RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 505 506 507 508 509 [510] 511 512 513 514 515 ... >   
  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: Oct. 05 2015,00:14   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2015,21:50)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,20:05)
First, you've gone 8-plus years without thinking to add "virtual body", so if it's a critical point, that merely supports our point for these 500-plus pages that your work is faulty, ill-thought-out, and full of problems.  Secondly, the whole point of an omnipresent deity is that it doesn't have a virtual body, which, not existing, doesn't need to be controlled.  Your whole "something to be controlled" requirement is utter stupidity.  Intelligence no doubt emerged from neurons controlling stuff at ever-increasing levels of complexity but that does not mean that intelligence should be defined by "having something to control" - the highest levels of intelligence (evaluating your life, planning your future, dreaming up a solution to a problem, composing a symphony, imagining the plot for a novel) clearly do not require something to be controlled or muscles, virtual or otherwise.

The all important "Something to control" has all along been there.

The detail in parenthesis still describes the same thing I was describing before but in fewer words that at the same time indicate where a "network" module is plugged into the 4 requirement circuit/algorithm module.

I also already explained that the "network" is not on its own intelligent. It's in a way just another RAM added to the intelligence generating algorithm, the same way any other additional RAM would be added to the circuit. What forms in memory is at the same time "Something to control" where an entity can exist that inherently motors itself around without hitting obstacles while taking shortest path they know and all that like we and other animals do.

It really makes no sense at all for you to arguing that it is possible to do the same thing as "disembody" gravity from the fabric of the universe.

Religions share the practice of prayer or meditation that attempts to focus thoughts and actions through the air and even around the globe. It's not something that has a body that has to be disembodied it's a coexisting force that flows through us that has all out eyes and ears to see through, but freewill has its price of leading to horrors of war and other bad things that cannot be blamed on whatever created us. In your case it's like desecrating your favorite biology book because you are mad at the processes it explains for not making a perfect world where all your chores are done for you and you live forever.

I am not arguing for intelligence more or less flowing through the fabric of the universe, it's just something that cannot be ruled out by the model or theory. With all said I am now more like demonstrating that this Theory of Intelligent Design has a way to resist being used against religion. You only end up in religious territory where you find yourself alone, talking about a disembodied God that only Atheists believe in. But thanks for going there, so we all at least now know where you end up by trying that tactic.

Try reading AND understanding Gary: The "something to control" has always been there, and it's always been wrong, and we've always complained about it.  Also, no one is trying to 'disembody' gravity from the universe (or to embody it either - the combination of concepts makes no sense).

YOU are trying to invoke virtual bodies as a late-in-the-day lame-ass attempt to save your not-a-theory from claiming that your god is unintelligent, which is the clear implication of your earlier words.  You are trying to squeak it and your beloved Watson in by some ultra-loose verbiage about computers and virtual bodies, which is BS because neither of those have to have virtual bodies either.  No one (that I'm aware of) thinks your god is a computer, so this is not relevant on that score either.

So, have another try at saying something relevant, sane, and meaningful.

Quote
In your case it's like desecrating your favorite biology book because you are mad at the processes it explains for not making a perfect world where all your chores are done for you and you live forever.
That's not a possible scenario in any potential reality, so no, it's not.

Quote
With all said I am now more like demonstrating that this Theory of Intelligent Design has a way to resist being used against religion.
 It's not a theory, and you have yet to demonstrate any actual design, intelligent or otherwise, outside of your model.

Quote
You only end up in religious territory where you find yourself alone, talking about a disembodied God that only Atheists believe in.
Atheists don't believe in any sort of god, disembodied or otherwise, so you are babbling.  The point that you are insistent on missing is that your own ideas, if correct, exclude the possibility of an intelligent non-corporeal being, which you and your fellow IDists believe in.
  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,00:56   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,00:14)
Try reading AND understanding Gary: The "something to control" has always been there, and it's always been wrong, and we've always complained about it.  Also, no one is trying to 'disembody' gravity from the universe (or to embody it either - the combination of concepts makes no sense).

Only someone desperate for finding a problem where none exists would argue that modeling intelligence does not require some sort of (could be robotic) body/chassis/platform (or virtual representation that at least has sensory and motor actions that allow it to communicate with words or voice).

