RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (608) < ... 598 599 600 601 602 [603] 604 605 606 607 608 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2017,21:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2017,21:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 28 2017,20:50)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2017,20:37)
I've quoted Heiserman on Gamma and how he describes it as making "educated guesses", and I've pointed out where Heiserman's flowcharts and explication for Beta lay out random choice and do not say "guess".

How David Heiserman describes Gamma as making "educated guesses" does not make it wrong to call a mechanism that generates a random response (when it needs to take a guess) a "GUESS" in a circuit that I had to draw, based upon ALL applicable models that parallel Heiserman's

You are going in circles in order to make it appear that you have a valid argument. Mudslinger......

Reiterating the point that Gary (1) relies on Heiserman but (2) gets Heiserman *wrong* is not a circle.

Then you should have no problem proving that the David Heiserman Beta and Gamma is not at the most fundamental level: a sensory addressed RAM where 2 bit motor controls and confidence levels are stored in Data by a random response/choice guess mechanism for taking a "guess" when its confidence level in a given response is zero.

--------------
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: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2017,02:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 28 2017,21:50)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2017,21:19)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 28 2017,20:50)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2017,20:37)
I've quoted Heiserman on Gamma and how he describes it as making "educated guesses", and I've pointed out where Heiserman's flowcharts and explication for Beta lay out random choice and do not say "guess".

How David Heiserman describes Gamma as making "educated guesses" does not make it wrong to call a mechanism that generates a random response (when it needs to take a guess) a "GUESS" in a circuit that I had to draw, based upon ALL applicable models that parallel Heiserman's

You are going in circles in order to make it appear that you have a valid argument. Mudslinger......

Reiterating the point that Gary (1) relies on Heiserman but (2) gets Heiserman *wrong* is not a circle.

Then you should have no problem proving that the David Heiserman Beta and Gamma is not at the most fundamental level: a sensory addressed RAM where 2 bit motor controls and confidence levels are stored in Data by a random response/choice guess mechanism for taking a "guess" when its confidence level in a given response is zero.


Trivially, Gary is wrong even in his attempted misdirection. In his haste to reduce things, Gary has overlooked Heiserman's initialization of stored actions to "stop code", which also induces random choice of an alternative. I've even quoted the relevant bit recently:

 
Quote


The next step is to determine whether or not the motion code fetched from memory is valid. For the purposes of the present demonstration, the only invalid motion response is a stop code -- the code entered into all sections of the Beta memory during the INITIALIZE BETA SYSTEM operation.

If it turns out that the motion code picked up from Beta memory is invalid (a stop code), the system resorts to a bit of Alpha-like behavior and picks up a randomly generated motion code. That new motion code is then tested for validity. If it, too, is invalid, the system picks up another random motion code.

Sooner or later, the system finds a valid motion-code response to the current contact situation. The more first-hand experience the Beta has undergone in its environment, the greater the likelihood the response picked up from Beta memory will be valid.


I've already noted various other places where Gary's statements about Heiserman have simply been wrong. Gary doesn't dispute those. They still stand. Like this one:

     
Quote

Gary:
     
Quote

Having a "Gamma" subroutine altering the contents of memory for systems that must have no changes made at all would just cause conflicts that crash the system.


It should come as no surprise to anyone that Gary's statement above is directly contradicted by Heiserman on pp.21 and 281 of his "Robot Intelligence" book.

     
Quote


Those Gamma-generated responses are bits and pieces of knowledge gained at various stages of its earlier life. The conjectured response is immediately tried whenever the occasion arises. If this response happens to work, the creature's confidence grows and it has additional information for firming up its notions about dealing with other future events. But in the event a conjectured response is partly or, in some instances, altogether wrong, the creature resorts to Alpha reflex activity.

