RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 517 518 519 520 521 [522] 523 524 525 526 527 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2015,08:54   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 23 2015,15:35)
No one cares, Gary.

In at least this forum, it looks to me like you're right.

What really matters here are the scientific models lawyers and religious activists develop that already have millions of dollars vested in them, so to hell with all others.

--------------
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: Nov. 24 2015,10:18   

As always, you are entirely wrong in your fundamental assumptions.
You have less data to support them than you do your fundamentally flawed "theory" or "model".

But if we're so irrelevant to what you are up to, why do you hang out here?
Could it be that you get even less attention elsewhere?

You're an irrelevant failure, Gary.  Years of straining and you have not even brought forth a gnat.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2015,12:00   

I did not write this in the AI forum:

 
Quote
Get ready to rewrite those collage textbooks on biological and evolutionary theory.

http://phys.org/news.......on.html


I only helped explain why they are correct:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/discovery-biological-molecules-unexpectedly-evolve-fractally-over-time

By all means do your best to carry on over whether natural selection didit (or not) and how much "junk" there is our genome, fluff like that. I will only be where the science action's at.

--------------
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: Nov. 24 2015,12:09   

When do you plan to start?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2015,12:27   

Quote
What really matters here are the scientific models lawyers and religious activists develop that already have millions of dollars vested in them, so to hell with all others.


As you aren't a lawyer I guess from this mangled Gaulinese you think you are a religious activist.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2015,14:39   

Partly, you are getting all excited because they talked about fractal behavior and self-similarity, AND SO DID YOU.  However, they showed this, and you just asserted it.  They discussed the exponent for the best fit line and the range of scales over which behavior was self-similar.  You don't do anything like that: you just toss out a bit of jargon that sounds good to you, but which is meaningless in your context.        
Quote
Scaling behaviour between the observed characteristic time τc and the observation time t. The logarithm (to base 10) of the characteristic relaxation time τc of the inter-domain distance fluctuation of PGK and ePepN, of the intra-domain structural fluctuation within the single domain protein K-Ras (see Supplementary Information), and of the average for the distance fluctuations between residue side-chain pairs in PGK (see Supplementary Information), are plotted against the logarithm (to base 10) of the observation time, t. τc obtained from MD simulations is defined as the time at which the normalized autocorrelation function decays to 1/e. A reference line for the power-law relationship τc(t) ∝ t0.9 is plotted as a visual guide. The error bars shown with the red circles represent the standard deviation of log10(τc) associated with individual residue pairs.


In contrast, you just threw "self-similarity" into a pile of word-salad because you thought it sounded science-y.

 
Quote
 I will only be where the science action's at.

You can't even see the "science action" from where you are.

From the Kurzweil thread:
 
Quote
Evolution of molecular specie behavior that evolves in a matter of seconds is not currently part of the Darwinian paradigm, which was unable to predict this.

Almost every pair of nouns in that sentence attests to your confusion.  The singular of species is species (specie is money in coin).  Molecular species are not biological species and molecules do not evolve in any biological or proto-biological sense.  They continually change in shape (being part of a dynamically unstable system), but the change is neither evolutionary nor inheritable.  Modern evolutionary theory is not strictlly Darwinian, and Darwinism (strictly speaking) is not the modern evolutionary paradigm.  Evolutionary theory deals solely with living organisms, and does not extend to chemistry, so its failure to predict something in chemistry is no more a failure or a surprise than the inability of general relativity to predict tomorrow's weather or next year's election.

 
Quote
Self-similarity at different time/size scales can be vital evidence in support of the (cognitive based) origins theory I have been developing, which did correctly predict "the function of a protein depends on its motions" (actions).
You do not have a theory; self-similarity does not support your speculations (because you claim emergent phenomena); and your ideas have nothing to do with predicting that the function of a protein depends on its motions.  Also, "motions" in this context means changes in shape, rather than referring to its actions.

 
Quote
I still need to study this in more detail, but for me it already helped remove a pile of wrenches from the machinery that came from dependence on generalizations like "natural selection" and "mutation" to explain how multilevel 24/7 intelligence works.
Your model is too flawed and ungrounded to add anything of value to explaining intelligence.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2015,05:02   

N.Wells I'm really not interested in your natural selection didit "evolutionary theory" hype.

I'm responsible for models that go past and cover way more than that.

What you and others with vested interest in farting around with your EA'a and GA's think is irrelevant.

