RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 463 464 465 466 467 [468] 469 470 471 472 473 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,08:17   

Gary said,
Quote
Joe G found something by William D that you need to read:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......6046789

Dembski said
Quote
Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven").

That's a position that would have created trouble for him at his last two bible seminary jobs: not many ID / creationism supporters are enthusiastic about claims for an incompetent god and an imperfect creation.  Worse for Dembski, as Wesley says, biologists are already at "constrained optimization", and have a theoretical framework that explains it very well, so Dembski is staking out an uninteresting position.  As Wesley says elsewhere in that article, it's not that we claim to be able to imagine better designs or problems with existing "designs", it's that clearly better designs already exist elsewhere in "creation", so they clearly would have been available to any putative designer.  Moreover, clearly constrained optima follow biological lineages and have rational explanations that are consistent with independently inferred evolutionary histories.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,09:02   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 18 2015,09:17)
Gary said,
 
Quote
Joe G found something by William D that you need to read:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......6046789

Dembski said
 
Quote
Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven").

That's a position that would have created trouble for him at his last two bible seminary jobs: not many ID / creationism supporters are enthusiastic about claims for an incompetent god and an imperfect creation.  Worse for Dembski, as Wesley says, biologists are already at "constrained optimization", and have a theoretical framework that explains it very well, so Dembski is staking out an uninteresting position.  As Wesley says elsewhere in that article, it's not that we claim to be able to imagine problems with designs or better designs, it's that clearly better designs already exist elsewhere in "creation", so they clearly would have been available to any putative designer.

That strikes at the very heart of any Christian (at least) attempt to promote any theory of 'god as designer'.
Design is inherently and absolutely a requirement only for beings who are neither omnipotent or omniscient (or both).  A being who is 'all powerful' need not design, for it can achieve any end it desires - by definition.  Design is only necessary to deal with recalcitrant materials or recalcitrant context, which can never be an issue for an omnipotent being.  Similarly for omniscience.  Design is only necessary to deal with unknowns of various sorts.  Omniscient beings face no unknowns.

But, of course, worst of all is that 'design' is a concept that only makes sense, is only possible to us, in contrast with the undesigned, the 'natural'.  God is purportedly the creator of all, and thus, must be the designer of all. So exactly how does the Christian propose to sort out the designed from the undesigned?  There is no such thing as the 'undesigned'.  The 'theorist' could fall back to a distinction based on 'detectible design vs undetectable design' but that requires accepting omni-design as a premise and thus cannot be used to establish either the fact or requirement of 'design'.

Design issues are this generation's version of wrestling with the incoherence of standard Christian dogma every bit as much as Calvinism and predestination were that generation's issues.
Equally divisive, equally a non-issue, equally futile, and, ultimately, equally meaningless.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,09:46   

Quote (NoName @ May 18 2015,09:02)
That strikes at the very heart of any Christian (at least) attempt to promote any theory of 'god as designer'.
Design is inherently and absolutely a requirement only for beings who are neither omnipotent or omniscient (or both).  A being who is 'all powerful' need not design, for it can achieve any end it desires - by definition.  Design is only necessary to deal with recalcitrant materials or recalcitrant context, which can never be an issue for an omnipotent being.  Similarly for omniscience.  Design is only necessary to deal with unknowns of various sorts.  Omniscient beings face no unknowns.

But, of course, worst of all is that 'design' is a concept that only makes sense, is only possible to us, in contrast with the undesigned, the 'natural'.  God is purportedly the creator of all, and thus, must be the designer of all. So exactly how does the Christian propose to sort out the designed from the undesigned?  There is no such thing as the 'undesigned'.  The 'theorist' could fall back to a distinction based on 'detectible design vs undetectable design' but that requires accepting omni-design as a premise and thus cannot be used to establish either the fact or requirement of 'design'.

Design issues are this generation's version of wrestling with the incoherence of standard Christian dogma every bit as much as Calvinism and predestination were that generation's issues.
Equally divisive, equally a non-issue, equally futile, and, ultimately, equally meaningless.

That runs in parallel with two other related problems for which IDists have no satisfactory answer.

