RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 459 460 461 462 463 [464] 465 466 467 468 469 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2015,16:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2015,15:56)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,11:16)
 
Quote
This is the only known Theory of Intelligent Design that provides scientifically testable predictions and models to explain the origin of intelligence and how intelligent cause works.

That's from here, with emphasis added.  

Gary, what is the origin of intelligence? You should be able to answer the question in one sentence and without reference to diagrams we've already seen.

If I find a way to explain all that in one short sentence then I'll let you know, by posting it here. But otherwise I am not interested in oversimplified answers that leave all that and more to the imagination, by stating something like "Intelligence evolved."

Then the statement I quoted is a lie.  You and your "theory" can't explain the origin of intelligence.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2015,17:12   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,14:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2015,15:56)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,11:16)
   
Quote
This is the only known Theory of Intelligent Design that provides scientifically testable predictions and models to explain the origin of intelligence and how intelligent cause works.

That's from here, with emphasis added.  

Gary, what is the origin of intelligence? You should be able to answer the question in one sentence and without reference to diagrams we've already seen.

If I find a way to explain all that in one short sentence then I'll let you know, by posting it here. But otherwise I am not interested in oversimplified answers that leave all that and more to the imagination, by stating something like "Intelligence evolved."

Then the statement I quoted is a lie.  You and your "theory" can't explain the origin of intelligence.

So what's next?

- link to the "theory" in its entirety?
- that fucking diagram?
- insults?
- an update on the latest "improvements"?
- some other change of subject?
- an actual attempt to answer the question?

I just put the last option in there for completeness.  We all know it's not going to happen.

--------------
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: May 05 2015,17:55   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2015,13:51)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,11:16)
 
Quote
This is the only known Theory of Intelligent Design that provides scientifically testable predictions and models to explain the origin of intelligence and how intelligent cause works.

That's from here, with emphasis added.  

Gary, what is the origin of intelligence? You should be able to answer the question in one sentence and without reference to diagrams we've already seen.

You're just yanking his chain trying to get him to post The Diagram again, aren't you?

It's self-similar turtles, all the way down.  :)

I second the question, Gary.  What is the origin, and how is your model relevant to your answer?

Or as Elmer Fudd would say "wank my chain" but I guess that in the UK culture it's taken a whole other way.

Since you seem to be looking for an official Intelligent Design answer it is perhaps best that I quote the official Discovery Institute premise, which already defines what's most different about the theory (such as main illustration having to show multilevel intelligent cause/causation, not natural selection).

Quote
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.


The religious implications that are in the above statement are a religious matter, not scientific. Therefore your religion based objections that seem to prove the statement to be false are out of bounds of science, to begin with.

I keep the science and religion very well separated. The result is my having no difficulty staying within the framework of the ID movement. From what I have so far we are from intelligence that's a few billions of years old today. The now better understood ability of place cell networks in our brain to cause NDE's and such only made the mystery even more exciting, from a religious perspective too. There is then a trinity of interacting intelligence levels causing consciousness. Even where we know what in our multicellular brain causes this consciousness there is still plenty of explaining left to do. This keeps the ID science discovery fun going, for decades to come.

--------------
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: May 05 2015,18:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2015,17:55)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2015,13:51)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,11:16)
 
Quote
This is the only known Theory of Intelligent Design that provides scientifically testable predictions and models to explain the origin of intelligence and how intelligent cause works.

That's from here, with emphasis added.  

Gary, what is the origin of intelligence? You should be able to answer the question in one sentence and without reference to diagrams we've already seen.

You're just yanking his chain trying to get him to post The Diagram again, aren't you?

It's self-similar turtles, all the way down.  :)

I second the question, Gary.  What is the origin, and how is your model relevant to your answer?

Or as Elmer Fudd would say "wank my chain" but I guess that in the UK culture it's taken a whole other way.

Since you seem to be looking for an official Intelligent Design answer it is perhaps best that I quote the official Discovery Institute premise, which already defines what's most different about the theory (such as main illustration having to show multilevel intelligent cause/causation, not natural selection).

Quote
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.


The religious implications that are in the above statement are a religious matter, not scientific. Therefore your religion based objections that seem to prove the statement to be false are out of bounds of science, to begin with.

I keep the science and religion very well separated. The result is my having no difficulty staying within the framework of the ID movement. From what I have so far we are from intelligence that's a few billions of years old today. The now better understood ability of place cell networks in our brain to cause NDE's and such only made the mystery even more exciting, from a religious perspective too. There is then a trinity of interacting intelligence levels causing consciousness. Even where we know what in our multicellular brain causes this consciousness there is still plenty of explaining left to do. This keeps the ID science discovery fun going, for decades to come.

