RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (601) < ... 595 596 597 598 599 [600] 601 >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,00:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 11 2017,23:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 11 2017,11:51)
So, how old are the sources you rely upon, and how useful do others beside yourself find them in the current context?

The model started from the 1979 work from David Heiserman then 1991 Arnold Trehub then what finally brought it to life real good and provided the ultimate test for its spatial reasoning power was found in <a href="http://" target="_blank">Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames, 2010</a>.

You will have to operationally define "current context" because David Heiserman described cells having what the How To Build Your Self-Programming Robot explains working inside them, for navigating their tiny water world. I found the concept to be extremely useful. It's one of the reasons I made sure to study every sentence in the book until I understood all of it.

What part of "others beside yourself" are you having trouble with?

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,01:10   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 11 2017,23:28)
From spring of 1989 to summer of 1997, I operated the Central Neural System BBS. This dial-up resource provided the usual FidoNET node amenities with access to a selection of Echo discussion fora, plus my file collection of artificial intelligence, artificial neural network, and genetic algorithm resources. I founded the NEURAL_NET and EVOLUTION echoes. The file collection is now available via archives at Carnegie Mellon University. While the BBS operated, it got dial-ins from around the world, serving people looking for code and guidance on the technical topics I had made the focus of the BBS.

The Central Neural System BBS was not a local phenomenon; it served a world-wide audience. It was not evanescent; it lasted for many years and produced a collection that is of some value to this day.

And all of it was completely legal.

Excuse earlier typos. I'm now running on three hours of sleep, from a day ago.

I always sensed that you had impressive experience in those areas. Thanks for proving me right on that one.

In my case we were operating in a "gray area" with hobby magazine level power. People would occasionally walk their dogs or whatever while listening to music outdoors, but the FCC was not worried about that sort of thing existing. There was no license for such a low amount of power. If there was then I would have started on that (before beginning daily transmissions) after speaking to the FCC engineer in Washington about my options. What made me an exception is over time word getting around about the new "radio station". After the word reached the FCC the unforgiving legal gears were set in motion. And I sure did not want to hide in shame for the rest of my life because of it. So to make things easy for everyone I had to keep the station on the air, even though that sounded like I was upping the conflict and will soon have police surrounding the house while through a bullhorn ordering me to throw my transmitter on the ground then come out with my hands up.

--------------
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: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,01:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2017,00:02)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 11 2017,23:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 11 2017,11:51)
So, how old are the sources you rely upon, and how useful do others beside yourself find them in the current context?

The model started from the 1979 work from David Heiserman then 1991 Arnold Trehub then what finally brought it to life real good and provided the ultimate test for its spatial reasoning power was found in <a href="http://" target="_blank">Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames, 2010</a>.

You will have to operationally define "current context" because David Heiserman described cells having what the How To Build Your Self-Programming Robot explains working inside them, for navigating their tiny water world. I found the concept to be extremely useful. It's one of the reasons I made sure to study every sentence in the book until I understood all of it.

What part of "others beside yourself" are you having trouble with?

The article I linked to explains how well respected his work was, and still is. If you want more detail than that then you'll have to calculate an estimate by polling people who studied his book.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,08:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 12 2017,01:25)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2017,00:02)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 11 2017,23:52)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 11 2017,11:51)
So, how old are the sources you rely upon, and how useful do others beside yourself find them in the current context?

The model started from the 1979 work from David Heiserman then 1991 Arnold Trehub then what finally brought it to life real good and provided the ultimate test for its spatial reasoning power was found in <a href="http://" target="_blank">Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames, 2010</a>.

You will have to operationally define "current context" because David Heiserman described cells having what the How To Build Your Self-Programming Robot explains working inside them, for navigating their tiny water world. I found the concept to be extremely useful. It's one of the reasons I made sure to study every sentence in the book until I understood all of it.

What part of "others beside yourself" are you having trouble with?

The article I linked to explains how well respected his work was, and still is. If you want more detail than that then you'll have to calculate an estimate by polling people who studied his book.

The linked paper is notable for the absence of any mention of "Heiserman" or "Trehub".

