RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 546 547 548 549 550 [551] 552 553 554 555 556 ... >   
  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: May 01 2016,19:15   

Quote (NoName @ May 01 2016,15:11)
If you're going to re-write your absurd little piece of software, for god's sake don't do it in assembler.

Consider using Python -- you could distribute an actual fully-compiled executable and be reasonably cross-platform if you used the TKinter package that's included with the standard distribution.  Plus you'll have a host of math and science libraries available so you can use standard functionality without having to reinvent the wheel.
But that would bring your work far far too close to real-world development, wouldn't it?

I appreciate the advice but from what I have been reading and seeing for stats the R language is rapidly swallowing Python. Both are primarily for "big data" type applications, which I do not program. I sense that Python and R will be short lived. Neither of them are supported by Planet Source Code, which at least supports C++ although not Assembly. And I am now having fun experimenting with the sample programs that came with the newly installed Windows 10 compatible MASM32 editor, which is supported by a helpful forum that I was just welcomed to after having a question about installing it.

With all having gone so well it was a pleasure to let them know that all went well on my end while installing their special build for an operating system that for some reason causes problems galore for software like this. Installing Python did not go well at all, which is one reason I never really used it.

--------------
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 01 2016,20:26   

And in regards to Python (Anaconda) I should say that it installed, but getting started with it did not go well at all. It also just uninstalled properly and is now gone. That saves me a whole lot of time learning how to speak using Monty Python lingo that honestly made no sense to me at all.
 
Quote (NoName @ May 01 2016,15:08)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,15:59)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ May 01 2016,13:13)
No-one is out to get you, Gary. You're just not important enough to have enemies.

From the number of hits on my intelligence related websites I at least have plenty of friends in Russia, Ukraine and other places that are now kicking your asses in military innovation that even makes the US missile defense systems a useless deterrent. So I guess you're right, I'm not important enough to have enemies that would just as well nuke your ass real good.

Now should I feel good about that? Or do I have a good excuse for my nightmares?

Do you have the faintest clue how many troll-bots and fishing-expedition-bots are hosted in those countries?
The tiny little strictly local startup I was involved with got many hits an hour from Russia, Ukraine, various states in Africa, etc.  They're not 'real' hits.

There are not enough hits from Africa to even show up on the map. But regardless of who or what is reading it in countries that are still considered by some to be a Cold War enemy: I looked forward to using what I have for cultural exchange peacemaking type uses that adapt small dancing stunt vehicles that do not need to be coded with dance moves for them to on their own want to dance to music. Unfortunately the whole project only led to forum conflict that helps make this an even more dangerous world. It's one more thing on my mind that makes me resent the big-science crap that endlessly makes pompous demands. If my worse nightmare comes true then I can at least honestly say that those left alive who found it convenient to constantly trash my work only have themselves to blame.

--------------
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.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,20:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 02 2016,02:26)
If my worse nightmare comes true then I can at least honestly say that those left alive who found it convenient to constantly trash my work only have themselves to blame.

Gary, on behalf of everyone at AtBC I'd like to thank you for your tireless effort in maintaining world peace.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,20:54   

If dancing robots aren't the answer then I don't know what is.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,21:33   

Quote (Woodbine @ May 01 2016,20:54)
If dancing robots aren't the answer then I don't know what is.

Nina's 99 Red Balloons.
Sweet dreams...

--------------
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.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,21:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,21:33)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 01 2016,20:54)
If dancing robots aren't the answer then I don't know what is.

Nina's 99 Red Balloons.
Sweet dreams...

Of course Gary chooses the English version.  Because whenever Gary has a choice, he always chooses the path of greatest suck.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2016,21:53   

www.youtube.com/watch?v=La4Dcd1aUcE

--------------
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 01 2016,23:28   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 01 2016,21:50)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,21:33)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ May 01 2016,20:54)
If dancing robots aren't the answer then I don't know what is.

Nina's 99 Red Balloons.
Sweet dreams...

Of course Gary chooses the English version.  Because whenever Gary has a choice, he always chooses the path of greatest suck.

