RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (608) < ... 596 597 598 599 600 [601] 602 603 604 605 606 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2017,20:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ 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.

Gary not only has nothing, he revels in having nothing. The 2010 paper mentions neither Heiserman nor Trehub. Gary can't be bothered to begin to show that anyone besides himself has found any utility in the particular ideas he has co-opted to whatever minuscule degree as animation targets.

"Old junk" it is.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2017,22:04   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 15 2017,20:08)
The 2010 paper mentions neither Heiserman nor Trehub.


All three are in entirely separate areas of study: Machine Intelligence, Psychology and Neuroscience. Hopefully you're not expecting the neuroscience paper to have to credit the same people I did.

I was the first to put all three together. Now includes YouTube sports arena wave videos to help understand a brain cell's perspective, what they need to together do to generate waves outwards from a single point of excitation in the network.

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 15 2017,20:08)
Gary can't be bothered to begin to show that anyone besides himself has found any utility in the particular ideas he has co-opted to whatever minuscule degree as animation targets.


Showing current "utility" for David Heiserman is in the works, be patient. I had to first describe what is needed and do not know what others who were left out in the cold by the AI Winter might put together for you.

Quibbling over what is "old" or not has changed the topic to something other than what should under discussion. You are though helping to make it obvious that your Darwinian inspired models never produced anything comparable. If such a thing already existed then you would have presented it for testing, by now.

--------------
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: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2017,01:29   

I can add: In this case the best test for "utility" is whether the people who design bots of all kinds find it useful to know. If Wesley were to present something to me for testing then I would right away email his model/theory to Camp. If model/theory might be useful to others then Camp would on his own demonstrate it to others in the robotic community, as he did for the ID Lab at a well attended meeting (without my having to ask it was a surprise). I would also present it to the Kurzweil AI forum for their opinion, and to avoid coaxing an outcome I would not say a word about my opinion.

It's a plus for the same model/theory for intelligence to work for the long term development of genetic, cellular and multicellular systems. But what here comes first is utility for easily generating complex navigational intelligent behavior in robotic systems. Without that: those with lifelong experience in the fields most able to answer questions related to how "intelligent" systems work are being left out of matters pertaining to how "intelligent cause" works.

With the horse before the cart even the premise for "theory of intelligent design" goes on its own on into "science" just fine, as a weird fun thing to at the same time more or less control the destiny of. This is another plus, best likened to being the icing on the cake.

--------------
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: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2017,04:02   

Quote
With the horse before the cart even the premise for "theory of intelligent design" goes on its own on into "science" just fine, as a weird fun thing to at the same time more or less control the destiny of. This is another plus, best likened to being the icing on the cake.


Paging a translator, paging a translator!

"Sorry, all our translators are busy at the moment, please hold and we will connect you as soon as they stop rolling on the floor laughing."

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2017,06:59   

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cart_before_the_horse

--------------
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: 2602
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2017,08:44   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 18 2017,02:02)
Quote
With the horse before the cart even the premise for "theory of intelligent design" goes on its own on into "science" just fine, as a weird fun thing to at the same time more or less control the destiny of. This is another plus, best likened to being the icing on the cake.


Paging a translator, paging a translator!

"Sorry, all our translators are busy at the moment, please hold and we will connect you as soon as they stop rolling on the floor laughing."

Go ask A.L.I.C.E., I think she'll know...

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2017,09:40   

Quote
Go ask A.L.I.C.E., I think she'll know...


I think Gaulin must be taking the "mother pills" that do nothing at all.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2017,15:24   

Quote
easily generating complex navigational intelligent behavior in robotic systems.


1) So Neato vacuum cleaners (robots with complex navigational behavior) are intelligent?  Yes or no.
2) According to what definition of intelligence?
3) What is the minimum level of complexity required to qualify as intelligence, and how do you measure that?  In what units?
4) Even if Neatos do qualify as intelligent, is this type of intelligence equivalent to what happens in organisms?  (Supply supporting evidence.)
5) Let's suppose that we have a good working definition of intelligence, that Neatos are intelligent, that bugs are intelligent in exactly the same way, what on earth does that have to do with "intelligent design"?  Where does "design" enter into it in a way that explains the origin of intelligence in organisms?  
6) If "intelligence" "emerged" as per your writing, how is "design" anything other than a meaningless buzzword in your text?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4812
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2017,15:53   

1) Nature abhors a vacuum.
3) Grade 1 to 12.
6) That's the buzz.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2017,00:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 18 2017,15:24)
2) According to what definition of intelligence?

