RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (595) < ... 586 587 588 589 590 [591] 592 593 594 595 >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2017,16:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 01 2017,06:47)
I'm not surprised by N.Wells posting (close sounding but) unrelated papers.

OK, Gary, don't engage with the literature.  Just consider these points: 1) You need actual evidence to support your ideas, otherwise you aren't ahead of Lamarck and Lysenko, 2) Just because something seems logical and attractive to you doesn't make it true, and 3) one of the hard lessons of science is that the easiest person to fool is often yourself.  

In your case, make that "always".


However, for grins, why don't you consider them related?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4652
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2017,21:32   

Re "However, for grins, why don't you consider them related?"

Ah, the theory of relativity. But is it special or general?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 403
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2017,15:53   

Quote
But is it special or general?


In Gaulin's case , definitely "special", Henry J.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5121
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2017,07:42   

This was sent to me by Camp:

www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170301-life-may-actually-be-getting-better-at-evolving

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 403
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2017,09:56   

Quote
However, the big challenge for Watson's hypothesis is whether any empirical evidence for it can be found in nature.


This article is a hypothesis about evolution. It is not a scientific paper but speculation on the subject of whether Natural Selection and random mutations are the main driving forces behind evolution.

Much like your not-a-theory, Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2017,14:11   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 05 2017,09:56)
Quote
However, the big challenge for Watson's hypothesis is whether any empirical evidence for it can be found in nature.


This article is a hypothesis about evolution. It is not a scientific paper but speculation on the subject of whether Natural Selection and random mutations are the main driving forces behind evolution.

Much like your not-a-theory, Gaulin

Note how Watson is working really hard to ground-truth his ideas ("seeing whether any empirical evidence can be found for [Watson's hypothesis] in nature") and to figure out how to test his ideas, principally by making predictions and seeing if the predictions are successful.

FWIW, I think Watson is a bit wrong about spaghetti code: it may be unruly and inefficient, but when you are working on the umpteenth generation of a complex pile of spaghetti code (that started as good modular code, but grew & got modified in subsequent generations), you can have the opportunity for some really felicitious minor adjustments or repurposings that open up some interesting new options.   Not the best way to code, but good things can arise from it.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 403
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2017,17:15   

Quote
Note how Watson is working really hard to ground-truth his ideas [...]


Yes, I think it is an interesting hypothesis and I am not criticising Watson's ideas as they could lead to some interesting scientific enquiry and solve coding problems. The point I was trying to make to Gaulin is that it is how an hypothesis should be formulated.

Gaulin's effort at an hypothesis (which he insists is a theory) only stifles further investigations with bald assertions, lack of definitions and, as you say, lack of ground-truthing.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5121
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2017,21:08   

Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 05 2017,14:11)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 05 2017,09:56)
Quote
However, the big challenge for Watson's hypothesis is whether any empirical evidence for it can be found in nature.


This article is a hypothesis about evolution. It is not a scientific paper but speculation on the subject of whether Natural Selection and random mutations are the main driving forces behind evolution.

Much like your not-a-theory, Gaulin

Note how Watson is working really hard to ground-truth his ideas ("seeing whether any empirical evidence can be found for [Watson's hypothesis] in nature") and to figure out how to test his ideas, principally by making predictions and seeing if the predictions are successful.

FWIW, I think Watson is a bit wrong about spaghetti code: it may be unruly and inefficient, but when you are working on the umpteenth generation of a complex pile of spaghetti code (that started as good modular code, but grew & got modified in subsequent generations), you can have the opportunity for some really felicitious minor adjustments or repurposings that open up some interesting new options.   Not the best way to code, but good things can arise from it.

No offense to their finding lines of evidence I did not yet mention: there is nothing at all in regards to cognitive science, not even a computer model of the underlying learning mechanism.

You really are just a creep.

--------------
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: 1749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2017,23:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 07 2017,21:08)
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 05 2017,14:11)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 05 2017,09:56)
 
Quote
However, the big challenge for Watson's hypothesis is whether any empirical evidence for it can be found in nature.


This article is a hypothesis about evolution. It is not a scientific paper but speculation on the subject of whether Natural Selection and random mutations are the main driving forces behind evolution.

Much like your not-a-theory, Gaulin

Note how Watson is working really hard to ground-truth his ideas ("seeing whether any empirical evidence can be found for [Watson's hypothesis] in nature") and to figure out how to test his ideas, principally by making predictions and seeing if the predictions are successful.

FWIW, I think Watson is a bit wrong about spaghetti code: it may be unruly and inefficient, but when you are working on the umpteenth generation of a complex pile of spaghetti code (that started as good modular code, but grew & got modified in subsequent generations), you can have the opportunity for some really felicitious minor adjustments or repurposings that open up some interesting new options.   Not the best way to code, but good things can arise from it.