Seconded.  As usual, the original was much better.


 
Quote
But regardless of who or what is reading it in countries that are still considered by some to be a Cold War enemy: I looked forward to using what I have for cultural exchange peacemaking type uses that adapt small dancing stunt vehicles that do not need to be coded with dance moves for them to on their own want to dance to music. Unfortunately the whole project only led to forum conflict that helps make this an even more dangerous world. It's one more thing on my mind that makes me resent the big-science crap that endlessly makes pompous demands. If my worse nightmare comes true then I can at least honestly say that those left alive who found it convenient to constantly trash my work only have themselves to blame.
 Complete lunacy, Gary.  Do you ever think through what you write?  

I guess I made a correct prediction there about the music, so that must mean that you haven't a clue about how to defend your claims or how to define and measure intelligence.

Besides being free, r is probably too powerful in its mathematics capabilities to be going anywhere anytime soon, but I don't think you'll like its graphics.  I don't think the people who like r care two hoots about Planet Source Code's opinion.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,06:01   

Quote
There are not enough hits from Africa to even show up on the map. But regardless of who or what is reading it in countries that are still considered by some to be a Cold War enemy: I looked forward to using what I have for cultural exchange peacemaking type uses that adapt small dancing stunt vehicles that do not need to be coded with dance moves for them to on their own want to dance to music. Unfortunately the whole project only led to forum conflict that helps make this an even more dangerous world. It's one more thing on my mind that makes me resent the big-science crap that endlessly makes pompous demands. If my worse nightmare comes true then I can at least honestly say that those left alive who found it convenient to constantly trash my work only have themselves to blame.


This makes sense where in the world?

Dancing stunt cars that don't need programming to do what they do? They are programmed to do more than your "bug"!

Paranoia is a terrible condition, Gaulin, for the sake of your family seek help.

I can't "trash your work" because I haven't seen the print shop where you do work. I can trash your excrement you call a theory and what you call a model because there doesn't appear to be any work involved in them.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,06:18   

A more direct route is to survey the popularity of programming languages. Somebody does that. This at least is a quantitative approach.

 
Quote

TIOBE Index for April 2016
April Headline: Visual Basic on its way out

A very long time ago there were only a couple of dominant languages: COBOL, BASIC and FORTRAN. Many software systems have been written in these languages and there are surprisingly many of them still alive. Through the years COBOL and FORTRAN lost their popularity and are now between position 20 and 30 in the TIOBE index. BASIC survived thanks to Microsoft. First Microsoft created Visual Basic 6, now known as classic Visual Basic. That was a big success. After that, VB.NET emerged more than 10 years ago to make sure Visual Basic was compatible with Microsoft's .NET framework. This last move wasn't really successful, but at least it guaranteed that there was no free fall for Visual Basic. Since VB.NET and classic Visual Basic were actually two completely different languages, the community didn't know what to do and that wasn't good for its popularity. Classic Visual Basic is going down, but also VB.NET is about to lose its top 10 position, which means that we are on the brink of no BASIC language in the top 10 since we started tracking the TIOBE index. There are alternatives available such as PureBasic (position #43), thinBasic (#77) and BBC Basic (#79), but their communities are still too small yet to compensate the declining popularity of Visual Basic.


Java leads that by a wide margin, followed by the Cs (C, C++, C#), and then Python. VB6 places at #14. Things change over time. I've found it best to have multiple skills in hand. Of the top eleven languages in the TIOBE survey, I've been paid to do work in seven of them. I'm reasonably skilled in another two in that list. I've been paid for work in another two languages listed in the top twenty, and have reasonable skill in another. So I'm pretty much ready to go for twelve out of the top twenty languages in that survey. One of the languages I've been paid for programming in is JOVIAL, which appears nowhere in the survey, which probably means the survey doesn't include military programmers, or it has (finally) been replaced by Ada.

