who review things before they win the Nobel).

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2015,21:34   

So, since Gary views "Congratulations Gary, excellent work. Will dive into it, when i'll get time." as unconstrained adulation, what do you suppose Moser's email said that Gary would characterize as merely "encouraging"?

A) "Go away, fool"
B) "I can't wait to think about planning to find time to look at it, perhaps after I win the Nobel, hahaha."
C) "Undoubtedly it would best for society if you continued to focus all your attention on expanding your work, and I do urge, please, ALL your attention."
D) "Thank you very much for sending your work to me.  It clearly represents the quality of your thinking and the degree of your knowledge of your chosen subject.  We regret that our initial examination shows that we are no longer able to give it the amount of attention that it obviously deserves."
E) Something polite, meaningless, and encouraging.
F) Actual praise.

I'm betting against F.

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

Pages: (622) < ... 454 455 456 457 458 [459] 460 461 462 463 464 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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