Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: May 03 2016,06:38

Quote (NoName @ April 23 2016,16:54)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2016,16:41)

Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2016,15:04)

Quote

You are now saying that the molecular level genetics of living things have no influence at all over their phenotype. Your conclusion is just plain nuts. But that's what you get for embracing Methodological Naturalism, instead of science.

You are once again delusional. Of course genetics have immense (but not quite total) control over phenotypes, and of course genes are molecular. I have not said anything that would lead a sane person to think otherwise. YOU are making ridiculous claims about molecular intelligence that YOU have not supported.

Semantics arguments aside, I have a testable computer model that makes fascinating predictions in regards to the origin of life, species, etc., and writing a theory of operation to explain how it works is a standard practice I am obligated to follow.

This is NOT something for you or others to decide. It is scientifically absurd to argue that the theory of operation for a working model (that even demonstrates multicellular level curiosity) is not a theory. But I can understand why you would need to invent your own rules, in order to make such absurd claims.

The biggest problem is that your model is not a model of anything.
As such, any results it produces are effectively meaningless.
Elements of your model, such as the essentially omniscient spatial model are contradicted by well-known facts.
Your confusion over what does and does not count as 'learning' is yet another fatal flaw.
The circularity embedded within your "theory" renders said "theory" useless. Renders it, in fact, not a theory at all.

This is not a matter of 'semantics' in the derisive sense in which you toss the term around.
Words have meaning(s). Your usage violates the standard meanings of the term. There is no intelligence at the level of atoms and molecules. Their interactions are strictly law-governed, entirely a matter of physics and thermodynamics. Neither atoms nor molecules 'guess' nor have 'confidence factors' or 'confidence evaluations'. Nor do they have any proper analog to those things.
Intelligence is a phenomenon associated with complex assemblages of molecules, organized as systems, generally as systems within systems within systems...within systems.

Another way to look at this is if everything is 'intelligent' then the word becomes meaningless. It becomes unable to distinguish or differentiate entities, processes, or events generally considered to be intelligent or to require intelligence.

It is emphatically not up to you to declare your 'model' nor your 'theory' nor your "results" satisfactory or correct. That's quite literally everyone else's job.
It is telling that after nearly a decade of pushing your swill around, you've managed to convince no one.
That marks a significant failure of your claims.
As in 'total defeat'.

It doesn't matter what you think about it.
It is demonstrably wrong, inadequate, and phantasmagorical.

And we're right back to where we were over a week ago.
You've added nothing to the discussion but pitiful attempts to distract from your utter failure.

Support your claims or stop making them.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: May 03 2016,06:43

Quote (NoName @ April 23 2016,12:03)

Gary, what, specifically, are 'alternatives to methodological naturalism'?

Causation is a fully natural phenomenon and so is not a phenomenon susceptible to, let alone requiring, an alternative explanation. 'Nature' is defined as the scope of the web of cause and effect. Science is concerned with effects and their causes. That pretty much removes any hope for an 'alternative' to methodological naturalism' even getting started. It has no scope, no potential, no utility.

In fact, all phenomena known or available are natural, involving occurrences in nature and, to date, being susceptible to naturalistic explanations.
Explanation itself is methodologically naturalistic, for no other grounds for explanation have ever withstood scrutiny.

Define your terms, present your grounds, and we'll have it out.
Otherwise, well, there really is no controversy.

In its simplest form, methodological naturalism boils down to "we'll assume natural explanations until and unless some other candidate appears and shows itself to be qualified." Somehow that has never happened. Not for lack of trying, but for lack of success.

And just by the way, and for the record, your "theory" as written is entirely based on and driven by methodological naturalism. That the user of methodological naturalism is a borderline insane crank with no grammar, syntax, or semantic skills, no insight, and stunning degrees of irrationality doesn't matter at all. Your notions are reductive materialism at its most extreme.
You base your work on the pre-requisite of a physical body. No body, no intelligence. You extend that to atoms and molecules, your every move is naturalistic. The most you can hope for is to plead some sort of epiphenomenal stature for 'intelligence' but you remain bound by your own 4-part structure. Every aspect of it is not just naturalistic, but materialistic, reductively so.

If you're grasping at any possible way to avoid discussing why and how your "theory" and your "model" fail, you might try grappling with the above.
And oh, look! It's a new page, what better time to pretend you haven't had your clocks cleaned on matters directly related to your "theory" and the abject irrelevance of your software and its results.