More later.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2015,05:09   

"More later."

Unfortunately.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2015,06:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2015,06:02)
N.Wells I'm really not interested in your natural selection didit "evolutionary theory" hype.

I'm responsible for models that go past and cover way more than that.
...

No.
You are not.

You fail to cover any of the territory that the Theory of Evolution covers.
Your effluent has no predictive power.
Your swill has no explanatory power.
Your feculent mass of steaming verbiage is an assault on language and good taste, but never even approaches science.
Your software breaks no new grounds in either programming or results.  Honestly, in programming terms, you don't even have a model.

Same as it ever was.  Epic fail.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2015,08:37   

Quote
I'm responsible for models that go past and cover way more than that.


No, it doesn't, Gaulin.

Your chemistry is wrong, your physics is wrong, your palaeontology is wrong and your whole concept is wrong. I would go so far as to say it isn't even wrong. The whole of your output would be better off used as fertiliser.

Your model, whilst based on the biblical four legs, represents nothing within a biological context. It does not reproduce with variation, it is not part of a population, it is under no selection pressures and it does not react to the environment other than what you code it to do. It has no more relevance to a biological life form than a Space Invader module.

Your "theory" is not testable, falsifiable or able to be experimentally shown to be accurate. It is a mish-mash of conflicting assertions with no foundation in any known scientific method.

You have at best a pseudoscience where you are trying to force your religion into genuine science. You are a religious zealot whose understanding of the natural world is limited to your reading of the Bible.

ID/creationism is a dead end. You have wasted years of your life. Get a decent job and provide for your family instead of wasting time on your obsession.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2015,09:57   

Wasting time on his obsessions is his life.
The ultimate tragedy in this circus of error and confusion.

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2015,10:27   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 25 2015,09:57)
Wasting time on his obsessions is his life.
The ultimate tragedy in this circus of error and confusion.

Now now be nice, you assume here he can put it to greater use which is a huge assumption

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2015,10:52   

Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 25 2015,11:27)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 25 2015,09:57)
Wasting time on his obsessions is his life.
The ultimate tragedy in this circus of error and confusion.

Now now be nice, you assume here he can put it to greater use which is a huge assumption

As has been noted before, the best that can be said about Gary is 'he emits carbon dioxide so he must be good for the trees'.
Sure wouldn't want to contaminate a compost heap with him!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2015,20:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2015,05:02)
N.Wells I'm really not interested in your natural selection didit "evolutionary theory" hype.

I'm responsible for models that go past and cover way more than that.

What you and others with vested interest in farting around with your EA'a and GA's think is irrelevant.

More later.

You are not only clearly uninterested in natural selection, but you are also profoundly ignorant of it, because so far you have been unable to raise any valid objections to it.

Your model is not responsible for anything.  You refuse to do any ground-truthing, so you have yet to demonstrate that it is in any way connected to reality, or that it has any relevance to anything.

You are making horrendous mistakes in basic biology, chemistry, paleontology, mathematics, and logic, and your English veers into incomprehensibility, so all this does not create confidence in your model.

What Chemicat said bears repeating:
Quote
Your model, whilst based on the biblical four legs, represents nothing within a biological context. It does not reproduce with variation, it is not part of a population, it is under no selection pressures and it does not react to the environment other than what you code it to do. It has no more relevance to a biological life form than a Space Invader module.

Your "theory" is not testable, falsifiable or able to be experimentally shown to be accurate. It is a mish-mash of conflicting assertions with no foundation in any known scientific method.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2015,10:29   

More:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/intelligence-design-lab-5-now-on-planet-source-code
 
Quote
Over the weekend I was able to finish my latest creation. It is now published online at Planet Source Code:

www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=74628&lngWId=1

I also have a backup copy with compiled VB6 code to run on Windows. It does not install files that you later have to uninstall. Visual Basic is no longer as popular as it once was but it's an easy way to avoid the programming languages and environments that take over your computer with there being no knowing what's getting installed and compiled. I use simple math & graphics and all files stay in the IDLab5 folder. The code does not open an internet connection or calls any outside functions. Not all is within my control but I use a reasonably safe Google https (the "s" is for secure instead of older http that is now a problem) connection and all else I can to keep things problem free and simple as possible:

sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/IDLab5.zip

With that long project behind me I can now plan an Intelligence Design Lab #6. But I'm not yet sure what to model this time. Your ideas are welcomed.

