RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 464 465 466 467 468 [469] 470 471 472 473 474 ... >   
  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 27 2015,06:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ 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.

No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

Examining a good model can certainly help people understand a complicated subject.  However, the keys are the logic; the evidence; making correct, new, valid predictions; and, often but not always, the math.  Note the role that computer models played in Einstein's theories of general and special relativity, Newton's theory of optics, Wegener's theory of continental drift, Lavoisier's theory of oxygen combustion, statistical mechanics, quantum theory, Milankovich orbital cycles, and Copernicus' heliocentrism.  The last is perhaps the best example: a mechanical model of the solar system makes the concept absolutely clear even to a kindergartener (up to and including retrogression of planets), but Copernicus figured it out without a model, and his arguments convinced many people also without involving a model.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2015,09:05   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,04:52)
Copernicus figured it out without a model, and his arguments convinced many people also without involving a model.


.. but it would have been cool if he had had Christie Brinkley there to explain it to people.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2015,09:28   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 27 2015,10:05)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,04:52)
Copernicus figured it out without a model, and his arguments convinced many people also without involving a model.


.. but it would have been cool if he had had Christie Brinkley there to explain it to people.

So who would Gary's "spokesmodel" be?
Honey Boo-Boo or Mama June?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2015,10:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ 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.

If you could write in English and understood physics and chemistry you wouldn't need a model to explain anything.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2015,11:09   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 27 2015,09:05)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,04:52)
Copernicus figured it out without a model, and his arguments convinced many people also without involving a model.


.. but it would have been cool if he had had Christie Brinkley there to explain it to people.

"Imagine if you will these heavenly orbs spinning endlessly......."

That works for the explanation part, but if he'd had Christie Brinkley on hand while he was trying to understand the system, he'd probably have been far too distracted to have figured it out in the first place.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2015,11:57   

Quote (NoName @ May 27 2015,07:28)
Quote (fnxtr @ May 27 2015,10:05)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,04:52)
Copernicus figured it out without a model, and his arguments convinced many people also without involving a model.


.. but it would have been cool if he had had Christie Brinkley there to explain it to people.

So who would Gary's "spokesmodel" be?
Honey Boo-Boo or Mama June?

Given Gary's success in gathering support, his spokesmodel is going to be Gary Gaulin.

--------------
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 27 2015,15:26   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,06:52)
No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

You do not even have a model for intelligence, 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.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2015,15:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2015,15:26)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,06:52)
No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

You do not even have a model for intelligence, hypocrite.

Likewise.

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2015,16:33   

I was back at the "Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames" paper and found that the network model has the same (almost 60%) "concordant pairs" activity as shown in Figure 3:  

http://www.plosbiology.org/article....1000403

I'm not 100% certain that I found the cause for the ratio shown in Figure 3 of the paper but that's what I'm getting for numbers, between the place cell pairs in the model.

--------------
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 27 2015,18:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2015,16:26)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,06:52)
No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

You do not even have a model for intelligence, hypocrite.

Is that the problem, Gary?
You don't have a model of theories, so you don't understand them?

You have nothing remotely like a theory. Nor, for that matter, nothing like a model.  Nor intelligence.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2015,19:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2015,15:26)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,06:52)
No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

You do not even have a model for intelligence, hypocrite.

I am not the person claiming to have modelled intelligence, therefore I am not a hypocrite.  You are claiming to have a model, but you refuse to support it, ground-truth it, provide operational definitions, etc., etc., etc.  This makes you not only a hypocrite but also a fool.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2015,20:21   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,19:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2015,15:26)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,06:52)
No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

You do not even have a model for intelligence, hypocrite.

I am not the person claiming to have modelled intelligence, therefore I am not a hypocrite.  You are claiming to have a model, but you refuse to support it, ground-truth it, provide operational definitions, etc., etc., etc.  This makes you not only a hypocrite but also a fool.

If that's your opinion then I'm wasting my time with another jerk-off.

And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

--------------
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 28 2015,21:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,19:36)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2015,15:26)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,06:52)
No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

You do not even have a model for intelligence, hypocrite.

I am not the person claiming to have modelled intelligence, therefore I am not a hypocrite.  You are claiming to have a model, but you refuse to support it, ground-truth it, provide operational definitions, etc., etc., etc.  This makes you not only a hypocrite but also a fool.