So again, you and your " theory" explain nothing about the *origin* of intelligence.  You do know what "origin" means, right?  Or is it just more Humpty-Dumptyism on your part?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2015,18:32   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,18:10)
So again, you and your " theory" explain nothing about the *origin* of intelligence.  You do know what "origin" means, right?  Or is it just more Humpty-Dumptyism on your part?

I explained how to model the process, from the behavior of matter on up.

And you have what? A statement like "It evolved" along with a definition for intelligence that does not even 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: May 05 2015,20:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2015,18:32)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,18:10)
So again, you and your " theory" explain nothing about the *origin* of intelligence.  You do know what "origin" means, right?  Or is it just more Humpty-Dumptyism on your part?

I explained how to model the process, from the behavior of matter on up.

And you have what? A statement like "It evolved" along with a definition for intelligence that does not even explain how intelligence works?

Don't try to deflect.  *Your* statement, right at the top of *your* web page, says that the explanatory power of your "theory" includes explanation of the origin of intelligence.  Now that you have as much as admitted that the statement is false, don't you think it's time for retraction, or shall we just add this to the ever-expanding list of scientifically unethical acts on your part?

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2015,20:49   

Quote
in the UK culture it's taken a whole other way.

And yet chain wanking is so apropos of your modelling efforts.

Quote
Since you seem to be looking for an official Intelligent Design answer it is perhaps best that I quote the official Discovery Institute premise, which already defines what's most different about the theory (such as main illustration having to show multilevel intelligent cause/causation, not natural selection).

Quote

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.

As already explained, the problem with that statement is that it is vapid.  No one doubts that certain features of the universe are designed (the Mona Lisa, the Eifel Tower, and Beethoven's Ninth), but without some specificity it is a meaningless and trivial statement.

Quote
The religious implications that are in the above statement are a religious matter, not scientific. Therefore your religion based objections that seem to prove the statement to be false are out of bounds of science, to begin with.
It is an almost meaningless statement with no implications of any sort.  Objections to it are not a matter of religion or science, just simple logic.

Quote
I keep the science and religion very well separated. The result is my having no difficulty staying within the framework of the ID movement.
No you don't.  You play around with coy religious-dog-whistle language (references to a trinity of things, Adam, etc.), and your biggest dog-whistle is calling your not-a-theory intelligent design, which is purely religious (and bad religion at that).  Worse, your not-a-theory does not actually address or call on intelligent design, as you claim intelligence is an emergent phenomena.  With no actual "intelligent design" involved, the implications of your language are clearly solely religious, because they surely evade both science and logic.  

Quote
From what I have so far we are from intelligence that's a few billions of years old today. The now better understood ability of place cell networks in our brain to cause NDE's and such only made the mystery even more exciting, from a religious perspective too. There is then a trinity of interacting intelligence levels causing consciousness. Even where we know what in our multicellular brain causes this consciousness there is still plenty of explaining left to do. This keeps the ID science discovery fun going, for decades to come.
So that's a No.  You have nothing but hollow and unsupported assertions.  

And there you go again with "trinity", which you get to by unjustifiably skipping and clumping levels of organization until you can reduce it to three.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2015,21:23   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,20:25)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2015,18:32)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,18:10)
So again, you and your " theory" explain nothing about the *origin* of intelligence.  You do know what "origin" means, right?  Or is it just more Humpty-Dumptyism on your part?

I explained how to model the process, from the behavior of matter on up.

And you have what? A statement like "It evolved" along with a definition for intelligence that does not even explain how intelligence works?

Don't try to deflect.  *Your* statement, right at the top of *your* web page, says that the explanatory power of your "theory" includes explanation of the origin of intelligence.  Now that you have as much as admitted that the statement is false, don't you think it's time for retraction, or shall we just add this to the ever-expanding list of scientifically unethical acts on your part?

My not knowing how to sum up so many pages of information including computer code for you to learn how to experiment with on your own into one short sentence does not indicate a problem with what I have. This only indicates a problem with what you're used to, which is more for waving pom-poms around at during religious competitions against "creationists".

--------------
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: May 05 2015,22:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2015,20:49)
 
Quote

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.

As already explained, the problem with that statement is that it is vapid.  No one doubts that certain features of the universe are designed (the Mona Lisa, the Eifel Tower, and Beethoven's Ninth), but without some specificity it is a meaningless and trivial statement.