The Emscripten compiler technology, which converts LLVM-compatible code to Javascript's ASM.js dialect, has the potential to boost the C++ share. C++ things running in browsers is a pretty compelling technology. Performance-wise, the Javascript versions of code typically benchmark at about 2 to 3 times slower than the native C++ executables, which is in the ballpark of what you get with choosing Julia as a scripting language. There is a list of codebases ported to Javascript in this manner. Whatever else you might say about Javascript (and lots has been), it is something available to anyone running a modern browser on any OS.

Another quantitative comparison would be in salaries.

Python

GNU R

Visual Basic

Personally, I don't *like* GNU R much. However, I've forced myself to learn enough of it to make use of the advanced statistical libraries that are only available in R. It is used for small but critical parts of a pipeline in data flow in a major commecial application I coded in 2013. I could only hope that everything now done by R is done by some other language in the future. It would be nice if that were Python, but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure I'm in a good position to make use of it when it appears. The primary thing a programming language is to me is a tool, something to help me get done what I want or need to get done. I am not looking to be a fan of a programming language any more than I would be a fan of an adze or a dike. Sure, I get a bit invested in anything I've developed skill in, but I have transitioned between languages often enough that I am not stymied if the need for working in a new-to-me language comes up.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,06:21   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2016,20:15)
Quote (NoName @ May 01 2016,15:11)
If you're going to re-write your absurd little piece of software, for god's sake don't do it in assembler.

Consider using Python -- you could distribute an actual fully-compiled executable and be reasonably cross-platform if you used the TKinter package that's included with the standard distribution.  Plus you'll have a host of math and science libraries available so you can use standard functionality without having to reinvent the wheel.
But that would bring your work far far too close to real-world development, wouldn't it?

I appreciate the advice but from what I have been reading and seeing for stats the R language is rapidly swallowing Python. Both are primarily for "big data" type applications, which I do not program. I sense that Python and R will be short lived. Neither of them are supported by Planet Source Code, which at least supports C++ although not Assembly. And I am now having fun experimenting with the sample programs that came with the newly installed Windows 10 compatible MASM32 editor, which is supported by a helpful forum that I was just welcomed to after having a question about installing it.

With all having gone so well it was a pleasure to let them know that all went well on my end while installing their special build for an operating system that for some reason causes problems galore for software like this. Installing Python did not go well at all, which is one reason I never really used it.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised -- we know your research skills are notable only by their absence -- but still.
This ranks up there with any of the stupid remarks you've made outside the general area of your "theory".
R and Python can live quite happily together.
Python is used in a host of areas where R would not be appropriate.  DevOps for one example.  AWS Lambda for another.
Not to bash R, it's very very good at what it does.  Which is why there are libraries connecting R to Python.
Python is used for 'big data', but it is simply false to claim that is what it is 'for'.
Lack of support by Planet Source Code is rather a mark in its favor out here in the real world.

Installing Anaconda is not the best way to get a solid general purpose Python.  They're trying, but they're not there.  Yes, Python, along with pretty much every other general purpose language other than C#, F#, etc., can be a pain  to install on Windows.  But it's not *that* hard.  If you can't manage it, you sure as heck can't program anything useful, let alone cross-platform.

But then if you can't handle Monty Python, you're hopeless.  Not that we didn't know that already -- but in a general way, now you know how the reality-based community feels when dealing with your tortured prose.
Not that the Monty Python-ese of the Python community is particularly notable these days.  

But really, let's skip past all the programming language posturing and get back to the fundamentals.

Defend your "theory" against the well-founded charges that it is viciously circular and on two fronts.  This renders the "theory" vacuous at best and useless on any account.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,06:34   

As for the "R swallowing Python" claim, the TIOBE survey can be used to assess it. Year-over-year from April 2015 to April 2016, R went from #19 to #18, advancing 0.24% in popularity. Over the same period, Python advanced from #8 to #5, a 0.64% advance in popularity. So for the only numbers in the discussion, that claim appears to be in the "not so much" category.