At the moment I would most like to develop a cell model for what we have been discussing the past week. With so much still unknown it would require a number of best guesses to fill in the knowledge gaps, but then again so do all models and those that now exist normally leave cell migration and differentiation out completely.

Turning the insect looking critter to virtual stem-cells only requires changing settings in the Design form to flatten its eyes to become eye-spots (or other sensory spots aiding migration), make locomotion circles less like wings or wheels so that it rounds out to resemble a cell, and make the sensory antennae (which stem cells do have and must be there or is missing something important) more stalk-like.

The rest would be a matter of sprouting connections that come and go (or live in the gut and signal "hungry" or "full" by signaling through contents) as described in the information in this thread:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/neurons/page/2#post-731473

Going from the cellular to molecular level makes the critters complex molecules with scissors and other things flailing around for awhile then are dismantled then recycled by others, as described in this thread:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/discovery-biological-molecules-unexpectedly-evolve-fractally-over-time#post-731504

With so much new information to work with for brain (and other) cell behavior it seems best to not attempt a molecules on up model. It is though easily enough possible to begin to by using virtual actin filament elongation for spine formation. The first goal would be to develop a very simple zoo plankton with a couple of cells connected to a couple of others that grow propulsion and/or feeding spines. The next goal would be to develop a useful brain. Taking it one step at a time keeps the biology from becoming overwhelming by starting off trying to model all in a human brain on a PC.

Demonstrating an intelligent causation event only requires the virtual cells to on their own figure out how to develop into the even most rudimentary (as operationally defined by theory) intelligence. That's when it unavoidably gets way into "intelligent design" controversy but with almost all of the old ID theorists having given up and left the movement it's kinda been abandoned by its primary leadership. Those who wanted to see it at least go somewhere now have only this working for them. Better that than nothing at all. I gather information needed to go past current biological models from this (and occasionally other) forums but what happens is more controlled by what others find and where a topic goes from there. Assimilating "Intelligent Design" is something that happens from it, where it's best to not care what the few who remain in the movement are finding against Darwinian theory, to make an issue out of. For us that is a waste of time to bother with so don't let that distract you.

With that all said: you now have my thoughts for novel code that does not need a billion dollars in research money to develop. It just needs the right ideas from a lively forum like this one, I need to thank for helping put together over the years. All of the ID Labs were a result of what I learned online, so please teach on! We are all gaining an understanding of how living things work that few have, just by being here. Without that I would not have much for a model, on Planet Source Code right now.


--------------
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: Nov. 26 2015,10:39   

No one cares.

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2015,11:28   

has he submitted anything for peer review or is he just another conspiratard that knows he is full of shit?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2015,11:53   

Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 26 2015,12:28)
has he submitted anything for peer review or is he just another conspiratard that knows he is full of shit?

Despite nearly 9 years of being told he has nothing and is full of shit, everywhere on the web he's been, he still  seems not to know.

Repetitive Impenetrable Ignorance Disorder.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2015,12:27   

Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 26 2015,17:28)
has he submitted anything for peer review or is he just another conspiratard that knows he is full of shit?

In Gary's mind having his program published at PSC is sufficient evidence that his 'theory' is a) peer reviewed b) correct (apart from a few spelling mistakes) and c) going to make the slightest difference to anything, anywhere.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2015,02:28   

Where the model and theory came from and how it fits into what is now known about how intelligence works is mostly at the link below showing how over the years my ID related work became a non-issue. The models that came later did well enough in a forum with cognitive scientists of all kinds who like to point out problems with new ideas they find. In my case the #5 works great at an otherwise very difficult navigation problem, even hidden moving shock zones by a simple trick that makes it aware of future events, which is useful to AI regardless of how biologically accurate it is in neuroscience standards.

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin

Regardless of where published the #5 is still a vital step towards multiple level cognitive model of intelligence that became more like a group effort that started with a topic on how to model neocortex leading to Edvard Moser videos being recommended for me to study. As it turned out a few years later he emailed saying that the navigation planning network (now in the ID Lab #5) is fine for the AI audience at Kurzweil AI and Planet Source Code. It's hard for a person like me to do better than that. You should not need more peer review than that and all else that shows that my ideas are well enough accepted to be science changing, just from where they are right now.