You were so full of yourself, so prideful in your soft pink insignificance, because of your "relationship" with a pack of fools battling 'methodological naturalism'. Yet when confronted with pointed questions seeking to determine just what the problem with MN might be and what, if anything, is being proposed to replace it, why, suddenly we were back dealing with your "theory" and your risible software.

Maybe it's time to switch back to this track for a whole new round of embarrassing failure on your part.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: May 03 2016,06:52

Febble found an excellent paper regarding the "Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water"

talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=67715

--------------
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 03 2016,07:25

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 03 2016,07:52)

Febble found an excellent paper regarding the "Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water"

talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=67715

How nice for her.

That still leaves you in the role of parasite, grabbing the shiny bits you don't understand and asserting, quite groundlessly, that they somehow entail or are entailed by your effluent.
We know better.

And you continue to fail at showing otherwise.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: May 03 2016,07:41

So Gary, just for laughs -- explain how 'spontaneous formation' relates to 'emergent' or 'fractal'.

How does the notion of 'spontaneous formation' support or contradict the pseudo-concept of 'molecular intelligence'?

Hint: 'spontaneous' is a meaningful modifier, that is typically contrast with ___.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: May 03 2016,18:42

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 03 2016,06:52)

Febble found an excellent paper regarding the "Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water"

talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=67715

Correction (maybe): The link to the paper was posted by someone with the screen name "Pingu" who has a penguin avatar just like Febble has. It might be them anyway, but I'm not sure. I was in a rush to get to work and I assumed it was Febble. There was no time to double check to make sure.

And guess what I heard on the radio today! Hint: English version.
I was running the Hamada at almost top speed for over an hour and finished the run just in time to be able to hear it on WMAS-FM. That really made my day! Thanks to whoever is responsible for that happening!! It could of course have been a nearly statistically impossible coincidence, but I believe it had an intelligent cause.

And NoName please say "molecular LEVEL intelligence" instead of always giving the impression that I am claiming that water molecules and such are intelligent. The only single molecule system I know of that is able to qualify as intelligent are self-replicating RNA's. The paper in my previous post describes a possible source of the RNA monomers/nucleotides needed for their emergence from unintelligent molecular systems.

I also have to say that I delighted by the discussion about various programming languages. But I only mentioned my needing to switch to a new programming language so that others would know why I now have even less time for forum discussions and other things on my to-do list.

And before I forget I have to mention that Camp got his excellent SERVO Magazine article "Rodney Junior: Smarter than the Average Robot" (02/2015) hoisted up to his website, so that I can link you to it. The pdf is here:
www.camppeavy.com/articles/MachineIntelligence.pdf

--------------
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 03 2016,19:41

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 03 2016,19:42)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 03 2016,06:52)

Febble found an excellent paper regarding the "Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water"

talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=67715

Correction (maybe): The link to the paper was posted by someone with the screen name "Pingu" who has a penguin avatar just like Febble has. It might be them anyway, but I'm not sure. I was in a rush to get to work and I assumed it was Febble. There was no time to double check to make sure.

And guess what I heard on the radio today! Hint: English version.
I was running the Hamada at almost top speed for over an hour and finished the run just in time to be able to hear it on WMAS-FM. That really made my day! Thanks to whoever is responsible for that happening!! It could of course have been a nearly statistically impossible coincidence, but I believe it had an intelligent cause.

And NoName please say "molecular LEVEL intelligence" instead of always giving the impression that I am claiming that water molecules and such are intelligent. The only single molecule system I know of that is able to qualify as intelligent are self-replicating RNA's. The paper in my previous post describes a possible source of the RNA monomers/nucleotides needed for their emergence from unintelligent molecular systems.

I also have to say that I delighted by the discussion about various programming languages. But I only mentioned my needing to switch to a new programming language so that others would know why I now have even less time for forum discussions and other things on my to-do list.

And before I forget I have to mention that Camp got his excellent SERVO Magazine article "Rodney Junior: Smarter than the Average Robot" (02/2015) hoisted up to his website, so that I can link you to it. The pdf is here:
www.camppeavy.com/articles/MachineIntelligence.pdf

'Molecular intelligence' was your phrase for so long, I'm afraid you're stuck with it.
You have yet to provide any basis for distinguishing molecules that are intelligent and molecules that aren't.

What qualifies RNA as intelligent? It doesn't learn. It has no features that are not fully explicable under fully materialist chemistry and physics.
It neither guesses nor evaluates confidence.

So on what basis do you assert that RNA is intelligent but water molecules aren't?

Face it, you're making it up as you go along.