You will need to show me your working model, before I'll believe that crap.

And keep your crazy religious ideas about a disembodied God out of things. You cannot even produce a disembodied ID Lab critter. The best you'll get is an empty virtual arena with nothing in it. How you cannot grasp this common sense logic is a bit tragic, but mostly funny.

--------------
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.
   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,01:36   
The Crank Race is hotting up. Postcardo is still in front by a head and Gaulin is catching up slowly.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,05:56   
Quote
it's just something that cannot be ruled out by the model or theory


Yes, it can be ruled out because your theory links intelligence to all kind of material stuff, it also links intelligence to failure and "loss of confidence"

So welcome to the atheist, materialistic side Gee Gee
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,06:04   
Quote
I am not arguing for intelligence more or less flowing through the fabric of the universe, it's just something that cannot be ruled out by the model or theory


To elaborate on this, Gee gee, listen. If you're not arguing for "intelligence more or less flowing through the fabric of the universe", and your "theory" certainly doesn't, then your theory is useless to explain that intelligence and you have achieved nothing in that regard, even if your "theory" didn't rule it out. Only that it does rule it out, because we know that "sensory sensors" don't flow through the fabric of the universe.

Failure after failure, Gee Gee
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,06:04   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,00:56)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,00:14)
Try reading AND understanding Gary: The "something to control" has always been there, and it's always been wrong, and we've always complained about it.  Also, no one is trying to 'disembody' gravity from the universe (or to embody it either - the combination of concepts makes no sense).

Only someone desperate for finding a problem where none exists would argue that modeling intelligence does not require some sort of (could be robotic) body/chassis/platform (or virtual representation that at least has sensory and motor actions that allow it to communicate with words or voice).

You will need to show me your working model, before I'll believe that crap.

And keep your crazy religious ideas about a disembodied God out of things. You cannot even produce a disembodied ID Lab critter. The best you'll get is an empty virtual arena with nothing in it. How you cannot grasp this common sense logic is a bit tragic, but mostly funny.

You are being clueless once again, Gary.  We are not objecting to you creating a model in which supposed intelligence controls something.  That's fine. Lots of intelligence is put to use controlling stuff - no one says otherwise.  We are objecting to you DEFINING intelligence as REQUIRING having something to control, because that excludes many behaviors that epitomize intelligence. Stop arguing with the voices in your head, and start responding to people who are trying to talk with you.  

No one says your model has to compose a symphony, but it is crazy to define intelligence in such a way that composing a symphony can be excluded from being an act of intelligence.

And again, no one has to come up with a model showing the sun rising in the east to refute a model that asserts that the sun rises in the west.  Your model is self-evidently wrong all on its own.
  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,06:32   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,06:04)
No one says your model has to compose a symphony, but it is crazy to define intelligence in such a way that composing a symphony can be excluded from being an act of intelligence.

You ignored almost everything I said. And I don't have the time or resources to write an ID Lab that composes music, along with all else I'm trying to finish.

I have to go do a "civic duty". Jury duty. No time to waste.

--------------
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.
   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,06:55   
Quote
No time to waste


So late for that Gaulin, far too late
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,07:33   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,06:32)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,06:04)
No one says your model has to compose a symphony, but it is crazy to define intelligence in such a way that composing a symphony can be excluded from being an act of intelligence.

You ignored almost everything I said. And I don't have the time or resources to write an ID Lab that composes music, along with all else I'm trying to finish.

I have to go do a "civic duty". Jury duty. No time to waste.

You have that backward.  I read what you wrote and responded, but you misread what I said.  No one is asking you to write a program that composes a symphony.  In fact, that's a case in point, because what I said was, "No one says that your model has to compose a symphony".  What I've been asking is that you create definitions that work, as opposed to ones that are clearly invalid.
  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,11:14   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,07:33)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,06:32)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,06:04)
No one says your model has to compose a symphony, but it is crazy to define intelligence in such a way that composing a symphony can be excluded from being an act of intelligence.

You ignored almost everything I said. And I don't have the time or resources to write an ID Lab that composes music, along with all else I'm trying to finish.