The models and theory are already way more specific than necessary.

Your religiously loaded definitions for "intelligent cause" are not even scientifically allowable. You should know better than try to impose your religious beliefs upon science.

--------------
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: May 05 2015,22:47   

Quote
My not knowing how to sum up so many pages of information including computer code for you to learn how to experiment with on your own into one short sentence does not indicate a problem with what I have. This only indicates a problem with what you're used to, which is more for waving pom-poms around at during religious competitions against "creationists".

BS.  You have yet to demonstrate that your code is even worth the electrons used to store it.  Also, your inability to express an idea coherently calls into question your ability to create a coherent thought.

 
Quote
The models and theory are already way more specific than necessary.
BS again.  The models are ill-constrained, none of your key terms are adequately defined, you have no validation for your key concepts, and you have yet to demonstrate that your not-a-theory is of any relevance to anything.

 
Quote
Your religiously loaded definitions for "intelligent cause" are not even scientifically allowable. You should know better than try to impose your religious beliefs upon science.
Yet more BS, and quit projecting.  You are the one using religiously loaded terms.  I'm not the one bleating about "intelligent cause" without operationally defining it. I'm asking you for a definition, not imposing one of my own.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2015,02:52   

So, I go away for a few days over the Bank Holiday, (Yes, I'm English), and Gaulin spews more Not-science onto the 'net.

Gaulin,    
Quote
I explained how to model the process, from the behavior of matter on up.


No you didn't. You have made nothing but assertions that are Not-science. No explanations or definitions, no testable methods, nothing, nada, zilch.

Where is the "unimolecular RNA"? Where is the "molecular intelligence"? Where is the "cellular intelligence"?

You are just throwing "sciency" words around like a monkey throwing faeces.

Quit trying to force your religion into science as it does not belong here. There is no trinity in your theory, there is no "intelligent cause". In fact the whole ID phrase you qoute is trivial and explains nothing, just like your Not-science "theory".

Also, the British phrase is "Yank my chain", not meant as an insult to you Yanks. Now I need to wash my brain as I can't remove the image of Gaulin "Wanking his chain". YUK.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2015,12:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2015,21:23)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,20:25)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2015,18:32)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2015,18:10)
So again, you and your " theory" explain nothing about the *origin* of intelligence.  You do know what "origin" means, right?  Or is it just more Humpty-Dumptyism on your part?

I explained how to model the process, from the behavior of matter on up.

And you have what? A statement like "It evolved" along with a definition for intelligence that does not even explain how intelligence works?

Don't try to deflect.  *Your* statement, right at the top of *your* web page, says that the explanatory power of your "theory" includes explanation of the origin of intelligence.  Now that you have as much as admitted that the statement is false, don't you think it's time for retraction, or shall we just add this to the ever-expanding list of scientifically unethical acts on your part?

My not knowing how to sum up so many pages of information including computer code for you to learn how to experiment with on your own into one short sentence does not indicate a problem with what I have. This only indicates a problem with what you're used to, which is more for waving pom-poms around at during religious competitions against "creationists".

You say that your "theory" explains the origin of intelligence.  What is the origin of intelligence?  Based on your claim, you have discovered the answer to that question, but now you say you don't know how to "sum up" the answer.  There is no evidence in your terribly-written thesis that helps to answer the question.  What's missing?

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2015,18:38   

Twas writ:  
Quote
Also, the British phrase is "Yank my chain", not meant as an insult to you Yanks. Now I need to wash my brain as I can't remove the image of Gaulin "Wanking his chain". YUK.


Phrases?!?  Goo Goo just tosses 'em off here.  :)  :)  :)  

Whatta hoot!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2015,20:33   

Ya might even say he's out of phrase with everybody else...

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2015,20:57   

Quote
Phrases?!?  Goo Goo just tosses 'em off here.

Tosser or wanker, you decide.....

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2015,21:01   

From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y244150
 
Quote (paragwinn @ May 05 2015,20:11)
FYQI (For Your Quantum Information):

How Quantum Pairs Stitch Space-Time
https://www.quantamagazine.org/2015042....ce-time

Tensor vectors eh?

That's a good description of how the brain navigation system I'm experimenting with works. The systematics have fractal similarity.

This tensor-network approach might be useful, for behavior of matter on up modeling of the origin of intelligence, as per the theory of you know what.

--------------
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: May 06 2015,21:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 06 2015,21:01)
From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y244150
 
Quote (paragwinn @ May 05 2015,20:11)
FYQI (For Your Quantum Information):

How Quantum Pairs Stitch Space-Time
https://www.quantamagazine.org/2015042....ce-time

Tensor vectors eh?