Dembski spends a significant portion of his article wrestling with one of these, the problem of evil.  Not that I'm an expert on this, but his apologetics seem pretty standard and unsatisfactory, following a long line of double-talk bafflegab that goes right back to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.  For atheists who consider life to be the result of evolutionary processes, there is no "problem of evil" in terms of something that is difficult to explain (as opposed to the regrettable existence of a bunch of problems that we might like to try to alleviate or fix).  

Dembski notably ignores the second problem, the problem of regression of origins: if everything that is complex and cannot be explained by natural processes requires a designer, then who designed the designer?  (And so on, all the way down to the bottom-most turtle.)   This is a huge "elephant in the room", no matter how IDists try to ignore it or dismiss it. To Gary's credit, he attempts to resolve (or more accurately to finesse) the second issue by claiming that intelligence is emergent (which evolutionists also presume to be correct, albeit talking about an almost entirely different concept than Gary's problematic terminology) and that intelligence is self-similar at lower levels (which is self-contradictory even when trying to make allowances for Gary's muddled concepts).

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,10:21   

Dembski I suggest already is in his platonic heaven, the John Templeton Foundation  are still waiting on delivery for the book they paid for. Maybe  he could start with a new title 'God's Free Lunches' ...a lot of free lunches.

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,11:49   

Oh, yeah, and freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose'.  :)  :)  :)  

Or so a little lady from Texas once told us all . . . .

Goo Goo is still a hoot!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,13:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 18 2015,01:17)
After reading Demsbki, who also utilized Nelson, one can then read my response.

 
Quote

There are a variety of problems in this latest essay. As implied above, terminological issues pose not inconsiderable problems of their own. Part of the problem is that the topic of optimality is not simply a tabula rasa awaiting the impress of an IDC intellect to shape it. A quite considerable literature exists which explores various aspects of optimality as it applies to biological issues. As the literature on optimal foraging theory makes clear, optimality is to be considered as finding the best approach with respect to a set of relevant constraints. In other words, "optimality" as it is already used by biologists corresponds rather closely to the description that Dembski gives for "constrained optimization". "Constrained optimization" is touted by Dembski as a feature of designs produced by intelligent designers and thus characteristic of actual design. But now we have the curious situation where the theologian climbs the mountain - and finds the biologists already ensconced there. The "optimality" discussed by biologists is "constrained optimization", and thus shares the properties that Dembski asserts for "actual design".

For software engineering purposes the title "Intelligent Design is Not Optimal Design" is already more information than is needed. I'm sure others who model intelligence already know that anyway.

--------------
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 18 2015,18:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2015,13:48)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 18 2015,01:17)
After reading Demsbki, who also utilized Nelson, one can then read my response.

         
Quote

There are a variety of problems in this latest essay. As implied above, terminological issues pose not inconsiderable problems of their own. Part of the problem is that the topic of optimality is not simply a tabula rasa awaiting the impress of an IDC intellect to shape it. A quite considerable literature exists which explores various aspects of optimality as it applies to biological issues. As the literature on optimal foraging theory makes clear, optimality is to be considered as finding the best approach with respect to a set of relevant constraints. In other words, "optimality" as it is already used by biologists corresponds rather closely to the description that Dembski gives for "constrained optimization". "Constrained optimization" is touted by Dembski as a feature of designs produced by intelligent designers and thus characteristic of actual design. But now we have the curious situation where the theologian climbs the mountain - and finds the biologists already ensconced there. The "optimality" discussed by biologists is "constrained optimization", and thus shares the properties that Dembski asserts for "actual design".

For software engineering purposes the title "Intelligent Design is Not Optimal Design" is already more information than is needed. I'm sure others who model intelligence already know that anyway.

It's not entirely clear what you meant by that, but perhaps not surprisingly there is a huge literature on modelling things intelligently, which means optimizing model operations as best as possible.  This is of course not quite the same thing as you mentioned, but it does rather indicate how you are out  standing in your field , but all alone and not in a good way.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,18:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2015,13:48)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 18 2015,01:17)
After reading Demsbki, who also utilized Nelson, one can then read my response.