I'd be surprised if R did swallow Python. For a scripting language, it is orders of magnitude slower and provides much less capability for systems programming, and still (AFAIK) has major issues in dealing with large data sets in the un-supplemented standard distribution. (Some vendors claim to have extended R to handle higher N; I don't know how well those work.) R still is the right tool to get the bleeding-edge statistical capabilities straight out of academia and has some great visualization capabilities. But to "swallow" Python it would need to handle much, if not all, of what Python does as well or better than Python does it, and I don't see any indication that is on the horizon. R really is a niche tool compared to Python. And in that niche, it rules. But it isn't a general-use language any more than SNOBOL was.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,06:40   

NoName, that's an interesting comment about the Anaconda distribution of Python. I consider my life to have been made better by using Anaconda. What route is giving you a better, solid Python programming basis? I'd like to give it a try if it is FOSS.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,06:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2016,07:40)
NoName, that's an interesting comment about the Anaconda distribution of Python. I consider my life to have been made better by using Anaconda. What route is giving you a better, solid Python programming basis? I'd like to give it a try if it is FOSS.

It was test install for a project that never came to be -- the Mac OS X Anaconda install completely screwed up my dev environment (largely Ruby and RubyMotion but with a variety of other tools and languages).  It was a bugger to uninstall (although that's true for OS X regardless), and never worked 'as described'.  I still have artifacts lingering scattered across my system; I'll put some time and effort into clearing them on 'real soon now'.
If the project had materialized, I'd have looked at building a Docker container to run it in.  I've got Parallels, but it so badly bogs down the performance of my machine that I hate using it.  It's been at least a year since I've launched my Windows install.  I don't miss it ;-)
On the other hand, plain old ordinary Python from the standard distribution has been trouble-free from 2.3 on.  I don't use it often, having developed a strong preference for Ruby, but I try to stay within a rev or two of 'latest release'.
Your mileage will likely vary, especially if you're not running on OS X.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,07:44   

Quote (NoName @ May 02 2016,06:50)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2016,07:40)
NoName, that's an interesting comment about the Anaconda distribution of Python. I consider my life to have been made better by using Anaconda. What route is giving you a better, solid Python programming basis? I'd like to give it a try if it is FOSS.

It was test install for a project that never came to be -- the Mac OS X Anaconda install completely screwed up my dev environment (largely Ruby and RubyMotion but with a variety of other tools and languages).  It was a bugger to uninstall (although that's true for OS X regardless), and never worked 'as described'.  I still have artifacts lingering scattered across my system; I'll put some time and effort into clearing them on 'real soon now'.
If the project had materialized, I'd have looked at building a Docker container to run it in.  I've got Parallels, but it so badly bogs down the performance of my machine that I hate using it.  It's been at least a year since I've launched my Windows install.  I don't miss it ;-)
On the other hand, plain old ordinary Python from the standard distribution has been trouble-free from 2.3 on.  I don't use it often, having developed a strong preference for Ruby, but I try to stay within a rev or two of 'latest release'.
Your mileage will likely vary, especially if you're not running on OS X.

I recently got a SkyTree ML Express download. It comes as a Virtual Box box. This may be the future of development environments: containerized deployments that avoid unpleasant interactions.

I did install Anaconda on my Macbook Pro, but since that was about the first thing I did after getting it upgraded to Yosemite, I didn't run into the sort of bad behavior that you did. My work machine runs Windows 7 and most of my deployments are to Linux, and Anaconda just works on those two platforms so far as I can tell. I can develop on Windows and move to Linux without a hitch, usually. I'm using Python 2.7 to have the most package compatibility. That's in contrast to building up an environment from base Python, which on Windows typically had me scrounging Gohlke's site for packages that worked there, and having to harmonize everything with what was available for Linux. Anaconda's packages work directly and ease the cross-platform dev cycle for me.

It sounds like you have moved on from Python, but you probably could set up another user account and install Anaconda in user space with the new account without endangering your build environment again, though I admit I'd be very leery of anything that actually messed up stuff as it installed. That is pretty egregious.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,07:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2016,08:44)
Quote (NoName @ May 02 2016,06:50)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2016,07:40)
NoName, that's an interesting comment about the Anaconda distribution of Python. I consider my life to have been made better by using Anaconda. What route is giving you a better, solid Python programming basis? I'd like to give it a try if it is FOSS.