I have to go do a "civic duty". Jury duty. No time to waste.

You have that backward.  I read what you wrote and responded, but you misread what I said.  No one is asking you to write a program that composes a symphony.  In fact, that's a case in point, because what I said was, "No one says that your model has to compose a symphony".  What I've been asking is that you create definitions that work, as opposed to ones that are clearly invalid.

Then how would you (without changing the circuit requirement based format that is already there) prevent someone such as yourself from misinterpreting the operational definition. You need a body to control with "ears" on it to even "hear" a symphony, so requirement 1 is not an inherent problem.

And to explain "Jury duty" to someone who lives under across the pond I found the video (mentioning Pilgrims and Puritans) that we were shown during orientation:

Massachusetts Juror Orientation Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....r7ucOUg

Even though having to report is inconvenient and waiting to see whether we're actually needed can be boring (though this time we got to watch the beginning of the Siderman Movie before being told we can go) we're thankful for living where this exists and are later proud of ourselves for showing up Jury Duty. Years ago I was needed to be a juror, but this time the cases were resolved without a jury being needed.

--------------
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: Oct. 05 2015,11:18   
Typo above from rushing a last minute addition of detail. Should read "for showing up for Jury Duty.

--------------
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: Oct. 05 2015,11:32   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,12:14)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,07:33)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,06:32)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,06:04)
No one says your model has to compose a symphony, but it is crazy to define intelligence in such a way that composing a symphony can be excluded from being an act of intelligence.

You ignored almost everything I said. And I don't have the time or resources to write an ID Lab that composes music, along with all else I'm trying to finish.

I have to go do a "civic duty". Jury duty. No time to waste.

You have that backward.  I read what you wrote and responded, but you misread what I said.  No one is asking you to write a program that composes a symphony.  In fact, that's a case in point, because what I said was, "No one says that your model has to compose a symphony".  What I've been asking is that you create definitions that work, as opposed to ones that are clearly invalid.

Then how would you (without changing the circuit requirement based format that is already there) prevent someone such as yourself from misinterpreting the operational definition. You need a body to control with "ears" on it to even "hear" a symphony, so requirement 1 is not an inherent problem.

...

That's beside the point.  You know, the point you keep missing no matter how many times we present it and explain it to you.

Composing a melody does not, in any way, require that ears or a body be part of the process.
Recognizing a melody does not, in any way, *ever* require any muscle systems, any "control system" whatsoever.

That you fold the notion of 'motor control' into your "definition" of 'intelligence' is a glaring error.  It is perfectly possible for things we consider to be intelligent to not require or involve any control system at all, least of all one specified as a 'motor control' system.
It may be that all intelligences are embodied (and I think it certainly is the case).  But this does not mean that all acts of intelligence require a body as such.  The body may be a pre-requisite, but it is not part of the specific phenomenon being explained.  Or in your case, failing to be explained.
Your "theory" explains nothing.
It is incorrect in requiring a 'motor control system' as an inherent part of the process.
So, trying to "(without changing the circuit requirement based format that is already there) prevent someone such as yourself from misinterpreting the operational definition" is a ridiculous task.  The "circuit requirement" does not represent intelligence as such.  It fails.
We are not misinterpreting the "operational definition" (which it isn't, by the way).  We are interpreting it correctly and thus pointing out the first of many serious flaws in the approach.
You're wrong on this, Gary.  You need to change your "operational definition", you need to change your diagram, you need to change your "circuit requirements".
If, that is, you care about reflecting the real world.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,11:34   
Quote
You need a body to control with "ears" on it to even "hear" a symphony, so requirement 1 is not an inherent problem


And you need hands to hold a baseball bat, but that doesn't mean that a PC baseball game is a "theory of intelligent design" just because it doesn't rule out disembodied pitchers you dumbfuck.

You haven't modeled "intelligence" let alone "intelligence capable of design", and even if you had, models are not theories. You've been told a million times yet it never sinks, because you're plain stupid
  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,11:45   
The UK "Jury Service" seems much more demanding of a person's time, but it's the same idea:

www.gov.uk/jury-service/overview

--------------
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: Oct. 05 2015,11:52   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,12:45)
The UK "Jury Service" seems much more demanding of a person's time, but it's the same idea:

www.gov.uk/jury-service/overview

Anything, apparently, anything at all, to avoid having to deal with the mistake in your "circuit diagram."