   
Quote

There are a variety of problems in this latest essay. As implied above, terminological issues pose not inconsiderable problems of their own. Part of the problem is that the topic of optimality is not simply a tabula rasa awaiting the impress of an IDC intellect to shape it. A quite considerable literature exists which explores various aspects of optimality as it applies to biological issues. As the literature on optimal foraging theory makes clear, optimality is to be considered as finding the best approach with respect to a set of relevant constraints. In other words, "optimality" as it is already used by biologists corresponds rather closely to the description that Dembski gives for "constrained optimization". "Constrained optimization" is touted by Dembski as a feature of designs produced by intelligent designers and thus characteristic of actual design. But now we have the curious situation where the theologian climbs the mountain - and finds the biologists already ensconced there. The "optimality" discussed by biologists is "constrained optimization", and thus shares the properties that Dembski asserts for "actual design".

For software engineering purposes the title "Intelligent Design is Not Optimal Design" is already more information than is needed. I'm sure others who model intelligence already know that anyway.

Yes, the IDC drivel quotient is quite succinctly communicated by Dembski's title.

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

    
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,22:40   

What, one of them was succinct for a change?  :p

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2015,01:41   

Quote (Henry J @ May 19 2015,06:40)
What, one of them was succinct for a change?  :p

You are asking for a boring level of detail.

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

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2015,07:09   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 19 2015,01:41)
Quote (Henry J @ May 19 2015,06:40)
What, one of them was succinct for a change?  :p

You are asking for a boring level of detail.

Is "a boring level of detail" more succinct than "a pathetic level of detail"?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2015,08:35   

Quote (KevinB @ May 19 2015,15:09)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 19 2015,01:41)
 
Quote (Henry J @ May 19 2015,06:40)
What, one of them was succinct for a change?  :p

You are asking for a boring level of detail.

Is "a boring level of detail" more succinct than "a pathetic level of detail"?

I don't  know let's  ask Bill.
..ring...ring
W.A.Dembsik. 'lo
AtBC Hi Bill is boring more succinct  than pathetic?
W.A.Dembski. Who's  this?
AtBC AtBC
W.A.Dembski. Fuck off.
..click

Well there you have  it.

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2015,16:03   

Tis worth quoting:  
Quote
What, one of them was succinct for a change?  :p


Well, since neither Goo Goo nor Dembski seem to be able to handle the word, 'extinct'.  :)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2015,08:36   

Still alive and kicking:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015....4828140

--------------
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 20 2015,09:00   

and still nutty as a fruitcake.

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

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2015,10:47   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 19 2015,08:35)
I don't  know let's  ask Bill.
..ring...ring
W.A.Dembsik. 'lo
AtBC Hi Bill is boring more succinct  than pathetic?
W.A.Dembski. Who's  this?
AtBC AtBC
W.A.Dembski. Fuck off.
..click

Well there you have  it.

Drat!

I was hoping he'd answer "Waterloo". Since the Duke of Wellington was the son of the 12t Earl of Mornington, this would have provided an easy cross-platform change.

Now I have to choose between playing "Hampton Wick" and "Cockfosters".

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2015,11:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 20 2015,08:36)
Still alive and kicking:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......4828140

Near-dead and flopping around, more like.  And what are the results of your efforts?  More complaints about your execrable writing, and ever-lengthening lists of things that you do not understand and are getting wrong.  

New criticisms of your rubbish mostly repeat criticisms you've heard from many others everywhere you have trotted out your nonsense.  However, these are coming in part from people who haven't encountered your stuff before, thus providing independent assessments.

If you could only bottle your imperviousness and impenetrability and sell it, you could earn billions.  Military armor, radiation shields, Shultzian legal defenses ("I know nothingk....") .... - there's no end of potentially remunerative applications.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2015,07:33   

I have been mostly busy working on the IDLab-5 and might be days away from a preliminary. This is coming out great!

I'm trying to avoid rushing something online that is not all there yet. I kept finding ways to simplify and improve the math and other things. I'm now mostly working on adding angular time to the network in a simple biologically plausible way that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict which way what it is chasing will come out of something after disappearing into a moving or stationary place, including shock zones it learns to avoid.

--------------
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 25 2015,12:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,07:33)
...the intuitive ability to from experience predict which way what it is chasing...

You backwards construct sentences your.

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

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2015,13:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,06:33)
I have been mostly busy working on the IDLab-5 and might be days away from a preliminary. This is coming out great!