The easiest way to judge how useful others beside yourself continue to find the work of either is to (1) find citations of their work and (2) discover what those works say about them.

A paper that covers a topic in which you might expect one or the other to have been an important influence, but which fails to mention either, is not an argument in favor of "not junk" as a classification. So either you accuse the authors of failure to cite relevant prior work, or conclude their work didn't really matter that much after all, at least as far as that paper was concerned.

(Edited because the redundancy, it burns.)

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 12 2017,08:59

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,14:45   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2017,08:34)
The linked paper is notable for the absence of any mention of "Heiserman" or "Trehub".

This is the article (for David Heiserman) I linked to:
robots.net/article/3428.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.

   
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,17:53   

Quote
Dozens of "The Man" scientists and science educators (sometimes with students) from academia have been very thankful for the scientific resources I later provide. I'm not expected to have to write the science papers. That's the job of "The Man" from academia who devoted their live's to writing them and just needs something original to help build their academic careers with. They prefer I leave all of that up to them, and I gladly do. There is thus no fighting at all there either.


I just have to remark that this is the most delusional, self-aggrandizing thing I have ever seen. I'm not sure if this is a 'sour grapes'-kind of situation, or if Gary actually manages to believe this, but either way, it's disturbing.

Gary, you are not having some sort of symbiosis with science, where you come up with great ideas and leave the paperwork to those grunts from science.
Absolutely everyone with any sort of scientific literacy has told you countless times, that you don't even understand the basics of what science even is. They keep telling you that your "theory" is not even in the same ballpark as science.

And let's be honest, what you are saying now is blatantly contradicting your earlier actions to attempt publishing. I can show you the reddit thread where we all explained very patiently to you why would never get your crap published. To which you responded by rejecting the peer-review-system, if it was gonna reject you. So you can see how your words seem very...disingenuous.

Lastly, I would like to point out how patronizing and insulting a sentence like

Quote
That's the job of "The Man" from academia who devoted their live's to writing them and just needs something original to help build their academic careers with.


is towards scientists.

Your delusions need to stop Gary. Go get help. This forum alone has now 600 pages of people telling you that you have not even the beginning of scientific work and are literally wasting decades of your life playing make-believe like a toddler who found a labcoat.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,19:10   

scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gaulin+dinosaur+track+site&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22

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

   
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,19:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 12 2017,19:10)
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gaulin+dinosaur+track+site&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22

We've been over this! You let actual scientists on your property, because it happened to contain dinosaur tracks. That's nice! Good for you! But that does not mean you are in any way involved in this.

You are not part of science just because your backyard happened to contain something of value to science.
That's like a sick person saying: "Yeah, they discovered this virus in me, so you could say i'm kind of a doctor. Could save some lives. I'm a big deal in the medical community."

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,21:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 12 2017,14:45)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2017,08:34)
The linked paper is notable for the absence of any mention of "Heiserman" or "Trehub".

This is the article (for David Heiserman) I linked to:
robots.net/article/3428.html

 
Quote

While you aren't likely to see a mention of Heiserman in any official history of AI or robotics, it hard to imagine that his books didn't play a part in those changes. Even today I find that most hobby roboticists still remember him. Many still have the two books shown above or one of his many other books. I was reminded of this recently when, during a visit the Dallas Personal Robotics Group, I ran across several copies of Build Your Own Working Robot in the group's library. I picked one up, opened it, and realized it was the very copy that I had bought in 1976 and later donated to the DPRG. It got me thinking about all of this and I wondered whether Dave might still be around. I set out to find him and, along the way, I collected questions from other robot builders; questions they'd always wanted to ask the author whose books inspired their interest in robotics. I did find Dave and he graciously agreed to an interview. Below you'll find his answers to your questions.


So, one person finds it "hard to imagine" that Brooks and others were uninfluenced, but doesn't have any current citations to show that they were. Gotcha.

But the paper I was referring to was the one of which you said:

Quote

then what finally brought it to life real good and provided the ultimate test for its spatial reasoning power was found in Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames, 2010.