If that's your opinion then I'm wasting my time with another jerk-off.

And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".


Oooh, that sure told me off.

However, you clearly don't know the meaning of ground-truthing, and you certainly don't practice it, even though it is absolutely essential in quality modelling.

Moreover, the demonstrable fact that you are being foolish is precisely why you have been wasting your time for years now.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2015,21:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,19:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2015,15:26)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,06:52)
No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

You do not even have a model for intelligence, hypocrite.

I am not the person claiming to have modelled intelligence, therefore I am not a hypocrite.  You are claiming to have a model, but you refuse to support it, ground-truth it, provide operational definitions, etc., etc., etc.  This makes you not only a hypocrite but also a fool.

If that's your opinion then I'm wasting my time with another jerk-off.

And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

The one thing you can get near unanimous agreement on is that you are wasting your time.  We've literally been telling you this for years.

--------------
"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: May 29 2015,07:26   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 29 2015,05:32)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,19:36)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2015,15:26)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,06:52)
No.  A working model can provide a useful test of whether we understand something (but not in your case, as every useful model requires ruthless and detailed ground-truthing), and it may provide additional understanding.  However, a model that isn't carefully ground-truthed is pretty much mental masturbation.

You do not even have a model for intelligence, hypocrite.

I am not the person claiming to have modelled intelligence, therefore I am not a hypocrite.  You are claiming to have a model, but you refuse to support it, ground-truth it, provide operational definitions, etc., etc., etc.  This makes you not only a hypocrite but also a fool.

If that's your opinion then I'm wasting my time with another jerk-off.

And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

The one thing you can get near unanimous agreement on is that you are wasting your time.  We've literally been telling you this for years.

Gary only does literal. He cant think literally.

--------------
"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: May 29 2015,08:47   

Quote (JohnW @ May 27 2015,09:57)
Quote (NoName @ May 27 2015,07:28)
Quote (fnxtr @ May 27 2015,10:05)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2015,04:52)
Copernicus figured it out without a model, and his arguments convinced many people also without involving a model.


.. but it would have been cool if he had had Christie Brinkley there to explain it to people.

So who would Gary's "spokesmodel" be?
Honey Boo-Boo or Mama June?

Given Gary's success in gathering support, his spokesmodel is going to be Gary Gaulin.

I still think Professor Irwin Corey said it best.

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2015,11:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

I think what GG means here is that you can't ground-truth pure fantasy, so using it in reference to his "model" is just wrong.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2015,14:52   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 29 2015,11:11)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

I think what GG means here is that you can't ground-truth pure fantasy, so using it in reference to his "model" is just wrong.

Do an internet search for "ground-truthing a computer model" then let me know what you come up with for instructions.

--------------
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 29 2015,15:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2015,15:52)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 29 2015,11:11)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

I think what GG means here is that you can't ground-truth pure fantasy, so using it in reference to his "model" is just wrong.

Do an internet search for "ground-truthing a computer model" then let me know what you come up with for instructions.

Do an internet search for "model" and let us know what you come up with for instructions.
You poor clueless failure.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2015,17:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2015,14:52)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 29 2015,11:11)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

I think what GG means here is that you can't ground-truth pure fantasy, so using it in reference to his "model" is just wrong.

Do an internet search for "ground-truthing a computer model" then let me know what you come up with for instructions.

Why don't you describe, in your own words, what ground-truthing is and then describe why it's being used inappropriately in reference to your "model."

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2015,07:47   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 29 2015,17:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2015,14:52)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 29 2015,11:11)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

I think what GG means here is that you can't ground-truth pure fantasy, so using it in reference to his "model" is just wrong.

Do an internet search for "ground-truthing a computer model" then let me know what you come up with for instructions.

Why don't you describe, in your own words, what ground-truthing is and then describe why it's being used inappropriately in reference to your "model."

Gary is in an impossible situation here - he can't ground-truth his model because he lacks operational definitions for intelligence, so there is no way he can include a real and objective data set to test with it or test against it.  This leaves him with the equivalent of a model for jet plane flight that's:
Do
Angels = Angels + 1
Lift = Angels
Loop until Lift > Takeoff

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2015,09:54   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 30 2015,07:47)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 29 2015,17:58)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2015,14:52)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 29 2015,11:11)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2015,20:21)
And by the way asshole, stop misusing the phrase "ground-truthed".