Now, about those vicious circularities. About those missing connections between your "model" and actual biological features and/or functions.
About the justification for looking for 'alternatives to methodological naturalism'.
We're waiting.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,16:24

Quote (NoName @ May 03 2016,19:41)

What qualifies RNA as intelligent? It doesn't learn. It has no features that are not fully explicable under fully materialist chemistry and physics.
It neither guesses nor evaluates confidence.

So on what basis do you assert that RNA is intelligent but water molecules aren't?

See the chapter on Unimolecular Intelligence:
sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf

In order to answer your "materialist chemistry" statement you will have to give me an example of a nonmaterialist scientific explanation.

--------------
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 04 2016,16:32

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,17:24)

Quote (NoName @ May 03 2016,19:41)

What qualifies RNA as intelligent? It doesn't learn. It has no features that are not fully explicable under fully materialist chemistry and physics.
It neither guesses nor evaluates confidence.

So on what basis do you assert that RNA is intelligent but water molecules aren't?

See the chapter on Unimolecular Intelligence:
sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf

In order to answer your "materialist chemistry" statement you will have to give me an example of a nonmaterialist scientific explanation.

No, you were the one all puffed up about 'alternatives to methodological naturalism'. I'm calling your bluff.
What qualifies? Why is an alternative needed, let alone thought possible?
Or were you just misleading all involved by attempting to participate in the conference you were going on about?

As to your pathetic self-reference, rejected. You have nothing at all to distinguish 'intelligent' and 'non-intelligent' molecules. Molecules do not learn. You still haven't learned the critical difference between components and systems. In standard terminology, only systems display intelligence.
Just by the way, ChemiCat already schooled you on RNA. It's not a molecule. It is a polymer.

Damn, you're stupid.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,16:48

Since you're so fond of links, here's one that exposes a giant gap in your "work". From the molecular level on up to the individual body and beyond (families, societies, etc), energy issues are critical.
You ignore thermodynamics entirely. That alone is sufficient cause to dismiss your work as useless to an understanding of the emergence of biological intelligence.
Humanity's Energy Budget

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,16:55

Quote (NoName @ May 04 2016,16:32)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,17:24)

Quote (NoName @ May 03 2016,19:41)

What qualifies RNA as intelligent? It doesn't learn. It has no features that are not fully explicable under fully materialist chemistry and physics.
It neither guesses nor evaluates confidence.

So on what basis do you assert that RNA is intelligent but water molecules aren't?

See the chapter on Unimolecular Intelligence:
sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf

In order to answer your "materialist chemistry" statement you will have to give me an example of a nonmaterialist scientific explanation.

No, you were the one all puffed up about 'alternatives to methodological naturalism'. I'm calling your bluff.
What qualifies? Why is an alternative needed, let alone thought possible?
Or were you just misleading all involved by attempting to participate in the conference you were going on about?

As to your pathetic self-reference, rejected. You have nothing at all to distinguish 'intelligent' and 'non-intelligent' molecules. Molecules do not learn. You still haven't learned the critical difference between components and systems. In standard terminology, only systems display intelligence.
Just by the way, ChemiCat already schooled you on RNA. It's not a molecule. It is a polymer.

Damn, you're stupid.

If you must misrepresent everything I say then I must go back to ignoring you.

Those who are interested in what I presented at the conference can download the slides. It contains no "alternative" to methodological naturalism due to science and the scientific method not needing it, in the first place:
https://sites.google.com/site.......hod.pdf

--------------
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 04 2016,17:22

Quote

[From Gary] In order to answer your "materialist chemistry" statement you will have to give me an example of a nonmaterialist scientific explanation.

That makes no sense at all.

Quote

And NoName please say "molecular LEVEL intelligence" instead of always giving the impression that I am claiming that water molecules and such are intelligent. The only single molecule system I know of that is able to qualify as intelligent are self-replicating RNA's.

Typically, you have not talked about "Molecular level intelligence":

Quote

[From Gary, ages ago] Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence: In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells.

.......

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

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

I'll try to think of another way to explain it. But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.

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

It's just that an EA is not in this model where there must be what there is where two of the four requirements are found met by the behavior of matter for molecular intelligence that next emerges, which runs on metabolic cycles which require feeding on something.

In 2015, you did say,

Quote

The only thing I can think of is putting the word "level" in each for like "Molecular Level Intelligence" but maybe other than that this is still holding as the most logical and consistent naming convention possible.