Which *still* doesn't mention either of them.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2017,23:34   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2017,21:32)
So, one person finds it "hard to imagine" that Brooks and others were uninfluenced, but doesn't have any current citations to show that they were. Gotcha.

But the paper I was referring to was the one of which you said:

   
Quote

then what finally brought it to life real good and provided the ultimate test for its spatial reasoning power was found in Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames, 2010.


Which *still* doesn't mention either of them.

Now I think I see. In other words: the only thing that matters to you are the numbers spit out by an automated citation counter and how well a given author is praised. All else happening is irrelevant.

This would at least help explain why I ended up the first to model the spatial reasoning network that works by self-generation of brainwaves. For at least myself the challenge required the basics from David Heiserman. With it there is a body/platform to plug such a network right into the circuit, like it's just another RAM chip. Without these basics I would probably be lost, too.

--------------
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: 435
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,02:37   

Quote
This would at least help explain why I ended up the first to model the spatial reasoning network that works by self-generation of brainwaves. For at least myself the challenge required the basics from David Heiserman. With it there is a body/platform to plug such a network right into the circuit, like it's just another RAM chip. Without these basics I would probably be lost, too.


And Gaulin's delusions deepen.

Where in your "theory/model" do you "self-generate" brainwaves?

How many times have you been told that your analogy to RAM chips is seriously flawed?

The only true statement in the above is that you are lost, totally lost, out in the wilderness lost.

Texas Teach, thanks for the translation. It clarified that the original was piled high and deep BS.

  
Quack



Posts: 1959
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,06:03   

Deleted, the dictionary didn't have the required words.

Edited by Quack on Sep. 13 2017,06:08

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,09:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 12 2017,23:34)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2017,21:32)
So, one person finds it "hard to imagine" that Brooks and others were uninfluenced, but doesn't have any current citations to show that they were. Gotcha.

But the paper I was referring to was the one of which you said:

       
Quote

then what finally brought it to life real good and provided the ultimate test for its spatial reasoning power was found in Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames, 2010.


Which *still* doesn't mention either of them.

Now I think I see. In other words: the only thing that matters to you are the numbers spit out by an automated citation counter and how well a given author is praised. All else happening is irrelevant.

This would at least help explain why I ended up the first to model the spatial reasoning network that works by self-generation of brainwaves. For at least myself the challenge required the basics from David Heiserman. With it there is a body/platform to plug such a network right into the circuit, like it's just another RAM chip. Without these basics I would probably be lost, too.

If the paper you said provides the "ultimate test" of spatial reasoning power essentially says of both Heiserman and Trehub, "I have no need of that hypothesis", it certainly doesn't advance the notion that you aren't a huge hypocrite.

We know you are a fan. But you haven't established that anyone else is currently. That's on you. If you have a better way of demonstrating "others beside yourself" currently are finding utility in the particular things you rely upon (not just that the authors are mentioned positively, but that their particular ideas you have used have retained utility to the present), please by all means begin using it and stop complaining that you don't like possible ways pointed out by others.

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

    
JohnW



Posts: 2825
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,11:01   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 13 2017,04:03)
Deleted, the dictionary didn't have the required words.

You could follow Gaulin's example and use the wrong ones.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 4726
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,15:45   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 13 2017,10:01)
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 13 2017,04:03)
Deleted, the dictionary didn't have the required words.

You could follow Gaulin's example and use the wrong ones.

Ah, but a picture is worth a thousand wrong words...

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 435
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,16:20   

Quote
Ah, but a picture is worth a thousand wrong words...


SSSH! you'll invoke that bloody diagram again.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,20:18   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2017,09:09)
If the paper you said provides the "ultimate test" of spatial reasoning power essentially says of both Heiserman and Trehub, "I have no need of that hypothesis", it certainly doesn't advance the notion that you aren't a huge hypocrite.


