RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 453 454 455 456 457 [458] 459 460 461 462 463 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2015,19:37   

Is it farther to Edmonton, or by bus?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2015,20:38   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 13 2015,09:40)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 13 2015,09:14)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 13 2015,01:18)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2015,14:12)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2015,07:02)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 11 2015,10:11)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 11 2015,08:04)
I wonder if Gary can point to a place in any of the neuroscience articles where they state that an organism is born with its place and grid cells already mapped to an existing environment, at the correct scale, its current location represented there, and its orientation set.

It looks like Wesley is going to try impressing us with their sciency sounding Evo-Devo vocabulary that explains absolutely nothing, but at least makes them look smart to peers and to funding agencies who regularly flush money down a toilet.

Gary is confused. I was making a critique of systems that claim to model place and grid cells but which start with such cells initialized to map to a particular environment, at a particular scale, with the state set to reflect a particular organism location and orientation. I don't think such systems can be justified by reference to the literature, and by Gary's non-response, neither does he.

It is not a static grid anymore. Last week I added what was needed to "remap with subtle changes to the spatial geometry of the environment" and that led to it being easy to add articulated proprioception, which I expect will in turn cause remapping the whole thing to new scales, which in turn accounts for grid field behavior I read about elsewhere but until now I did not know what could be causing it.

The model already does what is highlighted below, and all the rest just became easier:

       
Quote
FINAL NOTE: HIPPOCAMPAL PLACE CELLS AS AN EXAMPLE OF MODULAR CODING OF THE ALLOCENTRIC REPRESENTATION?
Thus far, we have focused on behavioral, lesion, and fMRI studies, which argue against allocentric navigational strategies depending on a single brain region (Figure ​3A) and as decomposable into contributions from individual brain regions (​Figure3B). One might argue, as others have (O’Keefe and Nadel, 1978; Redish, 1999), however, that place cells, present in the rodent, monkey, and human hippocampus (O’Keefe and Dostrovsky, 1971; Ekstrom et al., 2003; Hori et al., 2003), are the neural instantiation of an allocentric representation, or cognitive map. While place cells do have many features similar to what one might expect in a neural systems that code spatial environments in a map-like fashion, there are other important features of place cells that are decidedly not map-like. Place cells in the rodent and human hippocampus remap based on egocentric direction (Markus et al., 1995; Miller et al., 2013), are sensitive to goal and other temporal variables (Gothard et al., 2001; Hollup et al., 2001; Ekstrom et al., 2003; Bahar et al., 2011), and remap with subtle changes to the spatial geometry of the environment (Leutgeb et al., 2005; Wills et al., 2005). Indeed, recent theoretical models of the cognitive map now suggest that time and geometry less variant spatial coding mechanisms possibly resides outside of the hippocampus (Buzsaki, 2006; Buzsaki and Moser, 2013). Grid cells, neurons in enthorhinal cortex that fire in a regularly spaced fashion as the rat explores a spatial environment (Fyhn et al., 2004; Jacobs et al., 2013), may be a better candidate for the neural basis of allocentric representation (Buzsaki and Moser, 2013). Yet lesions of entorhinal cortex, at least in rodents, do not abolish place cell firing in the CA3 subfield of the hippocampus (Lu et al., 2013) and impair, but do not abolish, the place code in CA1 (Brun et al., 2008). While many details of entorhinal–hippocampal neural interactions remain to be established, grid cells do not contribute in a clear or modular fashion to place coding in the hippocampus, at least based on what the above-mentioned studies have determined so far in the rat. Furthermore, in addition to grid cells, entorhinal cortex cells also respond to egocentric direction (Sargolini et al., 2006), suggesting this area may not be specialized for allocentric computations alone. In addition, consistent with what we have argued here, it is clear that other areas, like prefrontal and retrosplenial cortex, also contribute critically, via oscillatory synchrony, to spatial coding in the hippocampus (Benchenane et al., 2010; Battaglia et al., 2011; Fujisawa and Buzsaki, 2011). Thus, although many aspects of the hippocampal neural code would appear sufficient to support an allocentric representation, the neural code itself is not map-like and depends, at least in part, on coordinated input and activity from other brain structures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........4193251

"Static grid" is not among the topics I broached.