The memory of a Gamma-class robot is in a state of continuous fluctuation and change, at least as long as it is interacting with a rich and dynamic environment. Put the machine into a sterile environment and you will find very little Gamma activity taking place. As a result, the creature will be largely unprepared to deal with unforeseen circumstances.


p. 281:

 
     
Quote


So portions of the creature's memory that carry confidence levels of 0 or 1 are loaded with suggested components of motion codes compiled in an earlier part of the subroutine. Responses carrying confidence levels of 2 or greater are not affected at all by the GAMMA FUNCTION subroutine.


In other words, a Gamma-class robot will never perform at a level lower than Beta-class, as it uses exactly the same fallback for handling incorrect responses. Heiserman also never envisaged Gamma processes as overturning good experience in his robots, contrary to Gary's claim. Gary has railed against people for dissing Heiserman in the past, but here we see Gary himself engage in clearly unwarranted critique of Heiserman. Plus, the "crash the system" part is ludicrous; the worst thing that ever happens in one of these systems is that an incorrect move is made, and that is handled without any such thing as a system crash. Gary will not be able to show that any such thing is justifiable on the basis of Heiserman's books.

So much for staying true to Heiserman; Gary doesn't even understand what Heiserman was saying.


Gary has "guess (not mutate)" as part of his discussion. His latest bit above shows definitively that he cannot base that on Heiserman, as all he now claims is that his connotation of "guess" is simply random choice. It has taken a while, but here we have it from Gary that he has no other basis for his "guess (not mutate)" phrasing than himself. He cannot claim Heiserman as his authority for "guess (not mutate)" because he has specifically repudiated using the only part of Heiserman's work that might possibly differ from random mutation. Thanks, Gary!

And, of course, Gary still has done nothing toward showing that he does not himself rely on "old junk".

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2017,06:44   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 29 2017,02:43)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 28 2017,21:50)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2017,21:19)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 28 2017,20:50)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2017,20:37)
I've quoted Heiserman on Gamma and how he describes it as making "educated guesses", and I've pointed out where Heiserman's flowcharts and explication for Beta lay out random choice and do not say "guess".

How David Heiserman describes Gamma as making "educated guesses" does not make it wrong to call a mechanism that generates a random response (when it needs to take a guess) a "GUESS" in a circuit that I had to draw, based upon ALL applicable models that parallel Heiserman's

You are going in circles in order to make it appear that you have a valid argument. Mudslinger......

Reiterating the point that Gary (1) relies on Heiserman but (2) gets Heiserman *wrong* is not a circle.

Then you should have no problem proving that the David Heiserman Beta and Gamma is not at the most fundamental level: a sensory addressed RAM where 2 bit motor controls and confidence levels are stored in Data by a random response/choice guess mechanism for taking a "guess" when its confidence level in a given response is zero.


Trivially, Gary is wrong even in his attempted misdirection. In his haste to reduce things, Gary has overlooked Heiserman's initialization of stored actions to "stop code", which also induces random choice of an alternative. I've even quoted the relevant bit recently:

   
Quote


The next step is to determine whether or not the motion code fetched from memory is valid. For the purposes of the present demonstration, the only invalid motion response is a stop code -- the code entered into all sections of the Beta memory during the INITIALIZE BETA SYSTEM operation.

If it turns out that the motion code picked up from Beta memory is invalid (a stop code), the system resorts to a bit of Alpha-like behavior and picks up a randomly generated motion code. That new motion code is then tested for validity. If it, too, is invalid, the system picks up another random motion code.

Sooner or later, the system finds a valid motion-code response to the current contact situation. The more first-hand experience the Beta has undergone in its environment, the greater the likelihood the response picked up from Beta memory will be valid.

A "stop code" is simply when the two bit motor controls cause the robot to stop moving. That does not change the fundamental circuit. And animals can stop in one place, be still.

You proved nothing.

--------------
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: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2017,14:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 29 2017,06:44)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 29 2017,02:43)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 28 2017,21:50)
             
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2017,21:19)
               
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 28 2017,20:50)
               
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2017,20:37)
I've quoted Heiserman on Gamma and how he describes it as making "educated guesses", and I've pointed out where Heiserman's flowcharts and explication for Beta lay out random choice and do not say "guess".