I think what GG means here is that you can't ground-truth pure fantasy, so using it in reference to his "model" is just wrong.

Do an internet search for "ground-truthing a computer model" then let me know what you come up with for instructions.

Why don't you describe, in your own words, what ground-truthing is and then describe why it's being used inappropriately in reference to your "model."

Gary is in an impossible situation here - he can't ground-truth his model because he lacks operational definitions for intelligence, so there is no way he can include a real and objective data set to test with it or test against it.  This leaves him with the equivalent of a model for jet plane flight that's:
Do
Angels = Angels + 1
Lift = Angels
Loop until Lift > Takeoff

GG's general MO is to read or hear a word or phrase he doesn't know, then go searching the internet for it. He'll misunderstand what he's read, but the spurious definitions become fixed in his mind and from that point on there's no getting him to understand or admit that he's wrong.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2015,10:54   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 30 2015,09:54)
GG's general MO is to read or hear a word or phrase he doesn't know, then go searching the internet for it. He'll misunderstand what he's read, but the spurious definitions become fixed in his mind and from that point on there's no getting him to understand or admit that he's wrong.

Yes, and if the word sounds impressive and he hasn't already decided against it, he'll usually toss it into his word salad somewhere, regardless of whether or not it makes any sense.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2015,11:16   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 30 2015,18:54)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 30 2015,09:54)
GG's general MO is to read or hear a word or phrase he doesn't know, then go searching the internet for it. He'll misunderstand what he's read, but the spurious definitions become fixed in his mind and from that point on there's no getting him to understand or admit that he's wrong.

Yes, and if the word sounds impressive and he hasn't already decided against it, he'll usually toss it into his word salad somewhere, regardless of whether or not it makes any sense.

That and his stupid grahics once in a while followed by outrageous claim then flounce then biting Wes on the toe over some percived slight then shaking his fist at the black helicopters rince and repeat. He's  predictably reiterative.

--------------
"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 30 2015,14:25   

The damn trolls keep making junk up as they go along, while the science defenders go on condoning it:

 
Quote
Finding Ground Truth from Above
Catherine Clabby

The vegetation covering much of Earth makes it tough to survey the planet’s surface from above. In other words, it’s difficult to see the ground-level features for the trees. Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology has changed that. Combining laser surveying instruments and GPS, researchers make bare-Earth maps of thousands of square kilometers with decimeter resolution. William E. Carter cofounded the National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and operated by the University of Houston and the University of California, Berkeley. Carter discussed the promise of the technology with American Scientist associate editor Catherine Clabby

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues.....m-above


 
Quote
Statistics and machine learning
In machine learning, the term "ground truth" refers to the accuracy of the training set's classification for supervised learning techniques. This is used in statistical models to prove or disprove research hypotheses. The term "ground truthing" refers to the process of gathering the proper objective (provable) data for this test. Compare with gold standard (test).

Bayesian spam filtering is a common example of supervised learning. In this system, the algorithm is manually taught the differences between spam and non-spam. This depends on the ground truth of the messages used to train the algorithm – inaccuracies in the ground truth will correlate to inaccuracies in the resulting spam/non-spam verdicts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_truth

None of the above has any relevance at all to unsupervised learning in cognitive systems that demonstrate 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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2015,14:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2015,15:25)
The damn trolls keep making junk up as they go along, while the science defenders go on condoning it:
 ...

You're not qualified to judge.

Quote
None of the above has any relevance at all to unsupervised learning in cognitive systems that demonstrate how intelligence works.