You did not raise (a sensitive or difficult subject) for discussion. You just still seem to be expecting neuron behavior to be modeled another way that you're used to instead of new way that does away with needing an "ANN" or Hopfield network type thing, while at the same time giving the behavior what makes places on the grid map depend on what it wants, without having to add code to make it want to go where it should, towards goals it inherently sets based on immediate needs.

In this modeling method timed signals of all cells/neurons add up to waves that get crowd surfed around by them. Exactly how cells easily manage this using proper timing of multiplexed waves is unique to cells, while how a personal computer can accomplish the same is unique to how digital circuitry works. It's therefore proper for this model to show how that is most easily accomplished in code, not what is only applicable to cells. The neuron on up models that universities are working on would in this case only reinvent the wheel while violating the Occam's Razor simple requirement that the ID Lab has upon it.

Using another method to model the neural behavior will not make the critter more representative of biological systems. What I'm programming is a benchmark for models that try the same thing another way would behave if is working just right.

Gary is confused yet again. I didn't say a word about "NEURONS"* in the criticism in question.

*Meaning the absence of any such from Gary's code. Given that the whole exercise is premised on modeling neural assemblages, that is a major oversight, but not the particular criticism of the moment.

I have been quite precise in my use of terminology and don't need to engage a pissing contest with someone who demands that I model pretty looking neurons instead of how a brain 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.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2015,20:44   

I was making a critique of systems that claim to model place and grid cells but which start with such cells initialized to map to a particular environment, at a particular scale, with the state set to reflect a particular organism location and orientation. I don't think such systems can be justified by reference to the literature, and by Gary's non-response, neither does he.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2015,21:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 13 2015,20:44)
I was making a critique of systems that claim to model place and grid cells but which start with such cells initialized to map to a particular environment, at a particular scale, with the state set to reflect a particular organism location and orientation. I don't think such systems can be justified by reference to the literature, and by Gary's non-response, neither does he.

You are now omitting everything that happens immediately AFTER the program is "initialized", which took plenty of "literature" to make happen.

--------------
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 13 2015,21:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 13 2015,21:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 13 2015,20:44)
I was making a critique of systems that claim to model place and grid cells but which start with such cells initialized to map to a particular environment, at a particular scale, with the state set to reflect a particular organism location and orientation. I don't think such systems can be justified by reference to the literature, and by Gary's non-response, neither does he.

You are now omitting everything that happens immediately AFTER the program is "initialized", which took plenty of "literature" to make happen.

"Well, yes I cheated at the start of the race, but I ran the rest of the way fairly."

Lame, Gary. Lame.

--------------
"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 13 2015,21:14   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 13 2015,21:08)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 13 2015,21:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 13 2015,20:44)
I was making a critique of systems that claim to model place and grid cells but which start with such cells initialized to map to a particular environment, at a particular scale, with the state set to reflect a particular organism location and orientation. I don't think such systems can be justified by reference to the literature, and by Gary's non-response, neither does he.

You are now omitting everything that happens immediately AFTER the program is "initialized", which took plenty of "literature" to make happen.

"Well, yes I cheated at the start of the race, but I ran the rest of the way fairly."

Lame, Gary. Lame.

In arrives a supposed science teacher who apparently cannot accept computer programs that "initialize" to a set of initial conditions before startup. Or you're mocking Wesley's ridiculous tactics.

--------------
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 13 2015,21:40   

Gary delivers more projection, but no references to the literature on the points I raised. By Gary's non-response, apparently he doesn't think models of the sort I critiqued can be justified, either.

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

    
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

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

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 13 2015,21:14)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 13 2015,21:08)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 13 2015,21:05)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 13 2015,20:44)
I was making a critique of systems that claim to model place and grid cells but which start with such cells initialized to map to a particular environment, at a particular scale, with the state set to reflect a particular organism location and orientation. I don't think such systems can be justified by reference to the literature, and by Gary's non-response, neither does he.