How David Heiserman describes Gamma as making "educated guesses" does not make it wrong to call a mechanism that generates a random response (when it needs to take a guess) a "GUESS" in a circuit that I had to draw, based upon ALL applicable models that parallel Heiserman's

You are going in circles in order to make it appear that you have a valid argument. Mudslinger......

Reiterating the point that Gary (1) relies on Heiserman but (2) gets Heiserman *wrong* is not a circle.

Then you should have no problem proving that the David Heiserman Beta and Gamma is not at the most fundamental level: a sensory addressed RAM where 2 bit motor controls and confidence levels are stored in Data by a random response/choice guess mechanism for taking a "guess" when its confidence level in a given response is zero.


Trivially, Gary is wrong even in his attempted misdirection. In his haste to reduce things, Gary has overlooked Heiserman's initialization of stored actions to "stop code", which also induces random choice of an alternative. I've even quoted the relevant bit recently:

         
Quote


The next step is to determine whether or not the motion code fetched from memory is valid. For the purposes of the present demonstration, the only invalid motion response is a stop code -- the code entered into all sections of the Beta memory during the INITIALIZE BETA SYSTEM operation.

If it turns out that the motion code picked up from Beta memory is invalid (a stop code), the system resorts to a bit of Alpha-like behavior and picks up a randomly generated motion code. That new motion code is then tested for validity. If it, too, is invalid, the system picks up another random motion code.

Sooner or later, the system finds a valid motion-code response to the current contact situation. The more first-hand experience the Beta has undergone in its environment, the greater the likelihood the response picked up from Beta memory will be valid.

A "stop code" is simply when the two bit motor controls cause the robot to stop moving. That does not change the fundamental circuit. And animals can stop in one place, be still.

You proved nothing.


Other than that Gary can't be trusted to correctly summarize information from the sources he cites. Oh, and that Gary was absolutely, totally wrong about the stuff he didn't bother to quote or respond to.

I'll submit an alternative: Gary has learned nothing. There is a difference.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2017,15:14   

Now that I got out of work a little early I can add that in final testing of a new ID Lab I take out the 2 bit stop codes (binary 00 or 11) for each of the two motor systems by changing the way a random guess is taken:  
Code Sample

MtrRv = Fix(Rnd + 0.5)
MtrFw = Fix(Rnd + 0.5)

To this:
Code Sample

MtrRv = Fix(Rnd + 0.5)
MtrFw = 1 - MtrRv  

This way the guess mechanism guesses one of the two motion codes, binary 01 or 10, instead of having to guess again when 00 or 11.

Taking out the stop codes causes it to learn how to alternately move one way then the other in order to stay in one place, which is the way "opposing muscle" systems maintain enough "stress" to stiffen limbs enough to stay standing. Where muscles "stop" while standing the person falls limp to the ground.

There is normally little difference in performance, in part because of the ID Lab critters now having an accelerating forward/reverse (next one will have accelerating left/right) that (except for slowest speed) takes more than one timestep to stop. Either way the Beta circuit easily learns how to slow down ahead of time.

--------------
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: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2017,12:45   

Every now and again Gary bitches about science being a closed shop restricted to credentialed academics.  We correct this, and point out that plenty of amateurs manage to make valuable contributions to science.  

This weekend's NPR TED Talks at http://www.npr.org/program....science had a great program on amateur scientists and their considerable contributions.

However, they are only able to make contributions if they are doing actual science, unlike Gary's pointless forays into pseudoscience.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2017,15:44   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 30 2017,12:45)
Every now and again Gary bitches about science being a closed shop restricted to credentialed academics.  We correct this, and point out that plenty of amateurs manage to make valuable contributions to science.  

Then "citizens science" is now ahead of "non-citizen science" in explaining the most important fundamental basics of how our brains work. But in this case I do not foresee a thank you, just more slaps in the face for having done so.

--------------
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. 30 2017,16:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 30 2017,15:44)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 30 2017,12:45)
Every now and again Gary bitches about science being a closed shop restricted to credentialed academics.  We correct this, and point out that plenty of amateurs manage to make valuable contributions to science.  