No offense to their finding lines of evidence I did not yet mention: there is nothing at all in regards to cognitive science, not even a computer model of the underlying learning mechanism.

You really are just a creep.

Note: you brought up the paper.  I didn't say anything about cognitive science one way or the other.  I did however correctly note that Watson is (very properly) concerned about ground-truthing his work, finding evidence to support it, and thinking up ways to test his work, all completely unlike you.  That's why he is pursuing ideas scientifically, while you are merely producing effluent.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 403
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2017,03:00   

Quote
Note: you brought up the paper.  I didn't say anything about cognitive science one way or the other.  I did however correctly note that Watson is (very properly) concerned about ground-truthing his work, finding evidence to support it, and thinking up ways to test his work, all completely unlike you.  That's why he is pursuing ideas scientifically, while you are merely producing effluent.


I will add that I bet that if Watson finds evidence to falsify his hypothesis he will reject it. Umm, sorry that's Gaulin not Watson. Watson will rethink his hypothesis in light of the evidence and either reject his hypothesis or rework it.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2017,07:25   

Quote

No offense to their finding lines of evidence I did not yet mention: there is nothing at all in regards to cognitive science, not even a computer model of the underlying learning mechanism.



Actually, that is complete and total bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it, a baldfaced Trump-level lie.  But you are you, so what else should we have expected?

With regards to not involving a computer model: the current paper is partly based on R.A. Watson, et al., 2010,  Optimisation in ‘self-modelling’ complex adaptive systems.  Complexity, 16: 17–26.  The current paper includes output from the computer model in R.A. Watson et al., 2014, The evolution of phenotypic correlations and ‘developmental memory’. Evolution, 68:1124–1138, which is exactly and precisely a model of the underlying learning mechanism.  It is not exactly the sort of computer model that you intended to refer to, but nonetheless it's much better than yours as it actually does something interesting.  See also R.A. Watson et al., 2010,  Associative memory in gene regulation networks, in  H. Fellermann et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Artificial Life Conference XII, MIT Press, p. 194–202.

In the latest paper he also presents a lot of algorithms that could easily be turned into models, except that it's pretty clear where they are going, and he bases his work on many other people's published computer models, so yes, computer models are involved.

Contrary to your entirely uninformed opinion, Watson's paper includes rather a lot of stuff about cognitive science.

He also provides a lot of very carefully defined terms, which is a lovely touch that you would be advised to follow.  He also writes very clearly, so ditto.

His work shows that he has been steadily laying a foundation for the exceptional claims that he wishes to make.  That’s a very good way to develop one's ideas into a theory in science.  

Last but not least, he provides a lengthy and surprisingly fascinating bibliography of 89 papers, many of which sound appropriate to your nonsense, but very few of which you appear to have read.  Items of potential interest include:

L. Bettencourt.  The rules of information aggregation and emergence of collective intelligent behavior.  Top. Cogn. Sci., 1 (2009), pp. 598–620.

R.A. Watson, et al.  Transformations in the scale of behavior and the global optimization of constraints in adaptive networks.  Adapt. Behav., 19 (2011), pp. 227–249.

P. Adams.  Hebb and Darwin.  J. Theoret. Biol., 195 (1998), pp. 419–438.

C. Fernando, et al.  Selectionist and evolutionary approaches to brain function: a critical appraisal.   Front. Comput. Neurosci., 6 (2012), p. 24.

D. Hofstadter. Analogy as the core of cognition. D. Gentner (Ed.), et al., The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, MIT Press (2001), pp. 499–538.

J.J. Hopfield. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 79 (1982), pp. 2554–2558.

M. Parter, et al. Facilitated variation: how evolution learns from past environments to generalize to new environments.     PLoS Comput. Biol., 4 (2008), p. e1000206.

N. Kashtan, U. Alon.  Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs.  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102 (2005), pp. 13773–13778.

C. Fernando.  Design for a Darwinian brain: part 1. Philosophy and neuroscience.  N.F. Lepora (Ed.), et al., Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems, Springer (2013), pp. 71–82.

T. Mitchell.  Machine Learning.  McGraw Hill (1997)

C.R. Shalizi.  Dynamics of Bayesian updating with dependent data and misspecified models.  Electron. J. Stat., 3 (2009), pp. 1039–1074.

G.E. Hinton.  Learning multiple layers of representation.    Trends Cogn. Sci., 11 (2007), pp. 428–434.

J.J. Hopfield, D.W. Tank.  Computing with neural circuits: a model.  Science, 233 (1986), pp. 625–633.