You are now omitting everything that happens immediately AFTER the program is "initialized", which took plenty of "literature" to make happen.

"Well, yes I cheated at the start of the race, but I ran the rest of the way fairly."

Lame, Gary. Lame.

In arrives a supposed science teacher who apparently cannot accept computer programs that "initialize" to a set of initial conditions before startup. Or you're mocking Wesley's ridiculous tactics.

Gary, does your "model" need to match reality?

Does it match reality in its starting conditions?

Does the subsequent behavior of your "model" mean anything if you start it from a set of unrealistic conditions?

If you don't understand why these questions matter, you'll never get close to doing anything approaching science.

--------------
"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 14 2015,15:31   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 13 2015,21:40)
Gary delivers more projection, but no references to the literature on the points I raised. By Gary's non-response, apparently he doesn't think models of the sort I critiqued can be justified, either.

I do not need to prove anything to you for me to add a cerebral cortex and other features of neural brains to the ID Lab critter.

Your complaints about the program starting up with everything all set to go are just plain nuts. No amount of literature can ever cure that.

What here matters is how well the model works (to produce intelligence like living neural systems have). So I better get back to work on 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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2015,15:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 14 2015,16:31)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 13 2015,21:40)
Gary delivers more projection, but no references to the literature on the points I raised. By Gary's non-response, apparently he doesn't think models of the sort I critiqued can be justified, either.

I do not need to prove anything to you for me to add a cerebral cortex and other features of neural brains to the ID Lab critter.[/quote]
Good thing, too, as you are entirely unable to prove anything to anyone.
But, as you note, fiction has no prerequisites.  Your work is definitely fiction.
Quote
Your complaints about the program starting up with everything all set to go are just plain nuts. No amount of literature can ever cure that.

Cue the them music to 'incomprehension theater'.  You have no freaking clue what the problem even is, which renders your dismissal all the more laughable.
[quote]What here matters is how well the model works (to produce intelligence like living neural systems have). So I better get back to work on it!

Given that you have no definition of 'intelligence', no comprehension of neural systems, nor living systems, and no code that qualifies as intelligent on any of the standard (you know, as in Cognitive Science) meanings of the term,
what matters is that you have failed.  Epically.  For 8+ years now.
Your software is a fantasy replication of a fictional work to which it bears no resemblance.
Quite precisely so.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2015,19:06   

Gary goes into full "Let's Pretend!" mode. I'm sure that he is adding code to his program, but there seems to be no warrant to call it any of the things Gary insists on calling it other than "Let's Pretend!"

I certainly know that program initialization is important, I have stressed the importance of initialization before. That sort of initialization isn't the point. Saying that one is modelling a phenomenon, but simply setting everything into a near-final state, doesn't convince anyone that one can explain anything useful about the parts that were skipped. When those parts are the most important and interesting parts, that makes for a problem.

Gary has certainly expressed his disregard for anyone who dares to express anything but instant adulation for his efforts, so the notion that I would expect Gary's approval of criticism is yet another point on which Gary is simply confused. The criticism's merit is independent of Gary's cognizance of it.

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

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2015,21:27   

Quote
What here matters is how well the model works (to produce intelligence like living neural systems have).
Not only doesn't it do that, but you wrongly claim that it supports your ideas on the supposed emergence and functioning of intelligence in systems without nerves and neurons (molecules, cells, bacteria, plants, Watson).  Those are among the many, many items that you skip: as Wesley notes, your work consists mostly of skipping key items and critical steps.

You need to demonstrate that there is some direct similarity between the intelligence that you assert in Watson and the intelligence that you assert in plants such as Watsonia, let alone extension to bacteria, other than unsupported assertions about metaphorical extensions of labels to biological "motors" and Watson's speakers and printers and so on.