That's a good description of how the brain navigation system I'm experimenting with works. The systematics have fractal similarity.

This tensor-network approach might be useful, for behavior of matter on up modeling of the origin of intelligence, as per the theory of you know what.

Instead of a smokescreen of sciency stuff you don't understand, why not share with us what you do know, or claim to.  What's the origin of intelligence?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2015,23:29   

The theory explains more than one kind of intelligence. The least you could do is be specific, instead of constantly using Darwinian generalizations that are only good for pretending to be modeling or explaining the "origin of intelligence".

This is what the theory currently has for a summary:

Quote
From:
https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

Introduction – Intelligent Cause, Intelligence

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, called a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells called an embryo. Later during fetal development we became a functional multicellular intelligence with self-learning brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).

(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society.

Reciprocal cause goes in both the forward and reverse direction. These behavioral pathways cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not necessarily need to be intelligent to be the fundamental source of consciousness.


--------------
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: May 06 2015,23:34   

I better add this, that follows the above:
Quote
A behavior from any system qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] something to control (body or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen), [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess mechanism for a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

At all biological intelligence levels whatever sensory the system has to work with addresses a memory that works like a random access memory chip used in a computer. It is possible to put the contents of a RAM into a Read Only Memory (ROM) but using a ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, it cannot form new memories that are needed to adapt to new environments. The result is more of a zombie that may at first appear to be a fully functional intelligence but they are missing something necessary, a RAM in the circuit, not a ROM. Behavior of matter does not need to be intelligent, a fully trained (all knowing) ROM could be used to produce atomic/molecular behavior. But a ROM would not work where intelligent behavior is needed. Unless the ROM contains all-knowing knowledge of the future and all the humans it will ever meet in its lifetime it can never recall memories of meeting them, or their name and what they look like.

For machine intelligence the IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true and whether confident enough in its best answer to push a button/buzzer. The Watson platform had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.

For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all-knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses. A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in memory and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence. Memory contents then never changes. Only a GUESS can write new data to memory and GUESS must here be taken out of the algorithm. But it is possible to leave the CONFIDENCE in the algorithm, it will still work the exact same way. Where this in time proves to be true for real matter it would be a valuable clue as to how consciousness works and possibly how to model it, which may in turn help answer the “big questions” including those pertaining to afterlife.

We are part of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, for our children. The resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...


--------------
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: May 07 2015,01:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2015,07:34)
I better add this, that follows the above:
Quote
A behavior from any system qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] something to control (body or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen), [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess mechanism for a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

At all biological intelligence levels whatever sensory the system has to work with addresses a memory that works like a random access memory chip used in a computer. It is possible to put the contents of a RAM into a Read Only Memory (ROM) but using a ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, it cannot form new memories that are needed to adapt to new environments. The result is more of a zombie that may at first appear to be a fully functional intelligence but they are missing something necessary, a RAM in the circuit, not a ROM. Behavior of matter does not need to be intelligent, a fully trained (all knowing) ROM could be used to produce atomic/molecular behavior. But a ROM would not work where intelligent behavior is needed. Unless the ROM contains all-knowing knowledge of the future and all the humans it will ever meet in its lifetime it can never recall memories of meeting them, or their name and what they look like.

For machine intelligence the IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true and whether confident enough in its best answer to push a button/buzzer. The Watson platform had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.

For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all-knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses. A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in memory and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence. Memory contents then never changes. Only a GUESS can write new data to memory and GUESS must here be taken out of the algorithm. But it is possible to leave the CONFIDENCE in the algorithm, it will still work the exact same way. Where this in time proves to be true for real matter it would be a valuable clue as to how consciousness works and possibly how to model it, which may in turn help answer the “big questions” including those pertaining to afterlife.

We are part of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, for our children. The resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

Hey Gary WAKETHEFUCKUPMORON. That line of reasoning never has and never will stand up in court.