You're not fooling anybody Gary.
Jury Service is way off-topic both for the issues currently at hand and for your output in general.
Although you'd think they'd be interested in eliminating loonies from serving...
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:03   
Quote
Then how would you (without changing the circuit requirement based format that is already there) prevent someone such as yourself from misinterpreting the operational definition. You need a body to control with "ears" on it to even "hear" a symphony, so requirement 1 is not an inherent problem.

You don't have an operational definition.  What you have is a very poorly written theory of operation for your model.  That's not a theory and not an operational definition.  

Beethoven was able to create wonderful music without functional ears. From https://www.quora.com/How-was....hearing
Quote
When you compose, you learn to hear (or think) the music in your head.  The more you compose on paper, then actually hear it performed, the better this "in your head" music become.  Beethoven was a master.  He understood exactly what something would sound like just by the notes on the page.  Mozart could do this as well. Most of his manuscripts were single edits, meaning he didn't go back and revise.  This suggests what he wrote he liked, even after he heard it performed.  

See also http://news.discovery.com/history....222.htm

Quote
Although you'd think they'd be interested in eliminating loonies from serving...
Perhaps they heard he was in the jury pool, and both sides quickly settled?
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:13   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,11:52)
Although you'd think they'd be interested in eliminating loonies from serving...

Maybe a loony was being tried, and they had to find a jury of his peers.

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: Oct. 05 2015,12:19   
I have other things that are way more important than arguing over nonsense like: that doesn't mean that a PC baseball game is a "theory of intelligent design" just because it doesn't rule out disembodied pitchers.

The word "disembodied" is nowhere in the theory anyway. At this point it is a waste of time to even bother with your beliefs about that concept.

--------------
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.
   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:21   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,12:19)
I have other things that are way more important than arguing over nonsense like: that doesn't mean that a PC baseball game is a "theory of intelligent design" just because it doesn't rule out disembodied pitchers.

The word "disembodied" is nowhere in the theory anyway. At this point it is a waste of time to even bother with your beliefs about that concept.

What theory?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:26   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,13:19)
I have other things that are way more important than arguing over nonsense like: that doesn't mean that a PC baseball game is a "theory of intelligent design" just because it doesn't rule out disembodied pitchers.

The word "disembodied" is nowhere in the theory anyway. At this point it is a waste of time to even bother with your beliefs about that concept.

Still with the attempts to distract and deflect away from the  core problem.  Same as it ever was.

Your "theory" is incorrect in asserting that intelligence inherently requires 'something to control' as part of its operation.
We have disproven this with concrete cases.
You really have nothing left to hide behind at this point.  Your "theory" is quite clear on this particular point, and it is clearly incorrect.

You're going to have to change your diagram, and your "theory" in its various parts and aspects, to remove this error.
Or reduce the scope of your aims to be 'intelligence that includes action as an element", which really isn't very interesting, useful, or helpful.

Note well that the disproof by concrete case is not tied to melody creation or recognition.
The same applies to the creation of hypotheses and theories -- no motor control required.
You came close to seeing this when pushed on how much Steven Hawking's muscle-system failures impact his intelligence.  But as the implications became clear, you fled the issue.  Using the same 'deflect, distract' approach you're trying here.
Give it up, you're wrong on this point.
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:42   
Quote
Give it up, you're wrong on this point.


If he gave up over the mere fact of being wrong, where would his "theory" be?

Glen Davidson

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

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:45   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 05 2015,13:42)
Quote
Give it up, you're wrong on this point.


If he gave up over the mere fact of being wrong, where would his "theory" be?

Glen Davidson

In the garbage bin where it belongs?
In the fire?
In the recycling bin?
Missing from the internet?

I'm not seeing any down sides.
  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,14:32   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,12:03)
Beethoven was able to create wonderful music without functional ears.

Yes I know. I have a friend (an offset pressman I worked with for years) who is as deaf or more.  He explained it as still having the ability to hear loud sound the problem is that spoken words sound like noise, makes no sense. I visualized it as trying to understand someone who moves their mouth while waterfall type white-noise comes out.