R.A. Watson, et al.  Evolutionary connectionism: algorithmic principles underlying the evolution of biological organisation in evo-devo, evo-eco and evolutionary transitions. Evol. Biol. (2015) (in press).

R.C. O’Reilly, Y. Munakata.  Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuro-science: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain.  MIT Press (2000)

T. Börgers, R. Sarin.  Learning through reinforcement and replicator dynamics.  J. Econ. Theory, 77 (1997), pp. 1–14.

J. Clune, et al.  The evolutionary origins of modularity. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 280, p. 20122863.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 403
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2017,07:49   

Excellent response, N.Wells.

I hope you have sent Gaulin some salve for his burns.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2017,18:18   

Cue up some Ohio Players . . . . .  

Whatta burning hoot!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5121
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2017,06:18   

It's only more evidence that I was right.

--------------
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: 1749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2017,08:31   

Keep telling yourself that, because no one else will.

Also, as we've seen before, you've got a funny understanding of "evidence".

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 403
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2017,07:20   

Quote
It's only more evidence that I was right.


Only in your own alternative universe, Gaulin.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2017,12:09   

Quote
It's only more evidence that I was right.


It's only more evidence that you certainly don't know much - particularly about science, English, biology, chemistry, and logic.  Since that's what we usually discuss in here, you seem to be the outlier, not us.  

Whatta nonempirical hoot!  :)  :)  :)  

(Sry for any mis-spellings)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5121
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2017,09:59   

A new (and open access) track-site paper has arrived!
Happy reading!!

www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/7/1/13

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 403
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2017,17:58   

Now, Gaulin, compare that paper with your "efforts" and see where you have gone wrong (Clue; all of yours),

Note how science papers are actually written with methodologies, conclusions and citations. Note how yours doesn't do this. Then consider where you have been going wrong. Then tell us what you intend to do to correct your mess.

I won't hold my breath.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5121
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2017,20:48   

And this came in from (another who upon entering college made the tracksite like their second home) Sebastian Dalman!

www.abqjournal.com/957404/old-bones-new-dig-yield-dinosaur-discovery.html

--------------
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: 1182
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2017,23:39   

Gary, how many of these actual scientists have you handed printouts of your theory to?

And how many have said "Sure I'll take a look at it, no problem buddy!"?

And then, later on when asked about it, how many have said "Gee, I really haven't had the time"?

  
k.e..



Posts: 3836
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2017,10:14   

Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 22 2017,07:39)
Gary, how many of these actual scientists have you handed printouts of your theory to?

And how many have said "Sure I'll take a look at it, no problem buddy!"?

And then, later on when asked about it, how many have said "Gee, I really haven't had the time"?

A few years ago Gary told us the only thing they​ gave him were cheese burgers. Maybe they'd like to give him a bar of soap as well. I'm pretty certain they'd give him anything he wants except read his tripe.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5121
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2017,06:37   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 18 2017,17:58)
Then tell us what you intend to do to correct your mess.

I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the usual politics.

--------------
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: 1749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2017,15:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2017,06:37)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 18 2017,17:58)
Then tell us what you intend to do to correct your mess.

I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the usual politics.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/tiny-vi....-violin

You mean like insisting on some decent science?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4652
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2017,20:24   

No, no - real-science, not decent science.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 403
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2017,02:38   

Quote
I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the usual politics.


"I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the lack of scientific evidence." There, I've fixed that for you.

Does this mean your recycle bin is full of wasted electrons?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2533
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2017,09:00   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 24 2017,00:38)
Quote
I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the usual politics.


"I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the lack of scientific evidence." There, I've fixed that for you.

Does this mean your recycle bin is full of wasted electrons?

Not to mention all the wasted photons flying out of his monitor, losing energy and settling behind his sofa as lint.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 3836
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2017,10:46   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 24 2017,10:38)
Quote
I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the usual politics.


"I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the lack of scientific evidence." There, I've fixed that for you.

Does this mean your recycle bin is full of wasted electrons?

No, I think he means politics. Everyone voted against it and now not even he wants to vote for it. By usual I think he means the usual lies of politics didn't work for him.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5121
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,10:09   

A new buzz-phrase: "inclusive fitness"?

sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2017/03/correcting-correction-of-video-about.html

Although there have been admirable attempts to get everyone on the same page with one Darwinian "evolutionary theory", what it says still depends on which "expert" you ask. Giving things "fitness" names has a way of even more complicating things.

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

   
Pilchard



Posts: 40
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,10:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 25 2017,16:09)
A new buzz-phrase: "inclusive fitness"?

https://books.google.com/ngrams....3B%2Cc0

  
  17824 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (595) < ... 586 587 588 589 590 [591] 592 593 594 595 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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