You also still haven't addressed why, using the criteria you have proposed, your work is not superseded by the more recent, purportedly more comprehensive, and somewhat more genuinely published work on intelligent design by Edgar Postrado.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2015,22:34   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 14 2015,19:06)
Saying that one is modelling a phenomenon, but simply setting everything into a near-final state, doesn't convince anyone that one can explain anything useful about the parts that were skipped. When those parts are the most important and interesting parts, that makes for a problem.

The plan is to leave NOTHING critical to neural brain systematics out of the model. That's why I'm working on it again right now. Duh?

All required variables and why they are needed are being demonstrated by code that brings them all to life. Without everything well accounted for it would not do very well in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with keeping things as simple as possible so that in turn the code is more than fast enough for a typical personal computer and be easy to experiment with. You should not be making an issue out of the needed variables being most simply used and being experimented with, even where that's for now changing their states different ways to find out what happens. What matters is that the needed variables are there to experiment with, in the first place. That's what takes a long time and effort to get just right, or else it's just another critter that does a lot of crashing into the wall and getting zapped by not ahead of time getting out of the way of the revolving hidden shock zone.

The ID Lab is now well equipped to test its intelligence real good. In fact where the Lab used live animals my sister would report me to animal cruelty people she knows including PETA. There is though in reality a safe zone in the very center and the animals are not famished so they on their own chose to go for the treat, not really torturing them. It's still a good thing none of that is required in the software Lab and the virtual critter stays alive even after technically starving them.

I'm still making progress on the ID Lab 5. You should be glad to know that there is not a single "Cell" variable in it, even though axons to synapse connections are used to show signal propagation flow from "Field" to "Field" of a direction vector based (standing wave?) map that can also be generated by a large and diverse population of cells getting their timing just right.

--------------
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 15 2015,06:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 14 2015,22:34)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 14 2015,19:06)
Saying that one is modelling a phenomenon, but simply setting everything into a near-final state, doesn't convince anyone that one can explain anything useful about the parts that were skipped. When those parts are the most important and interesting parts, that makes for a problem.

The plan is to leave NOTHING critical to neural brain systematics out of the model. That's why I'm working on it again right now. Duh?

So that's not currently in there, so Wesley is correct that that is a problem.

 
Quote
There is nothing wrong with keeping things as simple as possible so that in turn the code is more than fast enough for a typical personal computer and be easy to experiment with. You should not be making an issue out of the needed variables being most simply used and being experimented with, even where that's for now changing their states different ways to find out what happens.
 Yes and no.  Simple is good, but unrealistically simple is not.  If you were making a global climate model, and simply put in variables for such things as "# of hurricanes per year" and "inches of rain per year" and "seasonal difference" rather than calculating them from fundamental physics, you would have a model of at best extremely limited utility.

You enclose your model with such bad English, such abuse of logic, so many dubious claims and poor definitions or nondefinitions, such large unsupported assertions, and such huge amounts of garbage that are irrelevant to your model that even if you had the best possible model of intelligent foraging, you make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2015,08:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 14 2015,22:34)
There is nothing wrong with keeping things as simple as possible so that in turn the code is more than fast enough for a typical personal computer and be easy to experiment with.

You need to learn the difference between "simple" and "simplistic."

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2015,11:32   

Quote
You need to learn the difference between "simple" and "simplistic."


First he'd have to learn English.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2015,19:02   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 15 2015,06:29)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 14 2015,22:34)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 14 2015,19:06)
Saying that one is modelling a phenomenon, but simply setting everything into a near-final state, doesn't convince anyone that one can explain anything useful about the parts that were skipped. When those parts are the most important and interesting parts, that makes for a problem.

The plan is to leave NOTHING critical to neural brain systematics out of the model. That's why I'm working on it again right now. Duh?

So that's not currently in there, so Wesley is correct that that is a problem.

I just explained that the important details are already there. The grid network screen even shows the inhibitory connections between populations of cells in each place "field" by representing each of six field sectors as a single cell-axon-synapse that changes color to purple violet when there is action potential through it.