I'm  trying to avoid rushing something online that is  not all there.   yet. I kept finding ways to simplify and improve the math and other things. I'm now mostly working on adding angular time to the network in a simple biologically plausible way that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict which way what it is chasing will come out of something after disappearing into a moving or stationary place, including shock zones it learns to avoid.

FTFY

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2015,19:02   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 25 2015,10:17)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,07:33)
...the intuitive ability to from experience predict which way what it is chasing...

You backwards construct sentences your.

Way either bollocks utter it's.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2015,19:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,13:33)
....that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict....

Predicting things based on evidence is not intuition.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2015,22:15   

Quote (Woodbine @ May 25 2015,19:17)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,13:33)
....that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict....

Predicting things based on evidence is not intuition.

I have no evidence against intuition being a learned response. The theory predicts instinct is from a billions of year old learning process.

For me to know what you are trying to say you'll have to explain the origin of intuitive abilities such as instinct, how to model 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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2015,22:26   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 25 2015,12:17)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,07:33)
...the intuitive ability to from experience predict which way what it is chasing...

You backwards construct sentences your.

Reversing the construct does not seem to help the grammar much:
Quote
...chasing is it what way which predict experience from to ability intuitive the...


--------------
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 26 2015,01:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2015,06:26)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 25 2015,12:17)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,07:33)
...the intuitive ability to from experience predict which way what it is chasing...

You backwards construct sentences your.

Reversing the construct does not seem to help the grammar much:
 
Quote
...chasing is it what way which predict experience from to ability intuitive the...

Either way Gary your drival stinks.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2015,07:05   

Quote
I'm now mostly working on adding angular time to the network in a simple biologically plausible way that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict which way what it is chasing will come out of something after disappearing into a moving or stationary place, including shock zones it learns to avoid.

At the moment, that sentence is a mess, but it is not hard to fix.
"I'm now working mostly on adding time to the model in a simple and biologically plausible way that should give the critter the ability to predict where and when its prey will come back into view after moving behind an obstacle.  This should work whether the obstacle is stationary, or moving, or is one of the shock zones that the critter has learned to avoid."

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2015,08:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,23:15)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 25 2015,19:17)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,13:33)
....that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict....

Predicting things based on evidence is not intuition.

I have no evidence against intuition being a learned response. The theory predicts instinct is from a billions of year old learning process.

For me to know what you are trying to say you'll have to explain the origin of intuitive abilities such as instinct, how to model them.

The question is not whether you have 'evidence against'.
The question is the complete absence of evidence for.
As with all your drivel.   You have no evidence

BTW, your "theory" most emphatically does not 'predict' nor 'explain' intuition in any form whatsoever.
It asserts it, it relies on it as a 'pre-intelligent' foundational element (remember 'guess'?), but it never explains it, never predicts it, and mangles 100% of the relevant concepts.  Such as 'learn'.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2015,13:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,22:15)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ May 25 2015,19:17)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,13:33)
....that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict....

Predicting things based on evidence is not intuition.

I have no evidence against intuition being a learned response. The theory predicts instinct is from a billions of year old learning process.

What a mess, Gary.  You are jumping between minor non-technical meanings of words and are as a result making your usual hash of things.

Intuition is the result of things like subconscious summation of past experience plus analogies (finding similarities with previously encountered patterns, re-using previously successful conclusions, etc.), all learned all over a lifetime, without recourse to much in the way of rational consideration or algorithms.  Basing a prediction on intuition is effectively jumping to a conclusion, going with stereotypical thinking, relying on analogies, or making an educated guess.

Prediction based on evidence is far more rational, conscious, and algorithmic.  It implies at minimum a rational consideration of the evidence.

Both of those are different from instinct.  Instinct is a biologically predetermined, genetically based, innate, wired-in, fixed behavior.  One could say that instinct is the application of the entire lineage's experience as "learned" through survival and propagation of the individuals with the best responses, but that's a metaphorical use of "learned": it makes much more sense to say that an instinctive response is a behavior that is NOT based on learning and the individual's prior experiences.   Individuals learn through experience, lineages evolve through drift and adaptation.

Although I would agree that instincts are accumulated and refined over very long periods (but mostly tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of years rather than billions), your set of concepts is not a theory, and nothing you have presented justifies the prediction or conclusion that "instinct" is from a "process of learning" nor that that process occurred over billions of years.  Behaviors that ancient and primitive are going to fall into the categories of taxes and reflexes rather than instincts.