I still think about having a bigger impact factor by publishing something in a major science journal, but I am still not sure where to begin in that environment. I have thought about combining the Theory of Operation with the introduction to the ID theory. I already found good words to make the transition to the first sentence ("The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features..") justifiable even though it might send chills down the spine of those who were tormented with the sentence by the Discovery Institute. To all others who too young or uninterested in the controversy it's nothing out of the ordinary, just the name I had to give it because of such a thing once having been controversial. I do not know what a science journal would think of that, but it's the closest yet that I have come to something I would be confident in submitting.

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2015,08:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2015,03:28)
Where the model and theory came from and how it fits into what is now known about how intelligence works is mostly at the link below showing how over the years my ID related work became a non-issue. ...

Your nonsense fits into what is currently known about how 'intelligence' works is roughly the same way 'yellow' fits into geometry.
Your work is, and always has been, a non-issue because there is no there there.
You've yet to find anyone who accepts your effluent as a valuable contribution to science.
There are good reasons for that.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2015,09:43   

Quote
It's hard for a person like me to do better than that.
Not true.
Quote
You should not need more peer review than that
Not true.  Planet Source Code folk demonstrably do not know enough about biology to say anything relevant about your ideas.

Quote
and all else that shows that my ideas are well enough accepted to be science changing, just from where they are right now.
 They are not "accepted by science".

Quote
I already found good words to make the transition to the first sentence ("The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features..") justifiable
No, your text remains extremely poorly written.

Quote
even though it might send chills down the spine of those who were tormented with the sentence by the Discovery Institute.
It doesn't send chills down anyone's spine.  The sentence is too vague to be meaningful.  Everyone agrees that the universe contains some designed features (the Mona Lisa is in the universe, for example).  It won't get controversial, or even interesting, until you start specifying which features you are talking about.

Quote
To all others who too young or uninterested in the controversy it's nothing out of the ordinary, just the name I had to give it because of such a thing once having been controversial.
You did not have to give your ideas that name.  In particular, it is a really bad name, because you argue that intelligence is both emergent and self-similar (which is impossible), but if either one of those were right, it would NOT be an instance of intelligent design.  By and large, designers do not design emergent systems, except in the more metaphorical sense of a viewer gradually becoming aware of a deeper structure, such as the theme of a novel gradually emerging, or melodies in a musical composition, or the resolution of a conflict in a novel or the solution to a crime in a mystery novel.  Self-similarity all the way down prohibits design by definition.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2015,09:59   

Quote
...showing how over the years my ID related work became a non-issue.


This is exactly what you have been told repeatedly. Your "work" is a non-issue to everybody with an interest or profession in science related fields.

A better phrase would be " ...my ID related work became a pile of bullshit."

There is nothing in your "work" that is relevant to any theory of intelligence in cognitive science.

Some vague statements by code kids at PSC does not qualify as peer revue. You have nothing in either your "theory" or "model" that could be even considered for a peer reviewed science journal. Your swill wouldn't even be accepted by the DI or AiG for their in-house "peer-reviewed" journals.  

You are still wasting the time you have left to look after your family by pursuing this obsession.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2015,10:32   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 27 2015,09:59)
A better phrase would be " ...my ID related work became a pile of bullshit."

Now there's a question:  Is Gary's bullshit emergent, or is it composed of self-similar bullshit all the way down?

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

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2015,11:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2015,01:28)
The models that came later did well enough in a forum with cognitive scientists of all kinds who like to point out problems with new ideas they find.


This again?

Several times in this very thread, it has been shown that Gary's concept of "doing well" fails to match up with reality:

         
Quote (N.Wells @ July 05 2013,06:12)
         
Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2013,04:16)
             
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 04 2013,05:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.

Let's see what Gary describes as 'doing very well'

         
Quote
I am looking for honest unbiased opinon (informal peer-review) of the following theory......blah....blah...


         
Quote
You gotta be fucking kidding me. We all see through your bullshit, Gary. Get your creationist ass off this forum.


         
Quote
Just perusing through the paper so far, I might read the entire thing at some point, I find that there are at least a few unprovable assumptions which could greatly influence the interpretation of whatever data you have collected:


         
Quote
Your paper is flawed in it's fundamental premise of non-randomness. I'd not spend any more time trying to 'prove' it, and go enjoy a nice round of golf or something.


         
Quote
Two words: Bull shit.


         
Quote
It's a hypothesis at best. A theory requires evidence, experiments to support your hypothesis.


         
Quote
So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that.