I'm now adding fully articulated proprioception according to what is indicated by grid to grid behavior I saw illustrated in a (year or so ago linked to from this thread) website on grid cell research. The easy way to do it in code ends up with rotations looking exactly like what the "literature" shows.

The critter only has a body and mouth position to articulate but once that is done it's good for two or more body points. Necessary variables are already there. It's now a matter of adding another array dimension the grid module arrays, not something missing that later has to be added.

I'm now at the point where you can say I'm experimenting with and tweaking the variables Wesley is talking about, not searching for them

--------------
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 15 2015,22:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 15 2015,19:02)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 15 2015,06:29)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 14 2015,22:34)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 14 2015,19:06)
Saying that one is modelling a phenomenon, but simply setting everything into a near-final state, doesn't convince anyone that one can explain anything useful about the parts that were skipped. When those parts are the most important and interesting parts, that makes for a problem.

The plan is to leave NOTHING critical to neural brain systematics out of the model. That's why I'm working on it again right now. Duh?

So that's not currently in there, so Wesley is correct that that is a problem.

I just explained that the important details are already there. The grid network screen even shows the inhibitory connections between populations of cells in each place "field" by representing each of six field sectors as a single cell-axon-synapse that changes color to purple violet when there is action potential through it.

I'm now adding fully articulated proprioception according to what is indicated by grid to grid behavior I saw illustrated in a (year or so ago linked to from this thread) website on grid cell research. The easy way to do it in code ends up with rotations looking exactly like what the "literature" shows.

The critter only has a body and mouth position to articulate but once that is done it's good for two or more body points. Necessary variables are already there. It's now a matter of adding another array dimension the grid module arrays, not something missing that later has to be added.

I'm now at the point where you can say I'm experimenting with and tweaking the variables Wesley is talking about, not searching for them

Well, since it's a bug and you are finally [supposedly] getting concerned about accuracy, now it's time to take out the hippocampus, if we have any hopes of being true to life.

And also remove all your assertions that you claim stem from your model regarding supposed intelligence in things that lack "neural brains" and grid and place cells.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2015,22:16   

I still don't think that Gary has a clue what my most recent criticism was about, though, which makes it difficult for me to imagine that whatever he is doing now is going to make progress in addressing it. But when the code gets released we will be able to directly see what isn't actually there and only exists in "Let's Pretend!" mode.

Like "NEURONS". Like Trehub neural models. Like anything at the level Heiserman reserved "educated guess" to describe. Like the connectivity patterns to handle varying spatial phase needed for valid attractor models, as noted by two out of the three Nobel prize winners in the topic.

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

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2015,00:51   

I looked in merely because Wesley had a post that showed on the face page.

I really doubt there is any reason to attend any "gary gaulin" pages anymore.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2015,10:47   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 15 2015,22:51)
I looked in merely because Wesley had a post that showed on the face page.

I really doubt there is any reason to attend any "gary gaulin" pages anymore.

I drive by periodically to laugh at the silly person.

He's completely ineducable and discussions are a waste of time.  But some of his "drop the words into a bag and pull them out at random" writing is amusing.

--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2015,11:58   

Conversation overheard in 1999:

"Hey bill the weirdest thing happened..."
"What is it, Mike?"
"You know this whole ID dog-and-pony show we're going to try to pull off?"
"Sure. Been writing fake math all morning. Looks great. How's Interflangible Coincidency coming?"
"I changed it. 'Irreducible Complexity' now. Sounds sciencyer. Anyway, you know how you told me those plants outside were Stevia?"
"I told you they were Salvia, not stevia."
"I know but I heard you wrong. Well I put a bunch in my Lipton yesterday. Anyway i passed out and hallucinated that it was 2015."
"Whoa."
"I know, right...it was so weird..."
"What did you see?"
"All kinds of crazy stuff....when i googled you i mostly found some web site. But it wasn't you, it was run by a debt-collecting lawyer and some logorreac bible-thumpers..."
"Weird...."
"And the only activity on the ID front was an obviously mentally ill guy in massachusetts with a toy VB program where insects have hippocampuses"
"Wow. I'm Bill Dembski, but even I know that's crazy."
"And the president was a black dude named Hussein."
"Okay Mike now you're just fucking with me..."