However, that falls short of being an established usage that you can chide NoName about.

jeffox

Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,18:41

Quote

In order to answer your "materialist chemistry" statement you will have to give me an example of a nonmaterialist scientific explanation.

Why? If somebody asks you for an explanation, you should explain it, not require them to provide the answer themselves using your nonrational criteria. Why do you constantly avoid answering critical questions of your material? Do you know your own stuff that poorly? Or, as has been maintained previously, are you making it up as you go along?

Chemistry is actually pretty easy - once you study it. The same with physics. A little effort on your part would help you immensely with your pet project. Just sayin'.

Otherwise, you can hoot on, I call it cheap entertainment.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,19:42

Quote (jeffox @ May 04 2016,18:41)

Quote

In order to answer your "materialist chemistry" statement you will have to give me an example of a nonmaterialist scientific explanation.

Why? If somebody asks you for an explanation, you should explain it, not require them to provide the answer themselves..............

Assuming nonmaterialist equals religious: since when are scientists required to provide nonmaterialistic models and theories? Or for that matter who or what gave US public school science teachers the constitutional right to teach such a thing in a US public school "science" classroom?

--------------
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 04 2016,19:54

Quote (N.Wells @ May 04 2016,17:22)

Quote

[From Gary] In order to answer your "materialist chemistry" statement you will have to give me an example of a nonmaterialist scientific explanation.

That makes no sense at all.

Why? NoName is apparently expecting me to give them a scientific model and/or theory that is "fully explicable" under fully nonmaterialist chemistry and physics.

Examples please.

--------------
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 04 2016,20:09

Quote (N.Wells @ May 04 2016,17:22)

Quote

And NoName please say "molecular LEVEL intelligence" instead of always giving the impression that I am claiming that water molecules and such are intelligent. The only single molecule system I know of that is able to qualify as intelligent are self-replicating RNA's.

Typically, you have not talked about "Molecular level intelligence":

I overestimated the ability of this forum to conceptualize a logical progression of the operationally defined self-learning "intelligence" system that in reverse order is: Multicellular Intelligence, Cellular Intelligence and Molecular Intelligence.

I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.

--------------
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 04 2016,20:18

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,20:54)

Quote (N.Wells @ May 04 2016,17:22)

Quote

[From Gary] In order to answer your "materialist chemistry" statement you will have to give me an example of a nonmaterialist scientific explanation.

That makes no sense at all.

Why? NoName is apparently expecting me to give them a scientific model and/or theory that is "fully explicable" under fully nonmaterialist chemistry and physics.

Examples please.

I'm expecting no such thing. Nor did I request such an absurdity.

If your reading skills weren't as bad as they clearly are, you'd know that.
I am insisting that at the level of individual molecules, there is nothing that is not fully explained by physics and chemistry. Fully material physics and chemistry.
I've been insisting on this for hundreds of pages of this thread, in a clearly futile attempt to get you to see that 'molecular intelligence' is nonsense. Molecules as such do not learn. They exhibit none of the characteristics usually associated with the term 'intelligent' or its variants or cognates.
Nor is there anything about molecules as such that requires recourse to an 'intelligent agency' for explanation.
Your 'molecular intelligence' (or 'molecular level intelligence') notion is incoherent, unnecessary, unsupported by evidence, contradictory to known facts, and has literally no place where it could be applicable, let alone explanatory--of anything whatsoever.

I was casting this in terms appropriate to your apparent, but now denied, allegiance to an agenda seeking "alternatives to methodological naturalism". Which does make one wonder why you raised that particular topic, and with the emphasis you gave it. Must I go back and quote your posts forward to this point in the thread?

Also, do take care to maintain agreement in number when using pronouns. I am not a "they". You anti-semantic, anti-syntactic buffoon.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,20:18

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,20:09)

Quote (N.Wells @ May 04 2016,17:22)

Quote

And NoName please say "molecular LEVEL intelligence" instead of always giving the impression that I am claiming that water molecules and such are intelligent. The only single molecule system I know of that is able to qualify as intelligent are self-replicating RNA's.

Typically, you have not talked about "Molecular level intelligence":

I overestimated the ability of this forum to conceptualize a logical progression of the operationally defined self-learning "intelligence" system that in reverse order is: Multicellular Intelligence, Cellular Intelligence and Molecular Intelligence.

I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.