Ah, so just like your work.  No wonder you like it, and everyone else thinks it's ludicrous.  Your interpretation of 'it', of course.
You are not competent to do much more than sound out the words.
As your 8 year history on the internet proves rather decisively.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2015,16:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2015,14:25)
The damn trolls keep making junk up as they go along, while the science defenders go on condoning it:

           
Quote
Finding Ground Truth from Above
Catherine Clabby

The vegetation covering much of Earth makes it tough to survey the planet’s surface from above. In other words, it’s difficult to see the ground-level features for the trees. Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology has changed that. Combining laser surveying instruments and GPS, researchers make bare-Earth maps of thousands of square kilometers with decimeter resolution. William E. Carter cofounded the National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and operated by the University of Houston and the University of California, Berkeley. Carter discussed the promise of the technology with American Scientist associate editor Catherine Clabby

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues.....m-above


           
Quote
Statistics and machine learning
In machine learning, the term "ground truth" refers to the accuracy of the training set's classification for supervised learning techniques. This is used in statistical models to prove or disprove research hypotheses. The term "ground truthing" refers to the process of gathering the proper objective (provable) data for this test. Compare with gold standard (test).

Bayesian spam filtering is a common example of supervised learning. In this system, the algorithm is manually taught the differences between spam and non-spam. This depends on the ground truth of the messages used to train the algorithm – inaccuracies in the ground truth will correlate to inaccuracies in the resulting spam/non-spam verdicts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_truth

None of the above has any relevance at all to unsupervised learning in cognitive systems that demonstrate how intelligence works.

Bullshit.  

Ground truthing is clearly understood as objectively testing your model / algorithm / output / data / analytical process against objective real data, against some known standard. It's the process of asking whether one's program / procedure properly produce real outcomes.  It's fundamental to most work with models, and you don't do it.  (We'll get to unsupervised learning in a moment.)

In my own research involving LiDAR data, I (occasionally) need to compare the processed output against real terrain (the ground), to understand when and how data processing produces artifacts: for example, LiDAR does fantastically in showing ploughing in flat fields, but the algorithms for removing houses and trees and bridges etc. are imperfect, so you may get some local odd effects and have difficulty distinguishing some types of rough ground from areas from which trees have been processed out.  That's a nice example of necessary reality-checking.

If you are doing GPS surveying (particularly in the early days with less accurate systems), you needed to survey a known area or re-occupy specific points to get an understanding of precisely how crappy the output could be (which were typically worse than the estimates provided by the GPS unit's internal calculations).  That's another form of ground-truthing.

In global climate models, ground-truthing means building the program with one set of data (for one year or one region or one set of conditions) and testing it to see if it can produce output that matches real measurements for another year or region or set of conditions).  Once again, reality-checking in order to see that the program is producing something real, meaningful, correct, and useful.

 
Quote
"In machine learning, the term 'ground truth' refers to the accuracy of the training set's classification for supervised learning techniques. This is used in statistical models to prove or disprove research hypotheses. The term 'ground truthing' refers to the process of gathering the proper objective (provable) data for this test."
 That's collecting real data (data that can be proven or data whose accuracy is known) and seeing whether your learning algorithm can process it correctly, which YOU ARE NOT DOING.  
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~pstone....sh.html
https://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

With respect to supervised learning by spam filters, one trains the system by providing it with examples of spam labelled as such, and one tests it by seeing whether it recognizes instances of spam (real or generated by the programmer, but different from the ones that it learned on) that the program creator wishes it to identify as spam (as opposed to passing spam through or blocking stuff that isn't spam).  That's ground-truthing when making a spam filter. (For a more general discussion of training expert systems, see http://www.quora.com/When-es....ing-set .)  If you've done a great job of making a program that is capable of machine-learning, the program will gradually improve its algorithms for recognizing spam.  You don't just let it label stuff as spam and accept its decisions merely because it said so.  Ground-truthing provides an excellent and reliable route to improved models:    
Quote
[from ]http://ibmdatamag.com/2014.......14....] Machine learning has a critical dependency on learned humans. Without a baseline set of training data labeled by one or more human experts, many machine-learning algorithms can’t get off square one. They search for data patterns that are consistent with those previously tagged and flagged by a human in the know. This description is a well-established machine-learning approach called supervised learning.