Then "citizens science" is now ahead of "non-citizen science" in explaining the most important fundamental basics of how our brains work. But in this case I do not foresee a thank you, just more slaps in the face for having done so.

Oh wow, an amateur without scientific training is "ahead of [professional scientists] in explaining the most fundamental basics of how our brains work?" This is amazing, especially considering how well we already understand those basics! By all means, please show me the paper where that amateurs findings are published? Which peer-reviewed journal published them, I could look it up for myself!


....Wait.... You aren't talking about yourself now, Gary, are you? No, of course not, we all know you have never had your gibberish "theory" published, and even outright reject the scientific method - And N.Wells JUST finished explaining to you that even amateurs go through just that whenever they do make actual contributions to science. He also pointed out that those people do actual science, whereas everyone who has ever looked at your woo-woo has told you that it's pseudoscience at best. In fact, that is the very reason why you rejected the scientific method in the first place, because you understood that it could never ever pass peer review.

So, yeah, obviously you couldn't be talking about yourself, sorry for the derailed train of thought. Well then, please show us the paper of this amateur you were talking about.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2017,22:35   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 30 2017,16:44)
Oh wow, an amateur without scientific training is "ahead of [professional scientists] in explaining the most fundamental basics of how our brains work?" This is amazing, especially considering how well we already understand those basics! By all means, please show me the paper where that amateurs findings are published? Which peer-reviewed journal published them, I could look it up for myself!

I can now announce that Wesley's need for more evidence that others besides myself found "utility" in David Heiserman's methodology has thus far led to Camp directing me to a very experienced educator who was also influenced enough by him for the influence to be obvious in their work, who then contacted the publisher in regards to our sharing an excellent article he wrote, which resulted in their agreeing to post this on their website so it will be open access to everyone!

EXPERIMENTING WITH MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
www.servomagazine.com/index.php/magazine/article/October2013_Blankenship

And so you'll have his words exactly this is what John Blankenship said to me via email:
   
Quote
I have often found that many see new ideas, especially those that are presented in a simple and precise manner, as trivial. It often seems to me that those in power often like to make their work seem as complex as possible.  I know that my work in many cases is far from cutting edge, but I do feel there are merits of many of the ideas that could be utilized in more high-end approaches. For me, most of my goals are to entice students into the field, to create passion and desire, to build a future that often looks bleak in current days.


From my perspective "amateurs" are those who do not know what robotic engineers, programmers and others who are actually working on your future robot overlords have long been reading and learning their basics from.

--------------
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: 457
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,02:30   

Quote

I have often found that many see new ideas, especially those that are presented in a simple and precise manner, as trivial.


But,Gaulin, your "ideas" are not simple or precise. They are a mish-mash of bad English with no science attached.

You cargo cult science is so far behind trivial that it hasn't even left the starting line.

Get back to us when you have a way of determining "molecular intelligence", you know the first step in your rubbish where it fails completely.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,06:10   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 01 2017,02:30)
Quote

I have often found that many see new ideas, especially those that are presented in a simple and precise manner, as trivial.


But,Gaulin, your "ideas" are not simple or precise. They are a mish-mash of bad English with no science attached.

You cargo cult science is so far behind trivial that it hasn't even left the starting line.

Get back to us when you have a way of determining "molecular intelligence", you know the first step in your rubbish where it fails completely.

Running backwards, even.  False pseudoscience is far worse than "We don't know."
"Wrong Way Gaulin."

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,06:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 30 2017,22:35)
 
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 30 2017,16:44)
Oh wow, an amateur without scientific training is "ahead of [professional scientists] in explaining the most fundamental basics of how our brains work?" This is amazing, especially considering how well we already understand those basics! By all means, please show me the paper where that amateurs findings are published? Which peer-reviewed journal published them, I could look it up for myself!