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2015,13:56   

Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2015,09:58)
Conversation overheard in 1999:

"Hey bill the weirdest thing happened..."
"What is it, Mike?"
"You know this whole ID dog-and-pony show we're going to try to pull off?"
"Sure. Been writing fake math all morning. Looks great. How's Interflangible Coincidency coming?"
"I changed it. 'Irreducible Complexity' now. Sounds sciencyer. Anyway, you know how you told me those plants outside were Stevia?"
"I told you they were Salvia, not stevia."
"I know but I heard you wrong. Well I put a bunch in my Lipton yesterday. Anyway i passed out and hallucinated that it was 2015."
"Whoa."
"I know, right...it was so weird..."
"What did you see?"
"All kinds of crazy stuff....when i googled you i mostly found some web site. But it wasn't you, it was run by a debt-collecting lawyer and some logorreac bible-thumpers..."
"Weird...."
"And the only activity on the ID front was an obviously mentally ill guy in massachusetts with a toy VB program where insects have hippocampuses"
"Wow. I'm Bill Dembski, but even I know that's crazy."
"And the president was a black dude named Hussein."
"Okay Mike now you're just fucking with me..."

10th Anniversary of UD Memorial POTW.

--------------
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 16 2015,16:32   

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.

A model that makes the behavior of a large population of cells fast and easy to provide using a personal computer has great advantage over detailed neurological models that are thousands of times slower.

Adding additional biological detail to that ends up the same way modeling the behavior that causes each cell (cellular intelligence) to know how to wire and fire together to develop brains.

Adding additional biological detail to that ends up the same way modeling the genome based behavior at the molecular level (molecular intelligence) to develop species.

Adding additional biological detail to that ends up modeling the behavior of matter that develops into genomes using two steps of the 4 step algorithm (therefore the model would not qualify the behavior of matter as intelligent).

There is no scientific problem at all with a model that goes from the behavior of matter on up. But with science politics the way they are it's no surprise that some must try to make it appear that there is 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.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2015,17:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 16 2015,16:32)
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.

With regard to Moser, how do you know that he "reviewed" anything of yours?  Note that the fact that you emailed him something and perhaps received a polite response doesn't equal review in the sense you would like to have us believe.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2015,17:43   

Obviously Edvard gave it a bad review, since his 2011 review article clearly states that an attractor network's validity is critically dependent upon the connectivity that will handle varying spatial phases, and there is no spatial phase consideration in Gary's code. Saying that something has been reviewed doesn't say what the content of the review was. Nor do I place any credence in the base claim that a review occurred.

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

    
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2015,18:21   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 16 2015,17:43)
Obviously Edvard gave it a bad review, since his 2011 review article clearly states that an attractor network's validity is critically dependent upon the connectivity that will handle varying spatial phases, and there is no spatial phase consideration in Gary's code. Saying that something has been reviewed doesn't say what the content of the review was. Nor do I place any credence in the base claim that a review occurred.

The expected response from GG is that he emailed something to Moser and that Moser had no problem with it.  This could mean that Gary's message was immediately deleted upon receipt by Moser, or that Moser offered a polite "that's interesting" response.  Given the amount of crank mail that Nobel winners must get, immediate deletion is most likely.  

GG has accused others here of being "scientifically unethical," but making references to papers he hasn't read and claiming "review" of his trash by a Nobel laureate perfectly ethical, I guess.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2015,07:15   

For some reason, this thread seems like the place to put this.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2015,07:58   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 17 2015,15:15)
For some reason, this thread seems like the place to put this.

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

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2015,08:52   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 17 2015,05:58)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 17 2015,15:15)
For some reason, this thread seems like the place to put this.

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

How would she know if she's in the right room?

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 453 454 455 456 457 [458] 459 460 461 462 463 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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