The fault is your own. You have provided neither operational definitions nor clear English, so everything you say is at best unclear. We can conceptualize all sorts of things, but we simply do not yet believe you, because you have yet to document the actual existence of many of the things that you assert. You have not documented or justified the progression that you assert, including the existence of intelligence (as yet undefined by you) at molecular levels. Your stuff will remain useless nonsense until YOU improve it.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,20:18

Shorter rejoinder: if you can't keep up, keep quiet.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,20:43

This just came in via email. It includes (I hope) all of my presentation and the questions & answers, which went very well for me considering that I had just lost a tooth and that made it hard for me to properly pronounce words. I'm extremely self-conscious about that sort of thing, which is one reason I am not a naturally born public speaker. You can say I am one who has a fear of public speaking, but once started it can become difficult for me to stop talking.

Quote

Conference videos available now.

If you did not get a chance to attend the conference, now you can get the set of all 20 talks given at the conference! Each video contains the lecture, the slides, and the question and answer session. That's nearly fifteen hours of video!

Click here to purchase the set

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

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,21:58

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,18:09)

I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.

If your "phrases" were vehicles they'd look like they came out of an acid trip taken by Dr. Seuss and Rube Goldberg.

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

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: May 04 2016,22:58

And another excellent model related discovery is being made! I found the link here:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/our-brain-uses-statistics-to-calculate-confidence

From the theory:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

--------------
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 05 2016,06:21

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,23:58)

And another excellent model related discovery is being made! I found the link here:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/our-brain-uses-statistics-to-calculate-confidence

From the theory:

Quote

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

Does not entail your "theory".
Entailed by your "theory" only insofar as a contradiction entails all propositions, both true and false.

Relevant to the real thread of discussion going on here --
there can be no 'molecular intelligence' because molecules lack every single one of your four criteria for counting something as 'intelligent'.
Molecules have nothing to control. They simply are. They are reactive, not active in the specific sense required by 'control'.
Molecules have no memory, homeopathy is simply false.
Molecules have no confidence system. There are no 'degrees of certainty/uncertainty' in the behavior of molecules in the sense required by your phrase.
Molecules do not guess. They simply react. Deterministically.

So regardless of whether you attempt to draw some ridiculous distinction between 'molecules' and 'molecular level', your own "circuit requirements" disprove your claims.
As has been pointed out hundreds, probably thousands, of times on this thread.

Of course, as always you are free to prove me wrong. Just show, in detail and with precision, how a molecule (or other entity existing at the as-yet-undefined 'molecular level') meets your four criteria. Be specific. Show your work.
You won't because you can't.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 05 2016,06:30

And, of course, your criteria for intelligence don't work, as discussed at length earlier.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: May 05 2016,06:48

FYI:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums....e-robot

--------------
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 05 2016,06:50

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,21:09)

Quote (N.Wells @ May 04 2016,17:22)

Quote

And NoName please say "molecular LEVEL intelligence" instead of always giving the impression that I am claiming that water molecules and such are intelligent. The only single molecule system I know of that is able to qualify as intelligent are self-replicating RNA's.

Typically, you have not talked about "Molecular level intelligence":

I overestimated the ability of this forum to conceptualize a logical progression

You are the only participant in this thread who has consistently demonstrated a complete inability to conceptualize, let alone construct, a logical progression.

Quote

of the operationally defined self-learning "intelligence" system

Except you have no operational definitions, now do you?
This is massively dishonest. An attempt to sneak a refuted claim in as already established. Contemptible, Gary, just contemptible.

Quote

that in reverse order is: Multicellular Intelligence, Cellular Intelligence and Molecular Intelligence.

Regardless of the order, the alleged "logical progression" is entirely invalid. Unsupported by evidence, asserts facts not in evidence, lacks definition or qualification, lacks specificity, is incoherent, and is viciously circular.

Quote

I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.

You've learned nothing.
Your failures are not restricted to this forum, they appear wherever you do.
You have found not one single supporter of your nonsense in nearly a decade of wandering around the web afflicting sites with your nonsense.
You have occasionally, generally on crackpot sites, found individuals expressing initial interest in your claims. None have maintained any regard for your swill after they've dug into it. Sometimes it takes a few minutes, sometimes it takes a few hours, or even days.
But good lord, Gary, you can't even get the DI to acknowledge any value in your efforts.
"Learned"? As we've seen, you have an entirely idiosyncratic (and incorrect) understanding of the term.

What needs 'training wheels' is your mind. But first you'd have to find it.

ChemiCat

Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: May 05 2016,09:26

Quote

Quote
I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.

Then put your training wheels on these questions;

1) How do molecules learn?
2) How does this differ for polymers like RNA/DNA?
3) Why can't unimolecular systems be intelligent?
4) How do energy gradients affect this learning?
5) Do oxygen levels affect the outcome?
6) Do molecules learn to overcome these different conditions?