I expect that Beethoven was the same way and although he could not use his hearing to communicate he knew what a great symphony sounded like. Even where all that was "done in his head" it's still possible for him to virtually "hear" the music playing there, in his mind. The beat of music has rhythm, which can be clapped or tapped out using motor muscle action. His ears would only need to provide enough information for him to form an internal representation of what it sounds like to an audience with normal hearing.

--------------
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: Oct. 05 2015,16:24   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,14:32)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,12:03)
Beethoven was able to create wonderful music without functional ears.

Yes I know. I have a friend (an offset pressman I worked with for years) who is as deaf or more.  He explained it as still having the ability to hear loud sound the problem is that spoken words sound like noise, makes no sense. I visualized it as trying to understand someone who moves their mouth while waterfall type white-noise comes out.

I expect that Beethoven was the same way and although he could not use his hearing to communicate he knew what a great symphony sounded like. Even where all that was "done in his head" it's still possible for him to virtually "hear" the music playing there, in his mind. The beat of music has rhythm, which can be clapped or tapped out using motor muscle action. His ears would only need to provide enough information for him to form an internal representation of what it sounds like to an audience with normal hearing.

Jesus, Gary, you are your own worst enemy: stop expecting stuff and learn some facts instead.  Yes, he passed through that sort of a stage, but he later became TOTALLY deaf and still composed great music on the basis of what he imagined in his mind.  When his ears were no longer providing any information he (of course) relied even more on his imagination.

Note the last paragraph in the following quote, from one of the sources I cited, http://news.discovery.com/history....22.htm:
   
Quote
Beethoven first mentioned his hearing loss in 1801 at the age of 30, complaining that he was having problems hearing the high notes of instruments and voices.  By 1812, people had to shout to make themselves understood and in 1818, he started to communicate through notebooks. In his last few years before his death in 1827, his deafness was apparently total.  

........ a trio of scientists in the Netherlands ....... grouped these works into four ages, ranging from early (1798-1800) to late (1824-26).  The experts looked at the first violin part in the first movement of each quartet, counting the number of notes above G6, which corresponds to 1,568 Hertz.   Use of higher notes decreased as the deafness progressed, they found.  To compensate, Beethoven used more middle- and low-frequency notes, which he could hear better when music was performed.  

But in the late quartets -- written by the time he was totally deaf -- the higher notes returned.  "When he came to rely completely on his inner ear, he was no longer compelled to produce music he could actually hear when performed, and slowly returned to his inner musical world and early composing experiences," says the paper.


Note that Mozart did not "clap out a beat" and also had the music fully formed in his imagination: he reportedly wrote down the score in one go, without corrections or false starts, "as if taking dictation."

You just don't have the sense to stop digging whatever hole you get into, do you?
Between you and Edgar, this is what you have turned ID into:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....dcT25ss
And, they're off..... oh, no, they're not....



Quote
And to explain "Jury duty" to someone who lives under across the pond I found the video (mentioning Pilgrims and Puritans) that we were shown during orientation

You do understand that America got its jury system from England, which has had juries since 1168, right?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,16:32   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,15:32)
...
I expect that Beethoven was the same way and although he could not use his hearing to communicate he knew what a great symphony sounded like. Even where all that was "done in his head" it's still possible for him to virtually "hear" the music playing there, in his mind. The beat of music has rhythm, which can be clapped or tapped out using motor muscle action. His ears would only need to provide enough information for him to form an internal representation of what it sounds like to an audience with normal hearing.

None of which gets you past the problem that there are no control systems involved.
Clapping out a beat is unnecessary.  Hearing is done with muscle systems nor can it be controlled by muscles (except in the gross side-effect of controlling the quality of what one hears by 'aiming' the head and thus the ears).

And again with the 'internal representation'.  It is not enough to insist that there must be one or your "theory" fails.  You have to demonstrate that there is, in fact, an 'internal representation' that is strictly analogous to the external world.  By and large, experiments have failed to find the inner homunculus, which is why, tempting though such notions are, serious researchers work hard to avoid recourse to homunculus notions.