--------------
"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: May 07 2015,04:25   

From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y244190      
Quote (paragwinn @ May 07 2015,02:46)
Stanford engineers observe the moment when a mind is changed
https://engineering.stanford.edu/news.......changed

You might also like:
Computer records animal vision in Laboratory - UC Berkeley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....-UtyDZw
BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....78....786.stm
I found it at:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums..Seeing what a cat sees


--------------
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: May 07 2015,07:35   

Gary, the problem is the same as it ever was:  you have no explanation nor any coherent conception of what counts as 'intelligent'.
Your "theory", despite its gloriously vague 'premise', fails to deliver what's on the label.  We are all agreed that there are certain features of the universe best explained by intelligent cause(s).
We have identified several.  To the surprise of no one at all, not even you, your "theory" is not only entirely impotent to explain anything about these 'features' but is required to discard them from the pool of features best explained by intelligent causation.
Your "theory" is entirely incapable of explaining, of accounting for, any aspect at all of:
crafting a theory
crafting the plot of a novel
crafting the characters and main situations that support and express the plot of a novel
compose a symphony
craft a melody
recognize a known melody even when played at a different tempo on a different instrument in a different key
recognize the style of a known artist when encountering a previously unknown work by that same artist
etc.

Your "theory" is not merely impotent, it is irrelevant.
It is also fundamentally flawed beyond the point that would render it merely incorrect.  
Are we going to have to order you a tombstone engraved simply "Not even wrong"?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2015,09:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 06 2015,23:29)
The theory explains more than one kind of intelligence. The least you could do is be specific, instead of constantly using Darwinian generalizations that are only good for pretending to be modeling or explaining the "origin of intelligence".

This is what the theory currently has for a summary:

 
Quote
From:
https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

Introduction – Intelligent Cause, Intelligence

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, called a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells called an embryo. Later during fetal development we became a functional multicellular intelligence with self-learning brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).

(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society.

Reciprocal cause goes in both the forward and reverse direction. These behavioral pathways cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not necessarily need to be intelligent to be the fundamental source of consciousness.

The statement I originally quoted makes no mention of different kinds of intelligence.  Simply reposting walls of obtuse text isn't going to help you here.  Let me give you the relevant part of the statement again:
Quote
This is the only known Theory of Intelligent Design that provides scientifically testable predictions and models to explain the origin of intelligence...

I've asked you to simply explain the origin of  intelligence. Because you're referring to design, there must be a source. Your text refers to emergence, but it's been amply demonstrated that you don't know what that means, or you've redefined it to suit your own purposes.  What is the origin of intelligence?

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2015,09:14   

Quote
A statement like "It evolved" along with a definition for intelligence that does not even explain how intelligence works?

That's not what science has to say, but even it it was, or even if science simply said, "We don't know", that would still be a better statement than what you have offered, because your stuff is internally inconsistent and completely lacks critical definitions and explanations, and therefore consists entirely of unsupported (and apparently unsupportable) assertions that create more questions than we started with.  (Either statement by science would also be better than yours by virtue of actually being comprehensible.)  Unhappily, your stuff is a negative contribution, i.e. a step backward, in its present form.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2015,05:06   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 07 2015,09:03)
Because you're referring to design, there must be a source.

Oh I see. Only religious texts are allowed to be presented as scientific evidence.

Just another hypocrite.

--------------
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: May 08 2015,06:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 08 2015,05:06)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 07 2015,09:03)
Because you're referring to design, there must be a source.

Oh I see. Only religious texts are allowed to be presented as scientific evidence.

Just another hypocrite.

You would make more headway if you presented arguments that were logical, and stopped lying.  Nothing that Jim says requires religious texts as evidence, whether in combination with other types of evidence or in exclusion of other types of evidence ("only", in your words).

YOU are the person who refers to your ideas as Intelligent Design.  Design implies a deliberate creation or arrangement by a designer, not an emergence.  So tell us about your evidence concerning the designer and the methods of design.  It should be possible to make an entirely scientific case for life on earth being seeded by an advanced alien civilization, given appropriate evidence, and it might be possible to make a scientific case for a divine creator (not that anyone has been able to do that so far), so who's your designer and how did he/she/it/they work and what's the evidence?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2015,06:31   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 08 2015,06:11)
So tell us about your evidence concerning the designer and the methods of design.

I just explained our intelligent designer's "methods of design".

--------------
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: May 08 2015,07:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 08 2015,07:31)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 08 2015,06:11)
So tell us about your evidence concerning the designer and the methods of design.

I just explained our intelligent designer's "methods of design".

Why no, rather conspicuously, you have not.
In fact, over the course of this thread, you have rather entirely failed to literally explain anything.

'Explain' -- you keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2015,07:22   

There is now so much evidence it's possible to computer model the basics of how our intelligent designer 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.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2015,08:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 08 2015,05:22)
There is now so much evidence it's possible to computer model the basics of how our intelligent designer works.

Sure it is. And we can calculate CSI for any given object, too.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA

--------------
"[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) < ... 459 460 461 462 463 [464] 465 466 467 468 469 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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