It was test install for a project that never came to be -- the Mac OS X Anaconda install completely screwed up my dev environment (largely Ruby and RubyMotion but with a variety of other tools and languages).  It was a bugger to uninstall (although that's true for OS X regardless), and never worked 'as described'.  I still have artifacts lingering scattered across my system; I'll put some time and effort into clearing them on 'real soon now'.
If the project had materialized, I'd have looked at building a Docker container to run it in.  I've got Parallels, but it so badly bogs down the performance of my machine that I hate using it.  It's been at least a year since I've launched my Windows install.  I don't miss it ;-)
On the other hand, plain old ordinary Python from the standard distribution has been trouble-free from 2.3 on.  I don't use it often, having developed a strong preference for Ruby, but I try to stay within a rev or two of 'latest release'.
Your mileage will likely vary, especially if you're not running on OS X.

I recently got a SkyTree ML Express download. It comes as a Virtual Box box. This may be the future of development environments: containerized deployments that avoid unpleasant interactions.

I did install Anaconda on my Macbook Pro, but since that was about the first thing I did after getting it upgraded to Yosemite, I didn't run into the sort of bad behavior that you did. My work machine runs Windows 7 and most of my deployments are to Linux, and Anaconda just works on those two platforms so far as I can tell. I can develop on Windows and move to Linux without a hitch, usually. I'm using Python 2.7 to have the most package compatibility. That's in contrast to building up an environment from base Python, which on Windows typically had me scrounging Gohlke's site for packages that worked there, and having to harmonize everything with what was available for Linux. Anaconda's packages work directly and ease the cross-platform dev cycle for me.

It sounds like you have moved on from Python, but you probably could set up another user account and install Anaconda in user space with the new account without endangering your build environment again, though I admit I'd be very leery of anything that actually messed up stuff as it installed. That is pretty egregious.

If I ever have to get back into Python, I plan on going with a container or installing on Parallels/Bootcamp.  Sooner or later I'm going to be upgrading hardware and that should help performance issues.

I've done a bit of work building Docker containers for clients, and liked the experience.  It seems a very good way to go, standardizing development environments, making DevOps easier on the way to deployment, deployment on AWS or Digital Ocean or inside the corporate firewall, etc.

What little coding I do these days, though, is in Ruby, RubyMotion, Hanami, Sinatra/Padrino (or Rails if I must) and so on.  It's a congenial fit for me.
But if I were doing any kind of significant or meaningful science coding, I'd probably be back on Python in a flash.  C# is about the only alternative I could consider, and that would require a paying client ;-)
But unlike Gary, I have a clear appreciation for when, where, and how modeling fits into the broader arena of science research*. I can keep very busy (and useful and productive) without ever needing to build a software model.

*Of course, to be fair, Gary has to look at the arena(s) of science with a high-power telescope.  It appears to have a number of significant optical defects, mapped isomorphically onto Gary's delusions.  Or, more likely, vice versa.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,17:25   

Quote (NoName @ May 02 2016,07:55)
*Of course, to be fair, Gary has to look at the arena(s) of science with a high-power telescope.  It appears to have a number of significant optical defects, mapped isomorphically onto Gary's delusions.  Or, more likely, vice versa.

Science is still going my way.

You on the other hand have a lot of catching up to do.

--------------
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 02 2016,17:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 02 2016,18:25)
Quote (NoName @ May 02 2016,07:55)
*Of course, to be fair, Gary has to look at the arena(s) of science with a high-power telescope.  It appears to have a number of significant optical defects, mapped isomorphically onto Gary's delusions.  Or, more likely, vice versa.

Science is still going my way.

You on the other hand have a lot of catching up to do.

No it's not.  You don't even have a discernible 'way'.
You've gone so far beyond the "Texas Sharpshooter fallacy" that you are declaring targets yet to be drawn, on buildings get to be designed, let alone built, are what you've hit.  Before firing.