According to the definition that works for making best guess predictions like this:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/how-can-we-give-ai-emotional-intelligence#post-813019

Same question to you, Wesley or anyone else here who wants to take a best guess prediction how to most easily code the following into a bot, using their Darwinian approved alternative "definition of intelligence" or whatever:

Quote
How can A.I. understand peoples emotions without understanding their words? (Like a human can)


--------------
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: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2017,17:33   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 18 2017,15:24)
2) According to what definition of intelligence?

Quote
According to the definition that works for making best guess predictions like this:


This is not an answer to his question! When someone asks you what definition you are using, you can't just point to a guess and say "Whatever definition makes this random guess work. You tell me!".

I can't believe I even have to point this out. But as if that wasn't bad enough, the link with the random guess you threw in doesn't even have anything to do with this particular problem! It's you giving a completely nonsensical answer to the question how machines could understand human emotions without understanding language. (And promptly getting ignored, because of how nonsensical your answer is.)

And then you finish this whole intellectual fart with this:

Quote
using their Darwinian approved alternative "definition of intelligence" or whatever:


This one quote alone demonstrates so clearly that you have no concept of anything we are talking about here. It's like someone saying "...using euclidean approved alternative "definition of planets" or whatever."

It's not just that it's gibberish, it shows the speaker has missed fundamental knowledge of the subject in general, and the question in particular. We've been over this! I explained to you what the connection between intelligence, natural selection and the brain is! How are you still getting something THIS wrong?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2017,17:53   

From:
theoryofid.blogspot.com/
Quote
Behavior from a system or a device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: (1) A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle(s) including molecular actuators, motor proteins, speakers (linear actuator), write to a screen (arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). It is possible for biological intelligence to lose control of body muscles needed for movement yet still be aware of what is happening around itself but this is a condition that makes it impossible to survive on its own and will normally soon perish. (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 to meet immediate needs. (4) Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response is designed into the motor system by the reversing of motor direction causing it to “tumble” towards a new heading.


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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4812
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2017,19:51   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 22 2017,16:33)
How are you still getting something THIS wrong?

He's had lots of practice.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2017,20:19   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 30 2016,07:18)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2016,06:54)
How would that change my (based upon how intelligence works) operational definition for "intelligence"?
   
Quote
Behavior from a system or a device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: (1) A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle(s) including molecular actuators, motor proteins, speakers (linear actuator), write to a screen (arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). It is possible for biological intelligence to lose control of body muscles needed for movement yet still be aware of what is happening around itself but this is a condition that makes it impossible to survive on its own and will normally soon perish. (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 to meet immediate needs or goal. (4) Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response is designed into the motor system by the reversing of motor direction causing it to “tumble” towards a new heading.

That's not an operational definition, because it doesn't tell me how to measure the parameters.

It's not a valid theoretical definition either, because:

1) Requiring "a body to control" specifically excludes activities that are widely considered to epitomize intelligence (without redefining intelligence in any useful way), such as planning your future, evaluating your life, mentally composing a melody, etc., etc., etc.  
2) You are nonsensically special-pleading with respect to virtual bodies,  molecular actuators, speakers, writing to a screen, etc.
3) You haven't ground-truthed anything regarding any part of your #2.
4) Your 1 through 4 include Neato vacuum cleaners and autofocus cameras as being intelligent.
5) "Guessing" can be random and is not necessarily indicative of intelligence in action: assessing results and modifying subsequent behavior can be intelligent, but some cases may instead be handled thoughtlessly by biochemical reactions (e.g., tumbled seeds "figuring out" which way to grow; bacteria tumbling randomly and then biochemical reactions assess results and promote additional biochemical reactions).   Learning from experience gained from random guesses is more obviously indicative of intelligence, but you don't say that.