I can now announce that Wesley's need for more evidence that others besides myself found "utility" in David Heiserman's methodology has thus far led to Camp directing me to a very experienced educator who was also influenced enough by him for the influence to be obvious in their work, who then contacted the publisher in regards to our sharing an excellent article he wrote, which resulted in their agreeing to post this on their website so it will be open access to everyone!

EXPERIMENTING WITH MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
www.servomagazine.com/index.php/magazine/article/October2013_Blankenship

And so you'll have his words exactly this is what John Blankenship said to me via email:
     
Quote
I have often found that many see new ideas, especially those that are presented in a simple and precise manner, as trivial. It often seems to me that those in power often like to make their work seem as complex as possible.  I know that my work in many cases is far from cutting edge, but I do feel there are merits of many of the ideas that could be utilized in more high-end approaches. For me, most of my goals are to entice students into the field, to create passion and desire, to build a future that often looks bleak in current days.


From my perspective "amateurs" are those who do not know what robotic engineers, programmers and others who are actually working on your future robot overlords have long been reading and learning their basics from.

http://www.servomagazine.com/index.p....kenship

That's an interesting article with some obvious similarities to what you do.

However, there are some important differences.  

1) It's readable and comprehensible.

2) He starts by considering valid and justifiable definitions.
 
Quote
If you examine dictionaries and encyclopedias, you can find many definitions of artificial or machine-based intelligence. Depending on who you ask, here are a few of the definitions you might find:
   Solving problems through the utilization of sensory capabilities.
   The ability to make decisions based on past experiences.
   Reacting appropriately in the face of insufficient or conflicting information.
   The ability to adapt to a changing environment.
   Behavior demonstrating deduction, inference, and creativity.
The first of these definitions would attribute at least some level of intelligence to many of the robots you might see at a robotics club meeting. The last definition implies that intelligence must demonstrate human-like qualities — which allows many hard-liners to argue that machines can never attain true intelligence.  The goal of this article is to explore an option in between these two extremes.


3) He doesn't immediately leap to ridiculous and unjustified claims beyond the scope of what he is doing.  He doesn't claim to be supporting "intelligent design", disproving natural selection, or showing how intelligence evolved.  He doesn't lard up his writing with obvious falsities such as bugs having hippocampi, salmon exemplifying parental devotion, baby crocodiles scurrying into their mothers' mouths in times of danger, and lengths of giraffes' throats relating to the noises they make.  He starts and stops with navigation by robots & questions of AI.  

4) He constrains his work so that his arguments don't need ground-truthing in nature.

The existence of his work may in part answer Wesley's question about who still uses Heiserman's work, but it doesn't lend you significance or validate your larger claims.



There was a nice article on recent advances in bat navigation in the latest Science News.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,15:15   

John, it looks like you will soon see why I keep ending up back at Wesley's forum from hell. In this one almost everything becomes a major source of debate, especially the fact that cognitive MI algorithms do not work by environmental "natural selection" acting upon genetic "mutation" therefore what its "theory" and models derived from it explain is "not an undirected process such as natural selection."

I do not want to have to point out that the not condition in the premise for the theory this forum exists to destroy is that way satisfied. But for the sake of science and science education someone has to do it. So here I am, again..

--------------
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: Oct. 01 2017,19:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 01 2017,15:15)
John, it looks like you will soon see why I keep ending up back at Wesley's forum from hell. In this one almost everything becomes a major source of debate, especially the fact that cognitive MI algorithms do not work by environmental "natural selection" acting upon genetic "mutation" therefore what its "theory" and models derived from it explain is "not an undirected process such as natural selection."

I do not want to have to point out that the not condition in the premise for the theory this forum exists to destroy is that way satisfied. But for the sake of science and science education someone has to do it. So here I am, again..

Can we please get a gibberish-translator for this?
Even for Gary, this is off the rails, there is not even a semblance of connection to anything.

Gary made responded to a comment that tore away his victim role, as an oppressed amateur of science, which in turn got absolutely dismantled by everyone. (Not surprising, since he demonstrably missed the entire point about the reason WHY his ant-science is universally rejected. But that's just par of the course for him.)