Mrs. Cosmopolite had more of a Way then you.  More followers, too.  [And yes, this is word-play on 'way' in a sense you hadn't intended.  Tough.  You'll understand it no better than you understand science.  It's for the entertainment of the intelligent amongst us.]

You've got nothing but failure.  Same as it ever was.

Still no defense against the well-founded charge that your "theory" contains vicious circularities?  Well, hardly surprising.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,18:06   

Let me know when any of you are able to intelligently discuss how a biological "internal world model" 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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,18:18   







intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/

--------------
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 02 2016,18:21   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 02 2016,19:06)
Let me know when any of you are able to intelligently discuss how a biological "internal world model" works.

You first.

You haven't a clue what such a 'model' would be nor how it would work.
Facts on the ground conclusively demonstrate that the simple-minded correspondence model of representation you seem to vaguely endorse is entirely false.

This is not new news.  Research by Gelb and Goldstein, and hosts of others, have demolished all hope of such a representational correspondence model.  Remember -- just because we can model the process of determining the future position of a baseball in flight using calculus does not mean that this calculation is present in the mind or body of the outfielder who successfully catches the ball.

There are good and sufficient grounds for discarding that antiquated shibboleth of an "internal world model" -- by which we must assume you mean "internal model of the world".  That you are ignorant of the literature and the research is one teeny tiny little part of the problem with your ignorant arrogance.

Now, about those vicious circularities?  About the logical incoherence?
And so forth.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,18:21   

And we should forget that Gary failed to intelligently discuss the relative popularity trends of Python and R? That is how distraction is supposed to work, right?

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,18:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 02 2016,19:18)






intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/

Meaningless noise, no matter how many times you repeat it.

This is not a model of a biological process, nor of any part of the function of a living entity.  Nor does it correspond, by any conceivable transform function, to such a process or function.

Go ahead, map the links.  It's your claim, I've challenged.  Show us where, how, and why I'm wrong.
You won't because you can't.  

Ball.  Path.  Calculus.  Outfielder.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,18:29   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2016,19:21)
And we should forget that Gary failed to intelligently discuss the relative popularity trends of Python and R? That is how distraction is supposed to work, right?

Yup.

How about that, Gary?  You just can't make and support a single positive claim, can you?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,19:49   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2016,18:21)
And we should forget that Gary failed to intelligently discuss the relative popularity trends of Python and R? That is how distraction is supposed to work, right?

What does that have to do with how biological intelligence works?

Today at my day job I thought of writing a long post about all the programming languages I had to learn in order to keep up with technological trends in the graphic arts industry, including for designing and building custom electromechanical machinery. I was ironically today scoring thousands of bright green dental appointment cards on the custom built high speed stream-feed scoring/slitting/folding machine that has a batch counting system I long ago made (and still works great) using a 8085 CPU, which required becoming proficient in one of the first assembly languages. The first commercial computer systems sold at trade shows used Tandy TRS-80 Model 1 computers, which I was also programming too. One of the companies my father and I were collaborating with Printers Software appears to be still around. I personally knew all of the before their time programmers in the industry who worked the booths at the graphic arts trade shows.

In the graphics arts industry the BASIC language has long been a necessity. Whatever you might have been using then or use now is irrelevant to what my work required. The same is true for my biology related models. Expecting me to even really care about trivial details like "popularity trends of Python and R" is like inviting me to a pissing contest where the best you are able to do is get your shoes wet.

It's great that you have your own opinion that differs from what I saw being reported, and you might be right. But that's just a distraction from the real issues pertaining to programming models for demonstrating how intelligent living things work. Instead of wasting time learning every programming language that comes and goes I like to become proficient in what works and is needed. I get more science work accomplished that way. It's one reason for my making excellent progress in fields that require a large amount of time to stay current in.

--------------
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 02 2016,20:55   

Quote
What does that have to do with how biological intelligence works?