This is a movie (from paper) showing what the "ultimate test" looks like when a live rat is tested:
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000403.s014

Same "test" except this time the ID Lab critter is being tested:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIvjax0_lLE

   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2017,09:09)
We know you are a fan. But you haven't established that anyone else is currently. That's on you. If you have a better way of demonstrating "others beside yourself" currently are finding utility in the particular things you rely upon (not just that the authors are mentioned positively, but that their particular ideas you have used have retained utility to the present), please by all means begin using it and stop complaining that you don't like possible ways pointed out by others.


I'll see what Camp might have for ideas. You are though still asking for a popularity (or pissing) contest instead of what science requires, such as repeating his experiments and developing further tests.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,20:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2017,20:18)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2017,09:09)
If the paper you said provides the "ultimate test" of spatial reasoning power essentially says of both Heiserman and Trehub, "I have no need of that hypothesis", it certainly doesn't advance the notion that you aren't a huge hypocrite.


This is a movie (from paper) showing what the "ultimate test" looks like when a live rat is tested:
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000403.s014

Same "test" except this time the ID Lab critter is being tested:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIvjax0_lLE

     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2017,09:09)
We know you are a fan. But you haven't established that anyone else is currently. That's on you. If you have a better way of demonstrating "others beside yourself" currently are finding utility in the particular things you rely upon (not just that the authors are mentioned positively, but that their particular ideas you have used have retained utility to the present), please by all means begin using it and stop complaining that you don't like possible ways pointed out by others.


I'll see what Camp might have for ideas. You are though still asking for a popularity (or pissing) contest instead of what science requires, such as repeating his experiments and developing further tests.

Anything you do is irrelevant to "others besides yourself". Youtube away, but it shows nothing towards the point.

If you can demonstrate that *other* people are currently testing the particular, acknowledged ideas of Heiserman and Trehub that you rely upon, then that's a perfectly reasonable way to show the current utility that would clarify that when you say "old junk", it isn't more apropos of what you are doing. But you haven't offered to show any such thing. It isn't about "popularity", it is about utility. Unfortunately for you, utility does presume adoption by more than one person.

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

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1760
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,21:47   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 13 2017,11:01)
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 13 2017,04:03)
Deleted, the dictionary didn't have the required words.

You could follow Gaulin's example and use the wrong ones.

We really need a "like" button here.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2017,23:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2017,20:53)
Anything you do is irrelevant to "others besides yourself". Youtube away, but it shows nothing towards the point.


I wanted to make sure you and others understood that the "test" found in the earlier mentioned paper consists of an arena with an invisible (to the live rat) shock zone. The neural data provides a test by indicating a real brain has a very noticeable average signal ratio in its numbers, which I get exactly due to this being the average signal direction ratio from (sports arena type) 2D continuous wave transmission through a 2D hexagonal geometry.

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2017,20:53)
If you can demonstrate that *other* people are currently testing the particular, acknowledged ideas of Heiserman and Trehub that you rely upon, then that's a perfectly reasonable way to show the current utility that would clarify that when you say "old junk", it isn't more apropos of what you are doing. But you haven't offered to show any such thing. It isn't about "popularity", it is about utility. Unfortunately for you, utility does presume adoption by more than one person.


Yammering about "natural selection" gets old, real fast, when science calls for a cognitive model for answering the biggest remaining question in cognitive science and a testable "theory of intelligent design" that also does not need to once mention 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.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 435
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2017,09:48   

Quote

Yammering about "natural selection" gets old, real fast, when science calls for a cognitive model for answering the biggest remaining question in cognitive science and a testable "theory of intelligent design" that also does not need to once mention it.


If my translator has this right, it thinks you are saying that there is no such thing as natural selection. This is something that you have yet to demonstrate.

A "testable" "theory of intelligent design? Really? Really! Where is it then? Your vague ideas come nowhere near testable. For once put your money where your mouth is (No, Gaulin, that's your foot) and give us the test.

All you have is a strange Pacman clone that only does what you programme it to do. Nowhere near to the biological reality of bugs, rats or even cognitive science.

Here's an idea, Gaulin, why not look up the definition of "cognitive" to see where you are going wrong. Clue; it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

And whilst you have some free time on your hands please supply us with a test for "molecular intelligence".

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2564
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2017,10:20   

Wait, WTAF?