But then....came this, and I genuinely can't find any logical connection to anything that was said before. Just look at this sentence:

Quote
I do not want to have to point out that the not condition in the premise for the theory this forum exists to destroy is that way satisfied.


I read it several times, and it's not that I think it's wrong, or the content is nonsensical, I have no idea what he wants to say, it's like a program that randomly strings words together.

Oh well, at least he admitted yet another defeat via music-video, so that's nice. But still, I would love a translation of the rest.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,19:23   

Update:

After reading it about ten more times, I think I figured out what this  horrible perversion of an english sentence was supposed to say.

He means that his rejection of natural selection is justified, because code is not natural selection. Therefore in his mind, if he can show to do something with code, he has shown that it doesn't need natural selection, which -in his feverish psyche- means it's shown to be "best explained by an intelligent designer".

It's still among the stupidest things he has ever said, but at least now I understood the actual stupid thing he wanted to convey.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,19:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 30 2017,22:35)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 30 2017,16:44)
Oh wow, an amateur without scientific training is "ahead of [professional scientists] in explaining the most fundamental basics of how our brains work?" This is amazing, especially considering how well we already understand those basics! By all means, please show me the paper where that amateurs findings are published? Which peer-reviewed journal published them, I could look it up for myself!

I can now announce that Wesley's need for more evidence that others besides myself found "utility" in David Heiserman's methodology has thus far led to Camp directing me to a very experienced educator who was also influenced enough by him for the influence to be obvious in their work, who then contacted the publisher in regards to our sharing an excellent article he wrote, which resulted in their agreeing to post this on their website so it will be open access to everyone!

EXPERIMENTING WITH MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
www.servomagazine.com/index.php/magazine/article/October2013_Blankenship

And so you'll have his words exactly this is what John Blankenship said to me via email:
     
Quote
I have often found that many see new ideas, especially those that are presented in a simple and precise manner, as trivial. It often seems to me that those in power often like to make their work seem as complex as possible.  I know that my work in many cases is far from cutting edge, but I do feel there are merits of many of the ideas that could be utilized in more high-end approaches. For me, most of my goals are to entice students into the field, to create passion and desire, to build a future that often looks bleak in current days.


From my perspective "amateurs" are those who do not know what robotic engineers, programmers and others who are actually working on your future robot overlords have long been reading and learning their basics from.

And we still don't know, because Blankenship failed to cite or credit any earlier work in that article. One comment mentions Heiserman as something that Blankenship's work reminds him of.

So just as Gary goes with "Let's pretend!" animations, his approach to scholarship similarly consists of "Let's pretend that I have supported my argument!"

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

    
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,20:23   

Maybe he's confusing the origin of pieces of computer code with the origin of biological intelligence?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,20:46   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 01 2017,19:23)
He means that his rejection of natural selection is justified, because code is not natural selection. Therefore in his mind, if he can show to do something with code, he has shown that it doesn't need natural selection, which -in his feverish psyche- means it's shown to be "best explained by an intelligent designer".

The way it works out is that there are then two sources of model/theory based evidence for origin by morphological development over time (evolution) instead of one. Each requires their own required variables, so I keep them separated. Your inability to do so is not my problem.

And please stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause". You could have at least saved yourself some typing by making a copy/paste from my signature line, instead of trying to go it alone.

--------------
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: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,21:27   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 01 2017,19:56)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 30 2017,22:35)
   
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 30 2017,16:44)
Oh wow, an amateur without scientific training is "ahead of [professional scientists] in explaining the most fundamental basics of how our brains work?" This is amazing, especially considering how well we already understand those basics! By all means, please show me the paper where that amateurs findings are published? Which peer-reviewed journal published them, I could look it up for myself!

I can now announce that Wesley's need for more evidence that others besides myself found "utility" in David Heiserman's methodology has thus far led to Camp directing me to a very experienced educator who was also influenced enough by him for the influence to be obvious in their work, who then contacted the publisher in regards to our sharing an excellent article he wrote, which resulted in their agreeing to post this on their website so it will be open access to everyone!

EXPERIMENTING WITH MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
www.servomagazine.com/index.php/magazine/article/October2013_Blankenship

And so you'll have his words exactly this is what John Blankenship said to me via email:
       
Quote
I have often found that many see new ideas, especially those that are presented in a simple and precise manner, as trivial. It often seems to me that those in power often like to make their work seem as complex as possible.  I know that my work in many cases is far from cutting edge, but I do feel there are merits of many of the ideas that could be utilized in more high-end approaches. For me, most of my goals are to entice students into the field, to create passion and desire, to build a future that often looks bleak in current days.


From my perspective "amateurs" are those who do not know what robotic engineers, programmers and others who are actually working on your future robot overlords have long been reading and learning their basics from.

And we still don't know, because Blankenship failed to cite or credit any earlier work in that article. One comment mentions Heiserman as something that Blankenship's work reminds him of.

.........

Well then here are John's exact words, to Camp (who was left wondering) and I:

 
Quote
I certainly read some of David's books back in the day and I am sure they had influences on me.  He was certainly ahead of his time but I do remember thinking mostly of how I would improve on his work as I read his books.


I too started thinking of ways to improve upon David's work, then did. Fate in turn led me to here.

Anyway, is that enough yet?

--------------
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: 2592
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2017,23:23   

Actually, GinGout's work is more akin to Kenny Blankenship's.

--------------
"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: 457
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2017,09:15   

Quote
And please stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


So "intelligent cause" doesn't have an "Intelligent designer" (peace be unto him)? So is it designed by committee, which would explain a lot, or is there no "cause" inside the material universe? Is this "cause" transcendent or non-existent?

Perhaps you can force your Methodist god in there as the cause but then you would have to provide testable evidence. Oh! that's right, you don't provide said evidence. The second rule of Gaulin thread.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2017,14:10   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 03 2017,09:15)
Quote
And please stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


So "intelligent cause" doesn't have an "Intelligent designer" (peace be unto him)? So is it designed by committee, which would explain a lot, or is there no "cause" inside the material universe? Is this "cause" transcendent or non-existent?

Perhaps you can force your Methodist god in there as the cause but then you would have to provide testable evidence. Oh! that's right, you don't provide said evidence. The second rule of Gaulin thread.

And in addition to that, the very sentence started with "the theory of intelligent Design"....

But yeah, the muddled differences aside, Gaulin completely missed my actual criticism. Because what I said is valid no matter if you use the word "designer" or "cause", it literally makes no difference for the point I was making. But I think he remembers someone saying "moving the goalposts", and without really understanding what it was, thought he could just throw this in to shut down an argument he can't refute.

As a reminder to Gary: What I pointed out was that your "logic" on how you claimed to get rid of natural selection and replace it with an intelligence was very very faulty. (Note how it makes no difference if this is an intelligent cause or designer, even if you should ever bother make a proper distinction.)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2017,17:48   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 03 2017,14:10)
So "intelligent cause" doesn't have an "Intelligent designer" (peace be unto him)? So is it designed by committee, which would explain a lot, or is there no "cause" inside the material universe? Is this "cause" transcendent or non-existent?
.....

And in addition to that, the very sentence started with "the theory of intelligent Design"....

Well then here's a scientific theory for explaining the primordial deity of the Earth, Goddess Gaia:

www.gaiatheory.org/overview/

--------------
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: 457
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,06:26   

Quote
Well then here's a scientific theory for explaining the primordial deity of the Earth, Goddess Gaia:

www.gaiatheory.org/overview/


I see your problem now Gaulin. You do not know or understand what a "scientific theory" is. In your world anything made up and presented in pseudo-scientific terms like "paradigm" becomes a scientific theory. Anything with science in the title, like the "science" of theology is a scientific theory. A "scientific theory" is on the level of a guess to you, hence your continued mistaken usage of guess to mean a biological function.

Your lack of understanding is why you keep on trying to force your Methodist god into science.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,09:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 03 2017,17:48)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 03 2017,14:10)
So "intelligent cause" doesn't have an "Intelligent designer" (peace be unto him)? So is it designed by committee, which would explain a lot, or is there no "cause" inside the material universe? Is this "cause" transcendent or non-existent?
.....

And in addition to that, the very sentence started with "the theory of intelligent Design"....

Well then here's a scientific theory for explaining the primordial deity of the Earth, Goddess Gaia:

www.gaiatheory.org/overview/

This post is either irrelevant, nonsensical, or flat out wrong. In order for me to pick which one it is, I need you to answer this question:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"; and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things".

I really can't see any possible answer you could give that would make your last comment a sensible response, but based on your answer, I can at least accurately say if you were being stupid, irrelevant or purposefully deceiving. :)

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2592
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,12:39   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Oct. 04 2017,07:54)
 
This post is either irrelevant, nonsensical, or flat out wrong. In order for me to pick which one it is, I need you to answer this question:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"; and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things".

I really can't see any possible answer you could give that would make your last comment a sensible response, but based on your answer, I can at least accurately say if you were being stupid, irrelevant or purposefully deceiving. :)



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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,14:39   

Never judge a book by its cover. Likewise: Never judge a theory by its title.

This simple to understand concept is vital to the fate of the premise in which what is titled "theory of intelligent design" is called for, or else the premise requiring the said theory cannot be model tested to be true.

Making exceptions sets a bad example, foolish. It's necessary for me to not help others to do so by my taking their ridiculous demands seriously.

--------------
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: Oct. 04 2017,14:59   

Yesyes, bunch of aggrandizing and gibberish, got it, now please answer this question:

What exactly is the difference between an intelligent cause, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things"; and an intelligent designer, purposefully directing efforts towards "certain features of the universe and of living things".

You yourself were very clear that there is a distinction, even when the distinction didn't actually matter in the least.
And you yourself state that there is some (undefined) intelligent cause responsible for "certain features of the universe and of living things".

So by your very own words, you made it clear that this is relevant.
So answer the question already, for once in your life. (Or just admit utter defeat, like you always do.)

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,15:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 04 2017,14:39)
Never judge a book by its cover. Likewise: Never judge a theory by its title.

This simple to understand concept is vital to the fate of the premise in which what is titled "theory of intelligent design" is called for, or else the premise requiring the said theory cannot be model tested to be true.

Making exceptions sets a bad example, foolish. It's necessary for me to not help others to do so by my taking their ridiculous demands seriously.

"Never judge a book by its cover"

Well, yes and no.  In this too-busy world, people have to make decisions about what to pay attention to, so people do end up judging books by their covers.  If someone wrote a cook book and named it "Why Hitler Was A Great Man" and had a cover picture of a giant steaming turd, most people would probably decide that the author was too much of a loon to have written a cookbook that merited further investigation.  

Your naming your not-a-theory after a steaming pile of pseudoscience and immediately identifying a premise that is too vague to be useful but reeks of assuming your conclusions, and following that up with a self-contradictory assertion that an emergent property is evidence of design is pretty much the equivalent of the turd on the cover.

Quote
in which what is titled "theory of intelligent design" is called for, or else the premise requiring the said theory cannot be model tested to be true.

Making exceptions sets a bad example, foolish. It's necessary for me to not help others to do so by my taking their ridiculous demands seriously.
 
That is sufficiently poorly written that I cannot be certain what you are trying to say.  Your thing is not a theory, a premise does not require a theory, I haven't seen anyone other than you making ridiculous demands, and your ideas will go nowhere until you can answer the criticisms that people have raised.  You've been to enough different venues to try to push your hogwash, but wherever you go everyone sees much the same flaws in your work, so at some point parsimony should suggest that the problem is not them but you.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2017,15:45   

Maybe he doesn't like parsimony?

  
  18216 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (608) < ... 598 599 600 601 602 [603] 604 605 606 607 608 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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