Nothing, but then you were the one who brought it up in the first place, in order to avoid talking about your work and its many failings.  

The fact that your opinions and complaints weren't particularly impressive to NoName and Wesley, who actually know this stuff, is once again YOUR fault.  If you want to defend your model properly instead of heading off into irrelevancies at every turn, no one is stopping you.  In fact everyone is asking you to defend your stuff and fix its problems.

I can appreciate your long relationship with computers.  I learned how to program in Fortran using punch cards that had to be walked over to the IBM 360 at the computer center, and I remember the absolutely wonderful frustration-lowering innovation of a card-punching machine that displayed what you were about to punch before punching it, so that you could edit a card with a typo.  I still have a bag of paper tape programs from when we finally got a Burroughs 5000 (?) computer that ran BASIC with punch tape rather than a stack of punch cards.  But guess what, that's all obsolete and meaningless, and has nothing to do with the problem that your ideas are invalid and are not supported by your model, which has all kinds of problems of its own, and that you remain unable and unwilling to defend any of it or correct its many shortcomings.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2016,21:41   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 02 2016,18:55)
Quote
What does that have to do with how biological intelligence works?


Nothing, but then you were the one who brought it up in the first place, in order to avoid talking about your work and its many failings.  

The fact that your opinions and complaints weren't particularly impressive to NoName and Wesley, who actually know this stuff, is once again YOUR fault.  If you want to defend your model properly instead of heading off into irrelevancies at every turn, no one is stopping you.  In fact everyone is asking you to defend your stuff and fix its problems.

I can appreciate your long relationship with computers.  I learned how to program in Fortran using punch cards that had to be walked over to the IBM 360 at the computer center, and I remember the absolutely wonderful frustration-lowering innovation of a card-punching machine that displayed what you were about to punch before punching it, so that you could edit a card with a typo.  I still have a bag of paper tape programs from when we finally got a Burroughs 5000 (?) computer that ran BASIC with punch tape rather than a stack of punch cards.  But guess what, that's all obsolete and meaningless, and has nothing to do with the problem that your ideas are invalid and are not supported by your model, which has all kinds of problems of its own, and that you remain unable and unwilling to defend any of it or correct its many shortcomings.

ya but... he is a genius, tho, rite?

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2016,02:57   

Quote
Science is still going my way.


Science drove past you whilst you were still thumbing a lift.

Quote
That stupid schematic, again


If this models intelligence in a biological entity does this make Gaulin non-biological?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2016,05:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 02 2016,20:49)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 02 2016,18:21)
And we should forget that Gary failed to intelligently discuss the relative popularity trends of Python and R? That is how distraction is supposed to work, right?

What does that have to do with how biological intelligence works?

About as much as your software does.  Nothing at all.

It speaks to your abilities to research, reason, comprehend relevance, stay on topic rather than raise pointless distractions.  In each of those topic spaces, what is displayed is massive incompetence amounting to a virtual absence.
You raised this conversational sub-thread in an attempt to deflect and distract from the most recent challenges to your fantasies.
It failed as the challenges have become more pointed and have multiplied.

Your model has nothing to do with biological processes or functions.  It is not a model of anything.  It is useless as a tool for exploring the operations of 'biological intelligence' for it has nothing to do with whatever you might mean by that phrase.  It fails for the same reason understanding calculus provides us with no insight into how an outfielder catches a ball or an owl catches a mouse.
Less, even.

Now, about those vicious circularities?
About responding to the challenge to counter my argument by showing, precisely and with detail, why and how your silly little software automaton actually models biological processes and/or functions?
<crickets>

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2016,05:27   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 03 2016,03:57)
 
Quote
Science is still going my way.


Science drove past you whilst you were still thumbing a lift.

More like 'flew high above the next continent over while Gary was admiring his new latrine trench.'
 
Quote
   
Quote
That stupid schematic, again


If this models intelligence in a biological entity does this make Gaulin non-biological?

And non-intelligent.

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

Pages: (622) < ... 546 547 548 549 550 [551] 552 553 554 555 556 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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