Those are just some of the highlights of your problems, not an exhaustive list.

We have explained countless times to you why that is a bunch of useless woo-woo. Here, I'll just quote the last time someone laid it out for you. You never got around to addressing these points, so maybe you want to take this opportunity to fix that oversight?

Otherwise don't bother copy-pasting your gibberish over and over.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2017,09:21   

Quote
Behavior from a system or a device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [...]


Getting ahead of yourself again, Gaulin.

You have first to show that there is a thing you call "molecular intelligence". First define what you mean and then, with scientific data and experiments, demonstrate this idea without it being just your assertion. As this is the first step in your "trinity" unless you can scientifically provide said evidence your wild "theory" falls at its first hurdle. Everything that follows after that can be dismissed as rubbish.

As has been pointed out on the various forums you pollute, what you are doing is not remotely connected to scientific research and in fact are the ravings of a god-obsessed IDist.

Feel free to ignore this as you usually do. But it blows any credibility you have remaining right out of the water.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2017,09:24   

I could have used the plural "fora" but didn't want to confuse Gaulin further with the English language.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2017,13:41   

Speaking of due credit to David Heiserman:

scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt=1,22&q=David+Heiserman+robot&hl=en

More to come.

--------------
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: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2017,20:23   

Quote
Speaking of due credit to David Heiserman:


We weren't. We were "speaking of" how your definition of intelligence isn't really a definition, and is outright nonsensical at many points. Before that, you literally pointed at a random guess and said "my definition of intelligence is whatever definition makes this guess work."

So, we are still at the point where you failed to define even the most rudimentary of concepts for your "theory". If you actively go out of your way to ignore everything we just said, you must know that you don't have an answer right?

It always confounds me, how you anti-science-advocates can apparently keep believing your nonsense, despite having to take conscious action to obfuscate, distract, weasel out of questions, and lie in order to maintain it.
Hell, ChemiCat even called it, that you would completely ignore what we wrote. And, literally the next thing you do....is ignore what we wrote. Do you have any self-awareness?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2017,21:32   

I found out about this in another forum:

www.salk.edu/news-release/salk-scientists-solve-longstanding-biological-mystery-dna-organization/

Guenter Albrecht-Buehler emailed back to say "Let's wait until we see how transcription factors find their proper places."

--------------
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: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2017,22:09   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 23 2017,20:23)
We were "speaking of" how your definition of intelligence isn't really a definition, and is outright nonsensical at many points.

Then all I can say is get used to it. Here's your Compressorhead Blitzkrieg Bop:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqE9zIp0Muk

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4812
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2017,22:49   

Good grief.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,03:58   

Quote
Then all I can say is get used to it. Here's your Compressorhead Blitzkrieg Bop:


Gaulin loses yet another round and resorts to crappy music videos.

 
Quote
I found out about this in another forum:


You may have "found out" about it but the odds are on you not understanding any of it. Nor learning anything from it.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,06:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 23 2017,13:41)
Speaking of due credit to David Heiserman:

scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt=1,22&q=David+Heiserman+robot&hl=en

More to come.

The most recent research citation I see there is from 2006. The reference to Heiserman consists of the following:

Quote

We next had AsaH control a robot in a
simulator (Fig. 2). (Heiserman, 1981 and
1982)


What a stunning amount of credit apportioned to Heiserman, that one might assess robotic controls in a simulator.  Of course, software test stations were an industry standard in aerospace long before Heiserman's books were published.

The 2014 article on the history of personal robots includes three citations to Heiserman, but no in-text mention of his name at all, and I don't even see any mention of Heiserman's robots in particular. There is a sentence about there existing various home-built robots.

As an attempt to demonstrate that the particular ideas Gary borrows from Heiserman are of current utility in the work of others, the Google Scholar search is a bust.

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

    
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,10:04   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 23 2017,22:09)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 23 2017,20:23)
We were "speaking of" how your definition of intelligence isn't really a definition, and is outright nonsensical at many points.

Then all I can say is get used to it. Here's your Compressorhead Blitzkrieg Bop:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqE9zIp0Muk

....Did Gaulin just tell us to get used to the fact that he is making no sense, and that he is gonna ignore us when we point that out?