In fact your stuff really doesn't make any predictions because it isn't sufficiently coherent.  Your model perhaps has something to say about foraging, but it does not address lineages, or origins of intelligence.  You have not yet demonstrated that intelligence exists at all the levels you claim, or that there is anything to gain by misapplying terminology from individuals to lineages, animals to cells and molecules, and so on and so forth.

 
Quote
For me to know what you are trying to say you'll have to explain the origin of intuitive abilities such as instinct, how to model them.
You really don't get the whole concept of living up to your own principles, do you?  We have a hard time following what you are saying because you say everything incoherently, and you (and your not-a-theory) don't explain anything: you just make assertions.  

Also, the concept of something not being understandable until it is modelled is distinctly peculiar.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2015,15:30   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 26 2015,14:37)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,22:15)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ May 25 2015,19:17)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,13:33)
....that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict....

Predicting things based on evidence is not intuition.

I have no evidence against intuition being a learned response. The theory predicts instinct is from a billions of year old learning process.

What a mess, Gary.  You are jumping between minor non-technical meanings of words and are as a result making your usual hash of things.

Intuition is the result of things like subconscious summation of past experience plus analogies (finding similarities with previously encountered patterns, re-using previously successful conclusions, etc.), all learned all over a lifetime, without recourse to much in the way of rational consideration or algorithms.  Basing a prediction on intuition is effectively jumping to a conclusion, going with stereotypical thinking, relying on analogies, or making an educated guess.

Prediction based on evidence is far more rational, conscious, and algorithmic.  It implies at minimum a rational consideration of the evidence.

Both of those are different from instinct.  Instinct is a biologically predetermined, genetically based, innate, wired-in, fixed behavior.  One could say that instinct is the application of the entire lineage's experience as "learned" through survival and propagation of the individuals with the best responses, but that's a metaphorical use of "learned": it makes much more sense to say that an instinctive response is a behavior that is NOT based on learning and the individual's prior experiences.   Individuals learn through experience, lineages evolve through drift and adaptation.

Although I would agree that instincts are accumulated and refined over very long periods (but mostly tens of thousands to hundreds of millions rather than billions), your set of concepts is not a theory, and nothing you have presented justifies the prediction or conclusion that "instinct" is from a "process of learning" nor that that process occurred over billions of years.  Behaviors that ancient and primitive are going to fall into the categories of taxes and reflexes rather than instincts.

In fact your stuff really doesn't make any predictions because it isn't sufficiently coherent.  Your model perhaps has something to say about foraging, but it does not address lineages, or origins of intelligence.  You have not yet demonstrated that intelligence exists at all the levels you claim, or that there is anything to gain by misapplying terminology from individuals to lineages, animals to cells and molecules, and so on and so forth.

 
Quote
For me to know what you are trying to say you'll have to explain the origin of intuitive abilities such as instinct, how to model them.
You really don't get the whole concept of living up to your own principles, do you?  We have a hard time following what you are saying because you say everything incoherently, and you (and your not-a-theory) don't explain anything: you just make assertions.  

Also, the concept of something not being understandable until it is modelled is distinctly peculiar.

Not just peculiar, blatantly false.
We can model the  descent of the falcon intent on capturing prey using calculus.
This does not mean the falcon performs calculus equations while in flight (or any other time).
That something can be modeled by 'x' does not mean that  'x' is present in the thing modeled.
Nor that you understand much about what 'x' is or how it works.

Build a model of the SR-71.  You've got a perfectly good model, and no clue as to why the thing leaked fuel like a sieve and was only fully fueled while in flight.  You have no explanation or understanding of the role and function of the cones protruding ahead of the jet intakes.  You have explanation or understanding of its ascent protocols, descent protocols, landing speed, nor much of anything else.
You've got the coarse exterior shape, at best.
Yet you've got a fine model.  Just no understanding.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2015,19:17   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 26 2015,13:37)
Also, the concept of something not being understandable until it is modelled is distinctly peculiar.

The need for a model is only peculiar to those who are only used to repeating what they heard instead of having to provide a computer model to explain how it 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.

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

Pages: (622) < ... 463 464 465 466 467 [468] 469 470 471 472 473 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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