NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,22:02) | ...
I'm not impressed by your brainless Darwinian toys that I grew bored of right after programming my own. It's unbelievable that career scientists would even bother with EA's and GA's, but I guess that's what happens when all the hype makes them seem like an explain-all. None know any better.
|
Your ignorance is as profound as your unwarranted arrogance.
EAs and GAs have been astounding fruitful in terms of producing things of great value. Antennae as used by cellphones are just one example. GAs are terrific tools for solving certain kinds of problems. Their use has been profitable.
The same cannot be said about your work. What actual economic value has it produced? None. None at all.
In fact, is is of negative economic value -- it is solely a cost, an unrecovered and unrecoverable cost.
I dare say you've received far more in public benefits than the public would care to waste on you. The monies that have been provided by industry to coders of GAs has been repaid many-fold. The public investment in you has been a complete waste. Just for one little example.
| Quote | You are the one who has have yet to demonstrate that yours actually models anything that exists in reality.
|
Now that is dishonest and you know it.
As is your standard, it is also malformed -- "yours" is hanging without antecedent or object. If you mean by it evolution, then you are wildly wrong. It models the actual reality of the change over time in biological individuals, species, genera, etc. It is not complete, nor is it perfect, but nor is physics. Incompleteness is not a flaw. Nullity is a flaw, and a nullity is all you have.
But note well. We are not required to demonstrate even the existence, let alone the accuracy or success, of any model of any aspect of reality.
You are the one making the grandiose claims. You are the one who has conspicuously failed to demonstrate that you have a model that is either based on or reflects reality in any way whatsoever.
We know that creatures do not produce an exhaustive spatial model of their vicinity as a prerequisite to moving within space.
We know that memory is neither written nor read directly from sensory experience.
We know, and have proven, trivially, that at best your "theory" is circular, viciously circular, and thus invalid.
We ask you again -- what decisions do molecules, as such, make? Rocks do not guess. Yet somehow in your effluent you insist that molecules are 'intelligent', which you require must include making guesses. Why do molecules count as 'intelligent' but rocks do not?
You have not even begun to address 'the hard problem of consciousness'. You probably don't even know what it is.
You have not addressed the problem of emergence. You have swept it under the rug, defined it out of the problem space by asserting 'intelligence' at all levels from the "lowest" to the "highest".
Yet emergence is a genuine problem, across a wider scope than just biology. But it is an absolutely critical problem in biology. How does chemistry become biology? You can't solve the problem by asserting pan-vitalism. How does biology become intelligent? You can't solve the problem by asserting 'pan-cognition'. Yet that is all you have done, and you have done so by inserting a vicious circularity in your "theory".
Your "theory" ignores the problem and would be incapable of addressing it were it to try.
| Quote | | And I have to get away from this forum for a while before I go insane. |
As others have already noted, too late.
It wasn't this forum that drove you insane.
You walked there all on your own, along god only knows what route. But it pretty clearly started from a basis of stupidity and arrogance.
You were quite clearly insane the moment you appeared here. You were quite clearly insane when you first appeared on the internet. And you have demonstrated both appalling stupidity and appalling arrogance throughout your time on-line.
Your "theory" today suffers all the same flaws as it did when you began.
N.Wells seems to have perfectly captured your delusion -- your "theory" predicts that it is correct, you consider it to be correct, therefore prediction fulfilled. It is correct, and because it has a correct prediction, it must be a theory. No further explanation or effort required.
That is insane, stupid, arrogant, and deeply contemptible.
|