That is honestly the most self-aware thing he has ever said! And it's hilarious! He even ended it with the obligatory pointless music video.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,10:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 15 2017,22:04)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 15 2017,20:08)
The 2010 paper mentions neither Heiserman nor Trehub.


All three are in entirely separate areas of study: Machine Intelligence, Psychology and Neuroscience. Hopefully you're not expecting the neuroscience paper to have to credit the same people I did.

I was the first to put all three together. Now includes YouTube sports arena wave videos to help understand a brain cell's perspective, what they need to together do to generate waves outwards from a single point of excitation in the network.

   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 15 2017,20:08)
Gary can't be bothered to begin to show that anyone besides himself has found any utility in the particular ideas he has co-opted to whatever minuscule degree as animation targets.


Showing current "utility" for David Heiserman is in the works, be patient. I had to first describe what is needed and do not know what others who were left out in the cold by the AI Winter might put together for you.

Quibbling over what is "old" or not has changed the topic to something other than what should under discussion. You are though helping to make it obvious that your Darwinian inspired models never produced anything comparable. If such a thing already existed then you would have presented it for testing, by now.

Establishing topicality, I will quote Gary:

   
Quote

And you only have old junk from the distant past on your side.


Tell us again, Gary, that "old" represents a change in topic. I'm fully prepared to remember *exactly* how "old" came into the discussion and remind everyone else of that, too.

If Gary chooses to put forth papers that don't actually demonstrate that others are finding current utility in the particular ideas he is relying upon, noting that those papers fail to do so is to the point.

Gary lashes out. That doesn't help establish he isn't relying on "old junk", either.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,11:19   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2017,06:19)
As an attempt to demonstrate that the particular ideas Gary borrows from Heiserman are of current utility in the work of others, the Google Scholar search is a bust.

I have to agree by saying: Google Scholar should have found much more.

I'm now working with others on the problem. Two publish in (very popular with MI experimenters) Servo.

--------------
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: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,13:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 24 2017,11:19)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2017,06:19)
As an attempt to demonstrate that the particular ideas Gary borrows from Heiserman are of current utility in the work of others, the Google Scholar search is a bust.

I have to agree by saying: Google Scholar should have found much more.

I'm now working with others on the problem. Two publish in (very popular with MI experimenters) Servo.

The issue is self-delusion. Anything Gary says that he has done or motivated himself cannot possibly speak to the current utility others find in the particular ideas Gary uses. Gary seems to have a persistent issue with not getting "others besides yourself".

This is even before we get to the issue of what "uses" means. Because Gary doesn't actually implement very much of what the people he cites have done, there may be a large discrepancy between what Gary claims to be using and what he actually uses. The prime examples in Gary's stuff being the complete lack of anything that looks like an implementation of a Trehub neural model (look, Ma, no comb filters!) and the complete absence of Heiserman "gamma" processes.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5237
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,14:42   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2017,13:02)
The prime examples in Gary's stuff being the complete lack of anything that looks like an implementation of a Trehub neural model (look, Ma, no comb filters!) and the complete absence of Heiserman "gamma" processes.

The simplified block diagram is representative of both "Beta" and "Gamma", as well as ONE ILLUSTRATION from Arnold Trehub showing the same basic interconnections. There should be no issue with my crediting who I learned it from, and evidence that the system will also work for generating human level intelligence.

I am not obligated to prove that every prediction that the authors ever made are all true. I already have way more work than I can finish in one lifetime and should now be working on the ID Lab.

--------------
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: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,15:20   

Quote
...and evidence that the system will also work for generating human level intelligence.


Where is this much-vaunted evidence? It has been singularly lacking despite repeated requests for you to present it.

Make sure it is scientific evidence that can be empirically examined and not your usual baseless assertions.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4812
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2017,16:47   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 24 2017,09:04)
That is honestly the most self-aware thing he has ever said!

And at the time, he probably wasn't even aware of it! :p

  
  18218 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (608) < ... 596 597 598 599 600 [601] 602 603 604 605 606 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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