         
Quote
I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!


         
Quote
I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.


....and that's all within two pages.

Gary, if that's an example of your theory doing 'very well' I'd hate to see it take a beating.

             
Quote
[From Gary] Woodbine, thanks for the nice list of useless insults that around here passes as a critique.

I especially like the "Get your creationist ass off this forum."

After seeing something like that a reasonable person is able to understand what's going on, in this forum.


Gary, all of those comments except the one about getting off the forum are accurate criticisms that identify valid concerns about your speculations, and all of those except the "BS" one are substantive enough that they would improve your results if you corrected the errors that they identify. They are not polite or detailed about it, but that's irrelevant.



****************************


   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2015,01:28)
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin




Ah yes, then we have the "cognitive scientists" at kurzweilai.net as identified by Gary himself assessing his "real-science" and pointing out problems just as Gary indicates they do:




 
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 15 2015,20:46)
According to Gary,      
Quote
That is from an overall constructive discussion (which over three years ago ended) from the first topic I ever posted in that forum!  

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....t-31405

It's an example of what happens when my IDeas are not battled using "wretched arguments in enormous, repetitive, voluminosity, as seen in this thread..."

At the Kurzweil AI forum the theory issue is now ancient history. The regular members understand what I was saying as it pertains to cognitive science and biology. Forum staff do not mind the computer models and other things that came out of discussion. I help show how valuable of a service they are to someone like me.
 

Well, that certainly seems to put us in our place.  Guaranteed experts generally understood his points and did not object, and a good and productive conversation was had by all.  But wait, this is Gary talking!  Have we learned that Gary is always careful and never makes false assertions, or is there just occasionally, just once in a while, a little tiny gap, barely noticeable really, between Gary and reality as everyone else knows it?  Aw heck, I'm almost starting to feel guilty about checking up on whatever he says.........

So, following Tony's fine example, let's distill that Kurzweil thread for the essence of various people's opinions about Gary's ideas:

Provoketur:          
Quote

lie more and continue to ignore anyone that makes concrete observations.

Its like having a discussion with redq. hardly worth the effort.




Quotheraving:          
Quote
There's so many flaws with this that it's hard to know where to begin so I'll pick each apart in the order they appear. .... This displays either a complete misunderstanding of what intelligence implies or worse an attempt at redefinition of terms. In my experience such redefinitions are signs of sophism and semantic gymnastics similar to redefining black as 'dark grey' in order to have a basis to argue incrementally towards the statement that black is white.

This not only fails to "operationally define intelligence" but also manages to be a tautology and so vague as to be essentially meaningless.  All you do is state the obvious (intelligence producing algorithms allow electronic intelligence) and offer this up as though it were proof that a constituents behaviour explains the behaviour of the whole which is not only no kind of support for your later argument but is patently false. There are numerous examples of systems where their behaviour arises as an emergent property at a certain scale rather than as an inherent property at all scales.

You are mixing things up.  Traditional 'religious' Intelligent design only requires that complex organisms be the result of an intelligent creator. Your 'theory' which you term intelligent design however argues that intelligence is an innate property existing at all scales and that each higher strata is produced as a result of intelligent behaviour of the strata below.  For this to be called intelligent design you must first show that the behaviour of lower scales is actually intelligent (capable of choosing a better course of action from a range of less favorable responses) and that the higher levels are designed (made intentionally) you manage neither.
........................

Non random implies order which implies rules, it does not imply intelligence.  Stating that ordered behaviour at the atomic behaviour allows for further complexity of behaviour at the molecular layer is nothing more than stating the obvious, calling this intelligence rather than simply complex behaviour however is a mistake.

............................

Again you ascribe purpose to selection displaying a poor understanding of Darwinism.
Yes the genome is the end result of previous iterations of mutation which were each a succesful adaptation, but it does not therefore constitute true memory, the ability to consciously choose between options, let alone the ability to model the environment

...........................


You claim much but deliver less than nothing. Essentially this whole stinky and shaky edifice is based on nothing more than unsupported claims and a casual redefinition and/or misapplication of basic terms such as intelligence, memory and choice.  To my eyes this is an object lesson on the need for clear definitions of important terms.



................................

My point is that each scale is different and that this difference renders the term intelligence inapplicable and the entire basis for his argument moot  Not to mention it completely fails at it's claim to show an alternative to natural selection.   So less troll food and more wild unsupported claims and a poor choice of name.