Gary, are you trying to say some kind of "cognitive model" -- whatever that might be -- is a better explanation of evolution than the current paradigm?

How, exactly? How does a "cognitive model" explain HOX genes? Transcription errors (cross linkages, deletions, mutations...)?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4726
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2017,11:15   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,09:20)
Wait, WTAF?

Gary, are you trying to say some kind of "cognitive model" -- whatever that might be -- is a better explanation of evolution than the current paradigm?

How, exactly? How does a "cognitive model" explain HOX genes? Transcription errors (cross linkages, deletions, mutations...)?

As somebody pointed out to me yesterday:

SSSH! you'll invoke that bloody diagram again.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2017,20:52   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,10:20)
Gary, are you trying to say some kind of "cognitive model" -- whatever that might be -- is a better explanation of evolution than the current paradigm?

After including the cellular level intelligence involved the following statement holds true: certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The premise is specific. A phrase like "current paradigm" only moves the goalposts to where they are unreachable.

 
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,10:20)
How, exactly? How does a "cognitive model" explain HOX genes? Transcription errors (cross linkages, deletions, mutations...)?

This question is the same as asking: How does a transistorized "electronic model" explain transistors?

HOX genes are components in the cell sized molecular level cognitive system that controls present and (through offspring) future morphology. Guesses are only "errors" if they do more harm than good.

--------------
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: 2564
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2017,22:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 14 2017,18:52)
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,10:20)
Gary, are you trying to say some kind of "cognitive model" -- whatever that might be -- is a better explanation of evolution than the current paradigm?

After including the cellular level intelligence involved the following statement holds true: certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The premise is specific. A phrase like "current paradigm" only moves the goalposts to where they are unreachable.

 
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,10:20)
How, exactly? How does a "cognitive model" explain HOX genes? Transcription errors (cross linkages, deletions, mutations...)?

This question is the same as asking: How does a transistorized "electronic model" explain transistors?

HOX genes are components in the cell sized molecular level cognitive system that controls present and (through offspring) future morphology. Guesses are only "errors" if they do more harm than good.

Gary, that's absolute gibberish.


"After including MAGIC, the following holds true: life was created by MAGIC."

It's crap.

You have not demonstrated cellular level intelligence, or even explained what the fuck that's supposed to mean. What does this pretend intelligence do, and how does it do it?

Show us the molecular level cognitive system. I mean, in real life, not that crackpot diagram of yours.

You are fool.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1760
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2017,06:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 14 2017,20:52)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,10:20)
Gary, are you trying to say some kind of "cognitive model" -- whatever that might be -- is a better explanation of evolution than the current paradigm?

After including the cellular level intelligence involved the following statement holds true: certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The premise is specific. A phrase like "current paradigm" only moves the goalposts to where they are unreachable.

       
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 14 2017,10:20)
How, exactly? How does a "cognitive model" explain HOX genes? Transcription errors (cross linkages, deletions, mutations...)?

This question is the same as asking: How does a transistorized "electronic model" explain transistors?

HOX genes are components in the cell sized molecular level cognitive system that controls present and (through offspring) future morphology. Guesses are only "errors" if they do more harm than good.

   
Quote
" certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
 
Once more, no that is not specific. That phrase is absolutely meaningless and absolutely useless and completely unscientific and untestable unless you specify what "certain features" are and what is excluded.

   
Quote
HOX genes are components in the cell sized molecular level cognitive system that controls present and (through offspring) future morphology. Guesses are only "errors" if they do more harm than good.

You have yet to demonstrate that HOX genes are part of a cognitive system.  You have yet to demonstrate that making guesses is part of intelligent behavior.  To the contrary, "random guessing" is what happens when intelligence fails or is absent.  However, learning from mistakes is a hallmark of intelligence.  (Consider the way you are failing to learn from yours.)

In particular, while HOX genes control morphology, and mutations in HOX genes have created "order-level" evolutionary transitions in the lab, outcomes for mutations in HOX genes happen without regard to the needs of the individual or the species and many HOX mutations result in developmental failure (death) or severe disability.  