You are correct that unsupervised learning is a little different, because there one is allowing the computer to make its own associations without regard to whether we think it is making the correct associations in the right way ( http://venturebeat.com/2014.......d-truth ).  However, a) this stuff is still eventually ground-truthed, just much later in the process, by whether it actually produces real answers (testing whether Watson could handle Jeopardy was an excellent demonstration of ground-truthing).  People are examining alternatives to ground-truthing for intermediate-level testing out systems (e.g. http://eturwg.c4i.gmu.edu/?q=node........6),.  However, that gives you no comfort because you aren't operating at that level.  Neither you nor your program are doing much in the way of  unsupervised learning: you are indeed unsupervised, but you demonstrably aren't learning very much, and your program is not doing modern machine learning, supervised or not.  While your "model bug" accumulates experiences and benefits from that it doesn't improve its own algorithms for processing those experiences, so it's a fairly piss-poor example of modern machine learning.  

Worse, you aren't "demonstrating how intelligence works".  Your program does not identify known examples of intelligence, and it cannot quantify intelligence because you still lack a valid operational definition.  You are still modelling insects with a hippocampus - the simply bit of reality-checking would show you that that is wrong.  (Yes, they have "mushroom bodies" that are vaguely functionally equivalent in some respects, but they don't have hippocampi.)  You don't do anything even remotely approaching any version of ground-truthing, because you are foolish and don't know what you are doing or how to do it.  You would be far better off if you did do some ground-truthing rather than screwing around in some at best marginally related areas trying to justify your incompetence.

Over on Sandwalk at http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......t-form, Chris B tells you
     
Quote
Gary,
Your use of the word "guesses" implies some sort of conscious agency to the process of somatic hypermutation and B cell affinity maturation. This is not implied at all in the video you link. However, affinity maturation shows in principle how random mutation and natural selection can work, and is evidence against ID creationist claims that random mutation cannot improve protein binding sites.
and
     
Quote
If you want to replace it with YOUR model, then it is YOU who has some explaining to do. Provide your one paragraph summary of the model you want to replace it with, and explain how it fits the data better than my description. That's how science works. Don't send me off to red herring websites.  In addition, I don't need to provide you with a better scientific model for "intelligent cause". You have yet to provide evidence that "intelligent cause" has anything to do with affinity maturation or any other naturally observed phenomena. I am not going to chase that red herring in circles.


Diogenes tells you,      
Quote
Gary, you have done nothing to explain the origin of intelligence. You merely allege a cause without evidence. Allegations of cause are not necessarily explanations. To count as scientific explanations, they must either 1. be deductions from generally observed principles or 2. lead to unusual, distinctive, predicted observable phenomena that match observations.

You never did either. You are what I call a "definitional crackpot", someone who gives idiosyncratic definitions of words and then insists that his definitions have to be treated as if empirically proven. Thus you claim human intelligence is based on "cellular intelligence" which is based on "molecular intelligence" etc., defining a bunch of terms that no one gives a shit about, and that you can't get into the peer-reviewed literature, because you have never demonstrated that such definitions are an essential part of a theory that makes testable predictions about observable phenomena.

Yet you insist upon acting as if your definitions have the status of empirical observations.

An allegation of cause unsupported by evidence is not an explanation. You have no explanation, and you have contributed nothing to "cognitive science", and none of us here give a shit about cognitive science anyway.

The question is affinity maturation in the immune system. That is based on random mutations, not "guesses". When you called them "guesses" you were lying.


and all you've got to reply with are your usual insults and misunderstandings.  At some point you ought to re-evaluate what you are doing.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2015,17:12   

At the Sandwalk:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......1824971

--------------
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 30 2015,18:35   

And I should mention that I now have the ID Lab critter braving the shock zone arena. It gave me a chance to improve the place cell behavior, before releasing any software.

Most of the problems I had around a year ago are now gone. The ones that remain (mainly freezing up when stuck in the middle of the shock zone) seem to be caused by too many cells signaling at one time, which is a problem I expected. To see what happens when kept as simple as possible I had to start off by combining room and arena frames into a single network representation for both, even though I already knew this results in a somewhat overwhelming amount of information all in one place. It's still very useful behavior to have and a good first step towards mastering the most challenging test of them all, for testing two frame place avoidance skills.

--------------
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 30 2015,19:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2015,18:35)
Most of the problems I had around a year ago are now gone.

No, all of the problems are still present and you've shown no sign of being able to learn the reasons for that.  You do have a finely-tuned avoidance mechanism though.

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 464 465 466 467 468 [469] 470 471 472 473 474 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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