....................

I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!
Though first you should clearly define your terms and provide a strong and logically sound argument with pertinent evidence as support.  However you haven't provided any real evidence, and certainly nothing that would convince anyone with a passing familiarity in highschool level science.
You do however build an argument resting on unsupported claims, misapplied terms and stating the obvious as though it supported your argument when it doesn't. Ultimately producing what amounts to little more than an exercise in sophistry.



           
Quote
Gary:  Or in other words you demand a unscientific explanation that does not follow any known scientific laws/theories, so that you continue to believe that a scientific explanation is unscientific.


No, quite the opposite really.  I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.

Handwaving away fundamental problems does not make your essential premise any more sound, nor any less an exercise in semantics rather than science.


..........................

However this goes far beyond poor use of language.  It begins with messy semantics, generating confusion by shifting between levels that should be considered on their own virtues and described by reference to their own particular behaviours, then uses the resultant confusions to support conclusions that are laughably and patently false. Which is why I consider this argument specious... it's nearly a textbook example of sophistry.


............................

Your language here is mangled, but even when corrected (ironically by a "best guess") your idea has obviously confused levels of abstraction. ...........You have erected a straw man, namely that some "atheistic contamination of science" relies on a false idea (that being the randomness of chemical reactions) to support their anti-ID anti-Creationist worldview, but nothing could be further from the truth.
With all due respect, and apologies if I have gotten something basically wrong, but If even a crackpot like me can come along and without much trouble DESTROY your silly thinking (or knowing propaganda, if you are that cynical), what chance do you think you stand against real scientists? The thought that you want to contaminate science with this crap, and that you think science is currently contaminated by opposite notions, is troubling to me.




EyeOrderChaos:            
Quote
 Deepak Chopra has been churning out this kind of stuff too  ...........
I think it's obvious that they are thoughts about human bias, motivations, comfort levels; I think it's obvious how it pertains to the subject; I think it's obvious that you want to appear to be trying, begging, pleading to keep the debate here in the realm of science but sir we are not even close to science yet, starting with your submission.



................................

The consensus so far is that you are not being logically coherent in your use, your intended application, of the word "intelligence", and in your assertions of what the scientific consensus is regarding random versus nonrandom behaviors of various configurations of matter. I would agree with these criticicms. However, don't let any of that discourage you, how to arrive at an operational definition of intelligence is not without controversy, I think, and if you think you are really on to something why not keep pluggin away at it? Also, why not learn from the criticisms while youre at it?. To be honest though, I don't think you have the makings of a good theory, because your definition of intelligence involves a tautology, an ontological indeterminism: "It's intelligent because it's purposeful because it's optimized for the environment because it's designed because it's purposeful because it's intelligent". Plus, I don't think your understanding of what randomness is and isn't and what it does and does not import to the "design" arguments is very good.



Field Man:          
Quote
So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that.



{i}Pan:          
Quote
 The VERY FACT that you are doing your utmost to evade and dodge these questions makes EVERYTHING you do from this point SUSPICIOUS.  The FACT that you are doing everything you can to slide past these direct and simple questions shows that you are not being honest.


Yessiree Bob, ringing endorsements, every last one of them.


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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2015,12:13   

Excellent new thread with a paper on "Single cell eyeball creature startles scientists" and new study material needed for giving the ID Lab critter a biologically accurate enough lower digestive system and a bung-hole that thankfully only it can smell.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums....lls-see

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2015,12:39   

Again, Gary, no one cares.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2015,12:30   

Start studying:

jonlieffmd.com/cellular-intelligence-blog

--------------
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: Nov. 28 2015,13:27   

You first.
You've shown zero sign of understanding any of the genuine science material you've linked to.
Misappropriation is not comprehension and all you ever do is misappropriate.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2015,14:21   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 27 2015,10:32)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 27 2015,09:59)
A better phrase would be " ...my ID related work became a pile of bullshit."

Now there's a question:  Is Gary's bullshit emergent, or is it composed of self-similar bullshit all the way down?

A better question would be what actions should taxpayers and scientists take to eliminate swell-headed crap like yours from the public schools.

It's no secret that a decade ago "cellular intelligence" was supposed to be ID flak, not science. Even though studying that level of intelligence is now "routine science" the defamatory charade still goes on.

--------------
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) < ... 517 518 519 520 521 [522] 523 524 525 526 527 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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