But again, and again and again, we point out that there are no muscle control systems inherent to composing a melody, nor to recognizing one heard in a different key and at a different tempo, nor to recognizing that a melody has been played 'wrong'.  Likewise, no motor control is required or involved in crafting the ideas that make up a hypothesis or a theory.  Yes, motor control of some sort is required to output the result -- but it is a result being output.  Not the actual generation of the idea, the hypothesis, the theory.  Motor control is neither necessary nor sufficient to 'explain' any part of intelligence as such.

You're simply wrong to assert otherwise.
We have the evidence, you don't.
  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,18:36   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,11:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,12:45)
The UK "Jury Service" seems much more demanding of a person's time, but it's the same idea:

www.gov.uk/jury-service/overview

Anything, apparently, anything at all, to avoid having to deal with the mistake in your "circuit diagram."

You're not fooling anybody Gary.
Jury Service is way off-topic both for the issues currently at hand and for your output in general.
Although you'd think they'd be interested in eliminating loonies from serving...

Judge: "Madam Foreman, have you reached a verdict?"

Juror: "No, Your Honor. Juror number 6 insists that he can't reach a verdict until one of the attorneys creates a computer model of his argument."

--------------
"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
  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,20:51   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,10:21)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,12:19)
I have other things that are way more important than arguing over nonsense like: that doesn't mean that a PC baseball game is a "theory of intelligent design" just because it doesn't rule out disembodied pitchers.

The word "disembodied" is nowhere in the theory anyway. At this point it is a waste of time to even bother with your beliefs about that concept.

What theory?

Now you've done it. You've summoned The Diagram.

--------------
"[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
  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,20:52   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,10:45)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 05 2015,13:42)
 
Quote
Give it up, you're wrong on this point.


If he gave up over the mere fact of being wrong, where would his "theory" be?

Glen Davidson

In the garbage bin where it belongs?
In the fire?
In the recycling bin?
Missing from the internet?

I'm not seeing any down sides.

On the roll, instead of the Charmin.

--------------
"[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
  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,22:26   
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 05 2015,19:51)
Now you've done it. You've summoned The Diagram.

Should somebody call an X-orcist?

Oh wait, X is that other guy.

Never mind.
  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,03:21   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,16:24)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 05 2015,14:32)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,12:03)
Beethoven was able to create wonderful music without functional ears.

Yes I know. I have a friend (an offset pressman I worked with for years) who is as deaf or more.  He explained it as still having the ability to hear loud sound the problem is that spoken words sound like noise, makes no sense. I visualized it as trying to understand someone who moves their mouth while waterfall type white-noise comes out.

I expect that Beethoven was the same way and although he could not use his hearing to communicate he knew what a great symphony sounded like. Even where all that was "done in his head" it's still possible for him to virtually "hear" the music playing there, in his mind. The beat of music has rhythm, which can be clapped or tapped out using motor muscle action. His ears would only need to provide enough information for him to form an internal representation of what it sounds like to an audience with normal hearing.

Jesus, Gary, you are your own worst enemy: stop expecting stuff and learn some facts instead.  Yes, he passed through that sort of a stage, but he later became TOTALLY deaf and still composed great music on the basis of what he imagined in his mind.  When his ears were no longer providing any information he (of course) relied even more on his imagination.


Well there you go then. He was born with ears and they functioned well enough for long enough for him to know what the notes and instruments sounded like.

The friend I mentioned was always deaf. His accent (or way of speaking) was recognizable as from not ever having fully functional hearing for the development of word vocalization motor systems.

Ears are needed to detect air pressure wave changes, the sense of "hearing". If there are no ears at all then it might sense vibration with their sense of "touch" but they do not have the sense of "hearing".

 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,16:24)
Note that Mozart did not "clap out a beat" and also had the music fully formed in his imagination: he reportedly wrote down the score in one go, without corrections or false starts, "as if taking dictation."


I have good reason to believe that it was common to loudly participate in keeping time to music, by at least clapping along with everyone else while keeping their neighbors up all night:

William Tell Overture Andre Rieu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....FxCtSJo

--------------
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) < ... 505 506 507 508 509 [510] 511 512 513 514 515 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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