Mutations are not volitional (unless you stretch "volitional" in the very narrow sense of Galhardo et al. at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed......17874), and are not "guesses".  The most common form of all types of mutations are point substitutions, and most of these are neutral, with the rest being either harmful or beneficial.  Even in the sort of system described by Galhardo et al., how does a system where most mutations are non-beneficial constitute intelligence or cognition?  

How would a creature know ahead of time what mutations might produce desired effects? How does a genome "learn" - how does such a system not work by mutation and natural selection and genetic drift when mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism and where mutations spread or disappear due to stochastic "luck" and/or their impact on the reproductive success of its owners relative to the success of everyone else in the species, as has been well documented in many lab and field studies?   Since you have no lab or field studies or anything else to back up any of your assertions (unlike actual science), everyone but you concludes that you have nothing and are just blowing smoke.

Even a model might provide some support, if it were a) relevant to your major assertions, b) ground-truthed, c) based on meaning operational definitions and regular definitions, non of which applies to your nonsense.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2017,11:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 13 2017,23:23)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2017,20:53)
Anything you do is irrelevant to "others besides yourself". Youtube away, but it shows nothing towards the point.


I wanted to make sure you and others understood that the "test" found in the earlier mentioned paper consists of an arena with an invisible (to the live rat) shock zone. The neural data provides a test by indicating a real brain has a very noticeable average signal ratio in its numbers, which I get exactly due to this being the average signal direction ratio from (sports arena type) 2D continuous wave transmission through a 2D hexagonal geometry.

     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 13 2017,20:53)
If you can demonstrate that *other* people are currently testing the particular, acknowledged ideas of Heiserman and Trehub that you rely upon, then that's a perfectly reasonable way to show the current utility that would clarify that when you say "old junk", it isn't more apropos of what you are doing. But you haven't offered to show any such thing. It isn't about "popularity", it is about utility. Unfortunately for you, utility does presume adoption by more than one person.


Yammering about "natural selection" gets old, real fast, when science calls for a cognitive model for answering the biggest remaining question in cognitive science and a testable "theory of intelligent design" that also does not need to once mention it.

You seem very confused, Gary. The only person yammering in our exchange is you.

The topic is "old junk". You claim others rely on it, I note you haven't demonstrated that you don't. And you still have produced nothing that indicates that you don't. The paper you link to you now explain wasn't intended to establish the utility of the ideas you claim to use from Heiserman and Trehub in the current context.

As with various parts of your "modeling" we've discussed before, baking it in doesn't mean a thing. Like never implementing comb filters and thinking you've incorporated Trehub models, or discussing "educated guess" but not incorporating the Heiserman "gamma" procedures that he based his use of the phrase on, all that has been demonstrated is that Visual Basic can do a certain amount of animation. Nobody doubted that it could.

But let's return to the current topic. Others beside yourself need to be shown to be currently using the particular ideas you rely upon (at least conceptually) from Heiserman and Trehub, else your "old junk" jibe looks much more like you are performing a self-critique. Saying that a paper puts your animation in a good light still is not "others beside yourself" somehow showing current utility for the particular ideas in question.

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

    
Henry J



Posts: 4726
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2017,17:53   

Thou shalt not try to confuse with facts...

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5180
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2017,18:46   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 15 2017,11:52)
The topic is "old junk". You claim others rely on it, I note you haven't demonstrated that you don't.


I earlier explained how in my lifetime electronic technology made it possible to go way beyond the old ways of developing scientific models. The oldest of the references is 1979, as due credit for the Beta class model that combines with what is in the 2010 paper, to become what's new right now in science.

Models based on good old Darwinian "evolution by natural selection" theory do not explain how intelligence works. In my opinion attempts to "evolve intelligence" is putting the cart before the horse, destined to not get very far.

--------------
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: 2564
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2017,19:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 15 2017,16:46)
In my opinion attempts to "evolve intelligence" is putting the cart before the horse, destined to not get very far.


Recent history has shown how much the world values your opinion.

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

  
  18020 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (601) < ... 595 596 597 598 599 [600] 601 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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