These questions are probably rhetorical as Gaulin has no chance of understanding them or giving a scientific answer.

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: May 05 2016,09:32

Quote (NoName @ May 05 2016,14:50)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,21:09)

Quote (N.Wells @ May 04 2016,17:22)

Quote

And NoName please say "molecular LEVEL intelligence" instead of always giving the impression that I am claiming that water molecules and such are intelligent. The only single molecule system I know of that is able to qualify as intelligent are self-replicating RNA's.

Typically, you have not talked about "Molecular level intelligence":

I overestimated the ability of this forum to conceptualize a logical progression

You are the only participant in this thread who has consistently demonstrated a complete inability to conceptualize, let alone construct, a logical progression.

Quote

of the operationally defined self-learning "intelligence" system

Except you have no operational definitions, now do you?
This is massively dishonest. An attempt to sneak a refuted claim in as already established. Contemptible, Gary, just contemptible.

Quote

that in reverse order is: Multicellular Intelligence, Cellular Intelligence and Molecular Intelligence.

Regardless of the order, the alleged "logical progression" is entirely invalid. Unsupported by evidence, asserts facts not in evidence, lacks definition or qualification, lacks specificity, is incoherent, and is viciously circular.

Quote

I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.

You've learned nothing.
Your failures are not restricted to this forum, they appear wherever you do.
You have found not one single supporter of your nonsense in nearly a decade of wandering around the web afflicting sites with your nonsense.
You have occasionally, generally on crackpot sites, found individuals expressing initial interest in your claims. None have maintained any regard for your swill after they've dug into it. Sometimes it takes a few minutes, sometimes it takes a few hours, or even days.
But good lord, Gary, you can't even get the DI to acknowledge any value in your efforts.
"Learned"? As we've seen, you have an entirely idiosyncratic (and incorrect) understanding of the term.

What needs 'training wheels' is your mind. But first you'd have to find it.

Hahahahaha "training wheels" for Gary's mind?

That assumes his grownup mind is fully functional.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: May 05 2016,11:50

Quote (k.e.. @ May 05 2016,10:32)

Quote (NoName @ May 05 2016,14:50)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,21:09)

Quote (N.Wells @ May 04 2016,17:22)

Quote

And NoName please say "molecular LEVEL intelligence" instead of always giving the impression that I am claiming that water molecules and such are intelligent. The only single molecule system I know of that is able to qualify as intelligent are self-replicating RNA's.

Typically, you have not talked about "Molecular level intelligence":

I overestimated the ability of this forum to conceptualize a logical progression

You are the only participant in this thread who has consistently demonstrated a complete inability to conceptualize, let alone construct, a logical progression.

Quote

of the operationally defined self-learning "intelligence" system

Except you have no operational definitions, now do you?
This is massively dishonest. An attempt to sneak a refuted claim in as already established. Contemptible, Gary, just contemptible.

Quote

that in reverse order is: Multicellular Intelligence, Cellular Intelligence and Molecular Intelligence.

Regardless of the order, the alleged "logical progression" is entirely invalid. Unsupported by evidence, asserts facts not in evidence, lacks definition or qualification, lacks specificity, is incoherent, and is viciously circular.

Quote

I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.

You've learned nothing.
Your failures are not restricted to this forum, they appear wherever you do.
You have found not one single supporter of your nonsense in nearly a decade of wandering around the web afflicting sites with your nonsense.
You have occasionally, generally on crackpot sites, found individuals expressing initial interest in your claims. None have maintained any regard for your swill after they've dug into it. Sometimes it takes a few minutes, sometimes it takes a few hours, or even days.
But good lord, Gary, you can't even get the DI to acknowledge any value in your efforts.
"Learned"? As we've seen, you have an entirely idiosyncratic (and incorrect) understanding of the term.

What needs 'training wheels' is your mind. But first you'd have to find it.

Hahahahaha "training wheels" for Gary's mind?

That assumes his grownup mind is fully functional.

His mind could only be improved by shoving an axle through his brain.
No other effect would be noticeable, but he could finally be used as a hatstand for more than one hat at a time.

khan

Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: May 05 2016,15:28

Quote (fnxtr @ May 04 2016,22:58)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 04 2016,18:09)

I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.

If your "phrases" were vehicles they'd look like they came out of an acid trip taken by Dr. Seuss and Rube Goldberg.

A Three Handled Moss Covered Hypothesis?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution