RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (619) < ... 607 608 609 610 611 [612] 613 614 615 616 617 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2018,19:50   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 14 2018,12:54)
 
Quote
instead of adherence to testable scientific theories that explain how we were in fact "created".

You do not have a testable scientific theory.  Go on - propose some valid tests for your major claims, and demonstrate how they constitute actual valid tests.

Minutes ago I had to propose some valid tests for my (and all other's) major claims expected to be applicable to models at all "levels of intelligence" while I was adding information to a thread for modeling V1 and related circuitry. The theme song ending was of course optional:

discourse.numenta.org/t/project-full-layer-v1-using-htm-insights/3771/10

At the present time the ID Lab is being coded into a number of different languages. It's receiving praise online and through email from serious experimenters/researchers. Their feedback has been helpful getting the model ready for a place like Planet Source Code where there is also the added challenge of accurately describing what it is.

If there is a paper on this part of my theory then I'm at this point happy with a group effort with my ideas combined, to let other groups of experimenters know what's going on at Numenta where I'm thrilled to be a welcomed part of their open source community. Its founders endured the same criticism I did for going against once prevailing ANN claims and ironically did so with what is like a David Heiserman Beta class with RAM system on steroids that does not normally need to take random guesses and can about as well as we can "predict" what the motor data should be to achieve a given outcome such as what's given by the spatial network.

There is too much science terrain to all by myself cover. I'm therefore empowering those who are entirely focused on the same thing I am in regards to a general public friendly model for the human brain and all else in the animal kingdom.

Jeff Hawkins is a carbon copy personality of Jerry Poch, who owned PoChemco and when young I spent many hours with getting excited by the latest chemistry breakthrough including cold-fusion that later did not seem to be worth the palladium but was fun to include in the mix including ozone having been found to be an excellent antimicrobial agent. My still looking good chemical rack about 3 feet tall and little over 2 wide with mostly the ingredients for living things and biological analysis has the PoChemco labels still well attached, some of which I long ago printed and sure don't want those to have been the fall-off kind. I would get interested in the same kind of experiments he liked and he made sure I had the right supplies, by taking small amounts he didn't need money for from his mostly biochemically related ingredients used in his lab products. I was happy to be of help, such as super ozonator I by electronic instinct made with two glass spaced glass plates and oil burner transformer where the (made me nervous but was assured to be safe) pure O2 being pumped through becomes dielectrically broken down to become O3 that sterilized mostly single use ampule products, without need for antimicrobial agents best left out of the formula. It could blow out when overpressurized but the copper foil on the outside acted like a safety glass covering and was easy to make an even better one after the first did well to prove that it works good. Other designs put the high voltage inside with the gas flow and when there is a siphoning back to pump fills water and you know how the two don't mix. Safer to have glass between the two. And the way it was visibly overbombarding the O2 made it like there's no way to beat that, and he made good use of my gizmo for vats full of products.

For Jeff it's not an ozonator but more or less the same thing where there is something I do understand to try out. It's the science world I knew from while growing up that the internet has made global where someone like myself is then likely to be found with someone like Jerry who could put what I have spread out on a workbench into serious action. My being useful back made it no problem to keep experiments going. These days I mostly experiment with computational neuroscience related models, thrive on what Numenta supplies for ingredients.

As in even the W I Don't Know days I'm in my element when boldly "in the name of science" developing new electronic technologies. The new yet undeveloped frontier are scientific forums where there is the right mix of people to make breakthroughs happen. Even with announcement in science papers for a mouse brain collaboration I was hopeful for that attracted too few and Google supported open source community for AI programmers not much really happens as a result. But it takes only one great success to break the mold, and I want to be there when one finally does.

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2018,20:17   

Quote
It's receiving praise online and through email from serious experimenters/researchers
 
Assuming facts not in evidence.

 
Quote
where there is also the added challenge of accurately describing what it is.

Not to mention the challenge of describing it in comprehensible English.

Sadly, here's the closest you are likely to get to broken mold:
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-p....9520975
https://www.google.com/imgres?....&uact=8

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2018,03:21   

Quote
Jeff Hawkins is a carbon copy personality of Jerry Poch, who owned PoChemco and when young I spent many hours with getting excited by the latest chemistry breakthrough including cold-fusion that later did not seem to be worth the palladium but was fun to include in the mix including ozone having been found to be an excellent antimicrobial agent. My still looking good chemical rack about 3 feet tall and little over 2 wide with mostly the ingredients for living things and biological analysis has the PoChemco labels still well attached, some of which I long ago printed and sure don't want those to have been the fall-off kind. I would get interested in the same kind of experiments he liked and he made sure I had the right supplies, by taking small amounts he didn't need money for from his mostly biochemically related ingredients used in his lab products. I was happy to be of help, such as super ozonator I by electronic instinct made with two glass spaced glass plates and oil burner transformer where the (made me nervous but was assured to be safe) pure O2 being pumped through becomes dielectrically broken down to become O3 that sterilized mostly single use ampule products, without need for antimicrobial agents best left out of the formula. It could blow out when overpressurized but the copper foil on the outside acted like a safety glass covering and was easy to make an even better one after the first did well to prove that it works good. Other designs put the high voltage inside with the gas flow and when there is a siphoning back to pump fills water and you know how the two don't mix. Safer to have glass between the two. And the way it was visibly overbombarding the O2 made it like there's no way to beat that, and he made good use of my gizmo for vats full of products.


I am sure that on some obscure little planet far beyond this one that this makes sense.

On this one, not a bit.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2018,03:28   

Quote
Minutes ago I had to propose some valid tests for my (and all other's) major claims expected to be applicable to models at all "levels of intelligence" while I was adding information to a thread for modeling V1 and related circuitry. The theme song ending was of course optional:


So where are these "valid tests"? You have been asked to state them for many years. Yet here we are still without any.

You are not a scientist, you are a poor advocate for religion. You are not a biologist or organic chemist as you don't understand the basics of the science.

Your brain needs a reboot to factory settings or an anti-virus to get rid of the damaging Godbot.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2018,07:37   

Quote (ChemiCat @ April 15 2018,03:28)
So where are these "valid tests"? You have been asked to state them for many years. Yet here we are still without any.

You are not a scientist, you are a poor advocate for religion.

He's not even an advocate for religion - he's just an apologist for it.

Quote
You are not a biologist or organic chemist as you don't understand the basics of the science.

Quote
[from Gaulin] by electronic instinct
He's not doing much better in inorganic chemistry and physics either.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2018,06:39   

Not to brag, but I won the Numenta forum "New User of the Month award for April 2018."

Here's my trophy:



This award is only granted to two new users per month, and it will be permanently visible on the badges page, for their excellent overall contributions, as measured by how often their posts were liked, and by whom.

And my new badge:

discourse.numenta.org/badges/44/new-user-of-the-month

I promise not to let the scientific power go to my head. LOL!

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 11084
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2018,09:22   

Quote
4
ronvanwegenApril 22, 2018 at 9:11 pm
Violence is declining?
Depends on how you define “violence”.
[Inserts link to video of actual abortion on which the vast majority of abortion proponents will not click nor are ever likely to.]
Quote

5
kairosfocusApril 23, 2018 at 5:22 am
Folks, RVW is right — any claim that violence is low needs to be confronted with the great evil of our time. Over the past 40+ years 800+ million living members of our posterity have been put to death in the womb. Currently, that number runs at a million or so more per WEEK. This is the worst holocaust in history and it is ongoing. When we can face this and begin to turn back from such a conscience-searing horror, restoring soundness from the corruption of professions, institutions and our civilisation, then we will have something that we can call real progress. KF
Quote

6
Truth Will Set You FreeApril 23, 2018 at 7:54 am
I would add that the rise in popularity of mixed martial arts (glorified street fighting) would support an argument that violence is not decreasing… at least not our collective lust for violence. Just pan the crowd at these events and you will get a glimpse of the Roman Colesium 2,000 years ago. Very little has changed in the human heart.


Violence is not declining because BORTINS! followed by violence isn't declining because Ultimate Fighting is on tv.

These guys are geniuses.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5117
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2018,10:51   

Was that meant for a different thread?

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 60
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2018,19:34   

Quote
Here's my trophy:
"trophy.png"


Oh God, everytime I think the tragic case of Gary Gaulin couldn't get any sadder, he surprises me with something so pathetic, I have to keep lowering the bar.

So, now we have him bragging about getting a graphic of a trophy, when asked for any scientific backing of his nonsense religious theory.
If you thought that was the height of it, then you haven't looked at the membership rate of this site. The badge is given to two new participating members of the forum every month...
But their growth rate is rather small, so, some months, they don't even get 2 new contributing members at all...
Meaning anyone who posts at all is pretty much guaranteed to get this picture of a trophy.

And here we have Gary being proud like a little child, to own this prestigous picture of a trophy...

Gary, I really feel bad for you. This is not me mocking you, I genuinely feel pity. Please stop this, spend your time on something productive, like your family. It will save you (and everyone else) so much cringe and pain.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2018,06:52   

Coldfire

I agree that the only feeling I have for Gaulin is pity. I feel very sorry for his neglected family, though.

At least the trophy will look good on his virtual mantelpiece with his kiddy code medal.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2018,21:00   

If this "first deconstruction of the architecture of a brain circuit underlying a complex social behavior" holds true then the explanation is expected to relate to earlier discussed salmon behavior, and will help explain why we developed such a large number of specialized brain areas instead of the fewest number needed to hunt and gather food:

www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-command-center-in-the-mammalian-brain-orchestrates-parenting-behaviors/

--------------
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: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2018,01:42   

Am I reading (translating) that correctly? Gaulin thinks that Salmon are mammals? Is that what he is bloviating?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Quote
then the explanation is expected to relate to earlier discussed salmon behavior,

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2018,17:57   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2018,21:00)
If this "first deconstruction of the architecture of a brain circuit underlying a complex social behavior" holds true then the explanation is expected to relate to earlier discussed salmon behavior, and will help explain why we developed such a large number of specialized brain areas instead of the fewest number needed to hunt and gather food:

www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-command-center-in-the-mammalian-brain-orchestrates-parenting-behaviors/

Please elaborate on how you see that relating to salmon behavior of the sorts discussed earlier.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 60
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2018,09:35   

I would like to remind everyone, that when Gaulin talks about the "earlier discussed salmon behavior", THIS is what he means:

"The combined knowledge and behavior of all three intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may choose to stay to defend their nests "till death do they part""

The paragraph this comes from is one of my favorite bits of creationist woowoo, for how hilarious it is. He concludes with:

"For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has
through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from a conscious part of
us that our multicellular intelligence level (brain) may be able to sense coming from the other
intelligence levels we cannot directly experience, which at the genetic intelligence level has for
billions of years been alive, and is now still alive inside of us.."

  
k.e..



Posts: 4859
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2018,10:10   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ April 28 2018,17:35)
I would like to remind everyone, that when Gaulin talks about the "earlier discussed salmon behavior", THIS is what he means:

"The combined knowledge and behavior of all three intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may choose to stay to defend their nests "till death do they part""

The paragraph this comes from is one of my favorite bits of creationist woowoo, for how hilarious it is. He concludes with:

"For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has
through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from a conscious part of
us that our multicellular intelligence level (brain) may be able to sense coming from the other
intelligence levels we cannot directly experience, which at the genetic intelligence level has for
billions of years been alive, and is now still alive inside of us.."

Um thanks coldfirephoenix. You may be over-egging it a bit though. Not many creationists actually remember what they said yesterday let alone before they were reborn, which happens everytime they think of Le grand fromage in the sky. Logical consistency and creationism is an anathema. Probably best explained by analyzing bad parenting and drug addiction.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2018,21:58   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2018,17:57)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2018,21:00)
If this "first deconstruction of the architecture of a brain circuit underlying a complex social behavior" holds true then the explanation is expected to relate to earlier discussed salmon behavior, and will help explain why we developed such a large number of specialized brain areas instead of the fewest number needed to hunt and gather food:

www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-command-center-in-the-mammalian-brain-orchestrates-parenting-behaviors/

Please elaborate on how you see that relating to salmon behavior of the sorts discussed earlier.

A computer related analogy is (read only memory) ROM for "instinctual" motor routines all animals are born with, along with possible design change. A "tweaking the circuit" to favor certain actions over others, and not necessarily a coded memory area with "information" in it as in a computer ROM chip.

Behaviors are this way passed to offspring. What smells and tastes good or bad eventually depends on whether the substance is what the critter such as a dung-beetle eats, or personally poops out as waste and/or may likely be hazardous to consume.

--------------
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: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2018,06:09   

Quote
A computer related analogy is (read only memory) ROM for "instinctual" motor routines all animals are born with, along with possible design change. A "tweaking the circuit" to favor certain actions over others, and not necessarily a coded memory area with "information" in it as in a computer ROM chip.

Behaviors are this way passed to offspring. What smells and tastes good or bad eventually depends on whether the substance is what the critter such as a dung-beetle eats, or personally poops out as waste and/or may likely be hazardous to consume.


And Gaulin falls back into pseudoscientific gibberish.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2018,06:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2018,21:58)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2018,17:57)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2018,21:00)
If this "first deconstruction of the architecture of a brain circuit underlying a complex social behavior" holds true then the explanation is expected to relate to earlier discussed salmon behavior, and will help explain why we developed such a large number of specialized brain areas instead of the fewest number needed to hunt and gather food:

www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-command-center-in-the-mammalian-brain-orchestrates-parenting-behaviors/

Please elaborate on how you see that relating to salmon behavior of the sorts discussed earlier.

A computer related analogy is (read only memory) ROM for "instinctual" motor routines all animals are born with, along with possible design change. A "tweaking the circuit" to favor certain actions over others, and not necessarily a coded memory area with "information" in it as in a computer ROM chip.

Behaviors are this way passed to offspring. What smells and tastes good or bad eventually depends on whether the substance is what the critter such as a dung-beetle eats, or personally poops out as waste and/or may likely be hazardous to consume.

Thanks for the response.

   
Quote
A computer related analogy is (read only memory) ROM for "instinctual" motor routines all animals are born with, along with possible design change.

This raises numerous issues.  Instincts are behaviors that are built-in, not learned or reasoned out, so dedicated neuronal and biochemical "circuits" make sense for that, and it also makes evolutionary sense that similar or associated behaviors could be duplications and modifications of previously successful versions, thereby leading to complex "families" of circuits.  However:
1) We know that instincts are subject to mutation and subsequent natural selection (Bastock, changes in reproductive behavior in "yellow" mutant fruit flies; Benzer, effects of mutations on phototaxis and circadian rhythms in fruit flies; swimming style in "ennui" mutant zebrafish; multiple mutations that increase or decrease aggression in fruit flies; another fruit fly mutation that causes males to spend longer in courtship, which increases their success rate at reproduction!).  
2) Sadly for your proposal, ROM does not have the option for design change from within the system, whereas in life there is no evidence for change by design from outside the system.
3)  Assuming that instinctive behaviors work as the new research suggests, this is actually not in accord with your proposal, as two of your key requirements have to do with making guesses and being able to assess results.  Instinctive behaviors lack both capabilities, and therefore fail to rise to the level of intelligence according to your usage.  
4)  There is no evidence that this is molecules or neurons or genes being intelligent at a sub-organismal level: it is biochemistry - genetics setting up hierarchical neuronal pathways that respond to biochemical signals (e.g. Willows and Hoyle, 1969).  
5)  Also, note that not all animals have parenting instincts (think sponges and cnidarians).  However, even sponges have a mechanism to synchronize release of eggs and sperm, and complexity should be able to increase from there by standard evolutionary processes.

So since salmon have very little in the way of parenting behavior, does that mean you are predicting that they will have very little in the way of gallanin-based neuronal "circuitry" in the medial preoptic area, compared to, say, a seahorse or a stickleback?

   
Quote
A "tweaking the circuit" to favor certain actions over others, and not necessarily a coded memory area with "information" in it as in a computer ROM chip.
 
That's not a sentence, so your meaning is obscure.  This sort of tweaking is easily envisaged as the result of standard and documented evolutionary processes, but there's no evidence in biology for a process analogous to a chip redesigning itself or for a chip designer leaning over the chip and making subtle adjustments.

   
Quote
Behaviors are this way passed to offspring. What smells and tastes good or bad eventually depends on whether the substance is what the critter such as a dung-beetle eats, or personally poops out as waste and/or may likely be hazardous to consume.

You are describing a system that works by descent with modification, with feedback through natural selection, which you deny.

Incidentally, I'm not seeing how any of the stuff you are proposing to do with your model (back up on 14 April) rises to the level of a valid test.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2018,23:21   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2018,21:58)
         
Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2018,17:57)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2018,21:00)
If this "first deconstruction of the architecture of a brain circuit underlying a complex social behavior" holds true then the explanation is expected to relate to earlier discussed salmon behavior, and will help explain why we developed such a large number of specialized brain areas instead of the fewest number needed to hunt and gather food:

www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-command-center-in-the-mammalian-brain-orchestrates-parenting-behaviors/

Please elaborate on how you see that relating to salmon behavior of the sorts discussed earlier.

A computer related analogy is (read only memory) ROM for "instinctual" motor routines all animals are born with, along with possible design change. A "tweaking the circuit" to favor certain actions over others, and not necessarily a coded memory area with "information" in it as in a computer ROM chip.

Behaviors are this way passed to offspring. What smells and tastes good or bad eventually depends on whether the substance is what the critter such as a dung-beetle eats, or personally poops out as waste and/or may likely be hazardous to consume.

Thanks for the response.

You're welcome.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
         
Quote
A computer related analogy is (read only memory) ROM for "instinctual" motor routines all animals are born with, along with possible design change.

This raises numerous issues.  Instincts are behaviors that are built-in, not learned or reasoned out,

To be specific: both are (by trial and error learning) "learned". At all levels basic systematics are identical. Difference is learning occurred at the molecular/genetic level, not multicellular level.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
so dedicated neuronal and biochemical "circuits" make sense for that, and it also makes evolutionary sense that similar or associated behaviors could be duplications and modifications of previously successful versions, thereby leading to complex "families" of circuits.

That is correct, although simplification of a circuit or routing connection(s) elsewhere can also modify behavior.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
However:
1) We know that instincts are subject to mutation and subsequent natural selection.


You are only saying: all that gets tried is subject to failure or success of one kind or another, or can be as you would say "neutral". It's no wonder Charles Darwin was not the first to figure that one out. I find it childish to dwell on ancient rudimentary insight, and throw "natural selection" around like a buzz phrase. I'm already annoyed enough by the latest "deep learning" crusade.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
(Bastock, changes in reproductive behavior in "yellow" mutant fruit flies; Benzer, effects of mutations on phototaxis and circadian rhythms in fruit flies; swimming style in "ennui" mutant zebrafish; multiple mutations that increase or decrease aggression in fruit flies; another fruit fly mutation that causes males to spend longer in courtship, which increases their success rate at reproduction!).
2) Sadly for your proposal, ROM does not have the option for design change from within the system,
 

Regardless of how the design change happened including metaphors like "lucky accident" to describe how like (in Louis Pasteur's mouldy sink) discoveries are often via trial and error learning discovered: there was in fact "change from within the system".

   
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
whereas in life there is no evidence for change by design from outside the system.


In this case "change by design from outside the system" does not change the fact that there was "change from within the system".

I am not obligated to entertain your (anti)religious thoughts of an omnipotent gift giving Santa Claus (God) intelligent designer who tinkers with molecules in some hidden workshop. Please grow up.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
3)  Assuming that instinctive behaviors work as the new research suggests, this is actually not in accord with your proposal, as two of your key requirements have to do with making guesses and being able to assess results.  Instinctive behaviors lack both capabilities, and therefore fail to rise to the level of intelligence according to your usage.  
4)  There is no evidence that this is molecules or neurons or genes being intelligent at a sub-organismal level: it is biochemistry - genetics setting up hierarchical neuronal pathways that respond to biochemical signals (e.g. Willows and Hoyle, 1969).  
5)  Also, note that not all animals have parenting instincts (think sponges and cnidarians).  However, even sponges have a mechanism to synchronize release of eggs and sperm, and complexity should be able to increase from there by standard evolutionary processes.

So since salmon have very little in the way of parenting behavior, does that mean you are predicting that they will have very little in the way of gallanin-based neuronal "circuitry" in the medial preoptic area, compared to, say, a seahorse or a stickleback?


What?! Salmon are so instinct driven they normally do not even survive their first few weeks of parenting duties. In either case: objective experiments require objective comparisons, not subjective ones.

It's best that I do not attempt to make a prediction, especially with something that soon gets into philosophy and religion of what it means to be a "parent" and proper "parenting behavior" expected of motherly and fatherly fish. There is even room for Discovery Institute conspiracy theory or two about female seahorses being evil for abandoning her offspring to the care of their father who needed a whole anatomy change just to cope with her wicked ways.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
   
Quote
A "tweaking the circuit" to favor certain actions over others, and not necessarily a coded memory area with "information" in it as in a computer ROM chip.
 
That's not a sentence, so your meaning is obscure.  This sort of tweaking is easily envisaged as the result of standard and documented evolutionary processes, but there's no evidence in biology for a process analogous to a chip redesigning itself or for a chip designer leaning over the chip and making subtle adjustments.

         
Quote
Behaviors are this way passed to offspring. What smells and tastes good or bad eventually depends on whether the substance is what the critter such as a dung-beetle eats, or personally poops out as waste and/or may likely be hazardous to consume.

You are describing a system that works by descent with modification, with feedback through natural selection, which you deny.

Incidentally, I'm not seeing how any of the stuff you are proposing to do with your model (back up on 14 April) rises to the level of a valid test.


Scientific theories never require pulling Jesus from a hat or other supernatural "religious miracle". Stooping down to that tactic makes you no better than the Discovery Institute, who also does the same in order to get out of having to perform any of the required scientific work.

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2018,09:58   

Quote
To be specific: both are (by trial and error learning) "learned". At all levels basic systematics are identical. Difference is learning occurred at the molecular/genetic level, not multicellular level.

That is a very awkward and metaphorical usage of "learned", given that the definition of "instinctive" is "not learned".  Also, no  the basic systematics are not the same, given that instinct is gene-based, while standard learning is not, and has to be relearned every generation. Nonetheless, if you want to consider  genetic accumulation to be a "learning" system, fine, except that you now have nothing new to add to science other than redescribing evolution and natural selection in new and non-standard language.

Modification of course includes simplification.

 
Quote
 
Quote
(N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
(Bastock, changes in reproductive behavior in "yellow" mutant fruit flies; Benzer, effects of mutations on phototaxis and circadian rhythms in fruit flies; swimming style in "ennui" mutant zebrafish; multiple mutations that increase or decrease aggression in fruit flies; another fruit fly mutation that causes males to spend longer in courtship, which increases their success rate at reproduction!).
2) Sadly for your proposal, ROM does not have the option for design change from within the system,


Regardless of how the design change happened including metaphors like "lucky accident" to describe how like (in Louis Pasteur's mouldy sink) discoveries are often via trial and error learning discovered: there was in fact "change from within the system".
 
 
Quote
(N.Wells @ April 29 2018,06:39)
whereas in life there is no evidence for change by design from outside the system.


In this case "change by design from outside the system" does not change the fact that there was "change from within the system".


ROM is by definition Read Only Memory, so by definition it can't be written to or modified once set and it can't learn by lucky accident.  Your analogy therefore cannot be useful or valid or interesting.  If you scramble the concepts of ROM, change by design, and change from within the system, you have only meaningless word salad.

 
Quote
I find it childish to dwell on ancient rudimentary insight, and throw "natural selection" around like a buzz phrase.

I'm not throwing it around or using it as buzz words.  Unfortunately for you, it is a well-documented phenomenon, and I, unlike you, am describing it correctly.  Your objections to it, unless bolstered by valid evidence that you have yet to produce, are the mere maunderings of an ignorant fool.

 
Quote
What?! Salmon are so instinct driven they normally do not even survive their first few weeks of parenting duties.

Well, thanks for finally agreeing with me about salmon not having a lot of parenting behavior (you've been talking about salmon as dedicated parents, and I've been saying that most salmon court, spawn, and die, and the few that don't immediately die bugger off at the earliest opportunity).  However, they don't fail to survive because of their instincts.

 
Quote
In either case: objective experiments require objective comparisons, not subjective ones.  It's best that I do not attempt to make a prediction, especially with something that soon gets into philosophy and religion of what it means to be a "parent" and proper "parenting behavior" expected of motherly and fatherly fish.

You are making assertions with no evidence.  I'm proposing a logical consequence of what you propose as a test (that's how scientific tests work), and it is easily quantifiable, and you run scared of any testing, throwing out an invalid cloud of ink about philosophy and religion and proper parenting.  This is why your enterprise is doomed to failure.  Sticklebacks and seahorses have lots of parenting behavior, all well documented, while salmon have essentially none.  

 
Quote
There is even room for Discovery Institute conspiracy theory or two about female seahorses being evil for abandoning her offspring to the care of their father who needed a whole anatomy change just to cope with her wicked ways.

No, there isn't any room for that nonsense at all.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5117
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2018,20:19   

Are you trying to confuse him with facts? :p

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2018,23:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2018,09:58)
ROM is by definition Read Only Memory, so by definition it can't be written to or modified once set and it can't learn by lucky accident.


ROM's are "written to or modified" by the producer/manufacturer who designed the system. That should have been an easy one for you.

                 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2018,09:58)
                 
Quote
What?! Salmon are so instinct driven they normally do not even survive their first few weeks of parenting duties.

Well, thanks for finally agreeing with me about salmon not having a lot of parenting behavior.............


Inherent (instinctual) parenting behavior = instinct.

                 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2018,09:58)
I'm proposing a logical consequence of what you propose as a test (that's how scientific tests work), and it is easily quantifiable, and you run scared of any testing, throwing out an invalid cloud of ink about philosophy and religion and proper parenting.


You are honestly floundering in metaphors, which precisely quantify nothing. Very fishy.

Ironically UD is now reporting an epigenetic signal related component of the predicted system, which at the multicellular intelligence level is like a ROM in that it's something that we are born with, not something that is later learned then stored in the brain's RAM. The ROM-like behavior of offspring is controlled by the genetic system, which is largely controlled by the contents of genetic RAM's including RNA's:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dramatic-recent-finding-there-is-a-new-dna-structure-in-our-cells-beyond-the-double-helix/

At least the theory with my name on it is still doing very well standing "the test of time". I'm also not experiencing the uncertainty problems Charles Darwin had. In twenty something years I have not had to change a single thing in its core model.

My later starting off with the premise for the "theory of intelligent design" amounted to a grammar change where (with religion aside) did a better job than I ever could of summing it up in one sentence. The same religious implications all along existed. Only difference is that the ID movement had taken them to the extreme, and filled a void (where a testable model based scientific theory should be) with whatever religious beliefs the reader's desire. Books for it I long ago sent to Rock-102, WAAF, WHYN and other local radio stations helps show that I'm otherwise in it to within bounds of science explain how our creator works. This challenge requires cognitive science, not Darwinian metaphors, therefore it's time to dance and have some fun again!

You'll love this keeper:
The Chemical Brothers - The Salmon Dance

--------------
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: 2910
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2018,23:52   



--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2018,01:29   

Quote
At least the theory with my name on it is still doing very well standing "the test of time".


Yet it has never reached the status of a theory. It is still without evidential support for its many assertions. There are no repeatable tests that can be carried out on it which makes it a non-scientific mish-mash of pseudoscience with a dash of theism thrown in.

 
Quote
I'm also not experiencing the uncertainty problems Charles Darwin had.


That is because your mind is closed to the many, many flaws in your rubbish. Start to address the various errors in physics, chemistry and biology in your POS and then you may possibly have a reason to brag about how you are "sciencing". A scientist would take on board the many criticisms of his basic science and either reject his hypothesis or do research to correct his errors. Something a closed mind will never do.

 
Quote
In twenty something years I have not had to change a single thing in its core model.


Which again shows that you cannot be advancing science in any shape or form. Such a closed and religion-addled mind cannot see beyond its worship of an unproven supernatural entity.

Your tagline, stolen from the IDC movement, is trivial in the extreme and easily dismissed without even beginning to take it apart in detail. Who said "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? You have no evidence for any of the claims you make. They are just assertions moulded around a doubtful theology.

Your VB model is nothing but a kiddy-code without any biological significance to researchers in either biology or neurology.

In short, you do not understand science and your assertions are lifted straight from the cargo-cult science of the ID movement which is in reality a twisted theology. That you disparage them at every chance you get is a result of your being rejected even by them.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2018,01:32   

Nice one, fnxtr!

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2910
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2018,08:55   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 01 2018,23:32)
Nice one, fnxtr!

Ta.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2018,19:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2018,23:00)

     
Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2018,09:58)
ROM is by definition Read Only Memory, so by definition it can't be written to or modified once set and it can't learn by lucky accident.


ROM's are "written to or modified" by the producer/manufacturer who designed the system. That should have been an easy one for you.


It was.  That's why I said "once set" and specified change from outside the immediate system.

 
Quote
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2018,23:00)
What?! Salmon are so instinct driven they normally do not even survive their first few weeks of parenting duties.

[Me:] Well, thanks for finally agreeing with me about salmon not having a lot of parenting behavior.............
 
Quote
[Gary:]  Inherent (instinctual) parenting behavior = instinct.

Yes, exactly, and salmon have almost none of that.  They mate, and then in most species, they die pretty damn quickly, and in other species a few of them bugger off pronto.  That amounts to minimal parenting behavior, only slightly ahead of crabgrass.

     
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2018,09:58)
I'm proposing a logical consequence of what you propose as a test (that's how scientific tests work), and it is easily quantifiable, and you run scared of any testing, throwing out an invalid cloud of ink about philosophy and religion and proper parenting.


You are honestly floundering in metaphors, which precisely quantify nothing. Very fishy.

No, but you haven't even risen to the level of valid metaphor.


     
Quote
At least the theory with my name on it is still doing very well standing "the test of time". I'm also not experiencing the uncertainty problems Charles Darwin had. In twenty something years I have not had to change a single thing in its core model.

Oh my gosh, you think you are being serious.
You don't have anything that qualifies as a theory.  
You need to change darn near everything, because it is wrong and self-contradictory, but you refuse to fix it properly.
A little self-doubt might go a long way to fixing your total blindness to the errors in your heaping pile of nonsense.

     
Quote
My later starting off with the premise for the "theory of intelligent design" amounted to a grammar change where (with religion aside) did a better job than I ever could of summing it up in one sentence. The same religious implications all along existed. Only difference is that the ID movement had taken them to the extreme, and filled a void (where a testable model based scientific theory should be) with whatever religious beliefs the reader's desire. Books for it I long ago sent to Rock-102, WAAF, WHYN and other local radio stations helps show that I'm otherwise in it to within bounds of science explain how our creator works. This challenge requires cognitive science, not Darwinian metaphors

Darwinian selection is not "metaphors", but a well defined and well documented process.  That you don't understand the basics of this area of science is your problem.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,21:02   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 02 2018,19:40)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2018,23:00)

         
Quote (N.Wells @ May 01 2018,09:58)
ROM is by definition Read Only Memory, so by definition it can't be written to or modified once set and it can't learn by lucky accident.


ROM's are "written to or modified" by the producer/manufacturer who designed the system. That should have been an easy one for you.


It was.  That's why I said "once set" and specified change from outside the immediate system.


In this case the system has multiple coexisting levels. This makes a phrase like "outside the immediate system" very ambiguous, and infers a Santa Claus type entity periodically delivering genetic ROMs to living things of this planet.

To be specific to systems ("i" word optional) you need to say "genetic level (intelligent) system" or "molecular level (intelligent) system".

The ink cloud in my thread came from using loaded words like yours. A cognitive model/theory requires being precise.

How words and phrases have to be used are not even under my control. All is dependent on the logical structure of the model and routine cognitive science terminology.

Talking about "natural selection" keeps changing the subject to a theory for something else. The best you get are metaphors to a simple cognitive system long ago best described by David Heiserman, which requires the word "guess" and other terminology only someone like you could find nonstandard or out of place in the proper field for explaining "intelligent" behavior of any kind.

I recall Jack Krebs having in his forum done a reasonably good job of debating the similarities between Darwinian theory and how we think. It was educationally helpful for me to have debated from the cognitive science perspective, which required me to be annoyingly precise with required terminology for that scientific area of study.  There are valid similarities, it's OK to try finding some, but neuroscience and emerging subfields (from it now being known that cells have a mind or two of their own neuroscientists must now in ever increasing detail probe too) requires models that work inside the logical construct of neuroscience where words like "guess" applies instead of "mutation".

Considering how it is pointless for you to try making it seem like knowledge of Darwinian theory makes you a neuroscience expert and it is a waste of valuable time for me to entertain your attempt to do so I'll stop here and hope you can do a better job than "outside the immediate system" to describe what microscopes and neural probes are still aiming at, not suddenly pointing upward for detecting the image of Jesus or something.

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,05:57   

I have never claimed to be a neuroscience expert and I am not especially interested in it.  However, I am interested in evolutionary biology and scientific methodology.  My objections are first and foremost that you mangle biology, are vastly ignorant of it, and keep making broad but unfounded assertions against it, such as your protests against natural selection.  Beyond that, however, your neuroscience stuff is highly problematic, being to varying degrees ungrammatical, indecipherable, self-contradictory, illogical, and unsupported, to such an extent that even a non-expert like me can see all sorts of holes in what you are saying.

If you want to argue that natural selection is not relevant to the emergence of intelligence, argue that and provide relevant ad valid supporting evidence, but don't just badmouth natural selection with a bunch of irrelevant and wrong arguments that merely reveal the depths of your ignorance of basic biology and of ways to do science.


 
Quote
The ink cloud in my thread came from using loaded words like yours. A cognitive model/theory requires being precise.
Yes, science requires precise language.  It requires standardize terminology, or terms that are validly redefined, including usable operational definitions.  The fact that you can say that and lay a charge of using loaded words, right after you said,

 
Quote
you need to say "genetic level (intelligent) system" or "molecular level (intelligent) system"
indicates that you have a beam in your eye the size of a giant sequoia.  You have yet to establish that there are such things as genetic and molecular intelligence in any way other than weak metaphor, and you have not adequately indicated how to recognize those things or how to measure them, so you are truly using loaded words ("intelligent") in non-standard ways, without justifying your usage.  You have similar shortcomings with design, self-similarity, emergence, theory, etc.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,12:20   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2018,05:57)
If you want to argue that natural selection is not relevant to the emergence of intelligence,.................

You are again naming things with generalizations instead of using neuroscience to explain how things like (what you would name) "mate selection" works. Computationally modeling the "emergence of intelligence" likewise requires the appropriate scientific/engineering tools and vocabulary.

Limiting knowledge and vocabulary to Darwinian theory only helps those who prefer misleading political slogans that ignore the "intelligent cause" relevant sciences they should be scientific experts in 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.

   
  18551 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (619) < ... 607 608 609 610 611 [612] 613 614 615 616 617 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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