RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (619) < ... 612 613 614 615 616 [617] 618 619 >   
  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: June 08 2018,23:37   

To elaborate:
Quote
Wasn't that all along what I have been saying is wrong with the Discovery Institute's premise/hypothesis for a "theory"?

An otherwise OK (to follow evidence wherever it leads from) premise/hypothesis was presented as/for theory, which it was not.

--------------
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: June 09 2018,03:07   

Quote
I'm helping to make science fun, for generations to come.


No you are not, Gaulin.

Because what you are doing IS NOT science. What you are doing is collecting science-y buzzwords and throwing them into a mish-mash of really, really bad English grammar and calling it science. Your rubbish only just approaches being a bad idea. It is neither hypothesis nor theory in any scientific sense.

I provided you with a link to help you write an understandable science paper which you totally ignored. Let us see you rewrite your pathetic efforts for scientific clarity. At the moment your not-a-theory can be interpreted in so many different ways as to be useless for any purpose other than a classroom exercise in demonstrating how to write bad English.

All you are, Gaulin, is a thick-headed science wannabee with the arrogance of the ID/IC movement thrown in for good measure.

Your delusions are helping nobody least of all your health and family. Please seek professional counselling before you do any more damage to them.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,03:09   

Quote
An otherwise OK (to follow evidence wherever it leads from) premise/hypothesis was presented as/for theory, which it was not.


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,09:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 08 2018,23:06)
Quote (N.Wells @ June 08 2018,09:44)
5) Someone's speculative idea is not a theory, but an hypothesis.


And? Wasn't that all along what I have been saying is wrong with the Discovery Institute's premise/hypothesis for a "theory"?

Everyone needs to be on the same page in regards to what is what. The (wrong to begin with) "layman's definition" is being made gone. You should be thrilled.

Using definitions worthy of a "scientist" makes it possible for we the people to write a theory when we want to, everything's under control.

What matters is after all these years the theory I have been explaining is no issue to the areas of science they concern, it's still standing:

Taron Egerton - I'm Still Standing
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai8mhPpOUWA

The DI's premise/hypothesis for a theory is still alive and kicking in the model/theory I have. This in turn causes a perfect storm inside, the big tent. It's in a way raised up into the air while this plays loudly then is (for the sake of spectators) brought safely crashing back down.

Simple Minds - Alive And Kicking
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIQo1OHkTI

I'm helping to make science fun, for generations to come. With this being a DI declared "culture war" applicable examples of "life imitating art" such as these are warranted, even necessary.

Quote
And? Wasn't that all along what I have been saying is wrong with the Discovery Institute's premise/hypothesis for a "theory"?

Yes, but you haven't improved on it.  Polishing a turd is pointless, but you've just been smearing it on the walls and calling it science.

Quote
Everyone needs to be on the same page in regards to what is what.
Agreed. Why do you think I keep trying to educate you on how to do science?

Quote
The (wrong to begin with) "layman's definition" is being made gone. You should be thrilled.

"Being made gone"?  Anyway, yes, I'm thrilled with everyone else getting on board with what a theory is and the definition of an hypothesis.  You are a puzzling holdout, in that you give lip-service to the words, and then go ahead and smear crap all over the walls.

Quote
Using definitions worthy of a "scientist" makes it possible for we the people to write a theory
 That's what we've been telling you.  Even you could do science, if only you'd put a little effort into doing something worthwhile and doing it properly.

Quote
What matters is after all these years the theory I have been explaining is no issue to the areas of science they concern, it's still standing:
There are regrettably vast differences between actually explaining and what you are doing, and between "still standing" and the status of your not-a-theory.


Quote
An otherwise OK (to follow evidence wherever it leads from) premise/hypothesis was presented as/for theory, which it was not.
 Your relationship to science exactly mirrors your relationship to comprehensible English: you've got a bunch of words that apparently make perfect sense to you, but not at all to anyone else.  I cannot make the slightest sense of that smear of words.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1693
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,09:48   

Quote (ChemiCat @ June 09 2018,03:09)
 
Quote
An otherwise OK (to follow evidence wherever it leads from) premise/hypothesis was presented as/for theory, which it was not.


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 
Quote
an otherwise OK


It's telling what Gary can sweep aside with that phrase.

Quote
(to follow evidence wherever it leads from)


This is one of Gary's favorite phrases, and you'd think he could get the grammar better, but no.  (The evidence, Gary.  Leads to, not from).  This is the magical phrase he thinks will mollify both the creationists and the scientists until they see that the answer is his unique God of Computer Circuits, or whatever.

Quote
premise/hypothesis


The DI's wording that he copy/pasted into his notions.  Gary still won't admit that it was just a pair of "Groucho glasses" the DI was using to hide "Jesus did it".  He certainly won't admit it lacks anything like the specificity it would need to get you anywhere scientifically.

Quote
was presented as/for theory


The DI tried to claim their hypothesis was a theory.  I think the bizarre as/for construction is Gary's attempt imitate the passive voice writing style of the papers he skims.  He should pick one or the other, but then it might be readable.

Quote
, which it is not


Gary agrees that ID was not a theory.  He completely misses the point that neither is his version.  And the thing is, accepting that his notions aren't a theory isn't admitting defeat.  We aren't insulting him by rejecting his use of the theory label.  (We are insulting him at other times, but that's eminently justified).

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1693
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,09:52   

Like good scientists, N. Wells and I were working on two different aspects of the same problem simultaneously. It's amazing how much effort it takes to translate and respond to Gary's jumble of words and thoughts.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,11:26   

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 09 2018,09:48)
Quote (ChemiCat @ June 09 2018,03:09)
 
Quote
An otherwise OK (to follow evidence wherever it leads from) premise/hypothesis was presented as/for theory, which it was not.


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 
Quote
an otherwise OK


It's telling what Gary can sweep aside with that phrase.

 
Quote
(to follow evidence wherever it leads from)


This is one of Gary's favorite phrases, and you'd think he could get the grammar better, but no.  (The evidence, Gary.  Leads to, not from).  This is the magical phrase he thinks will mollify both the creationists and the scientists until they see that the answer is his unique God of Computer Circuits, or whatever.

 
Quote
premise/hypothesis


The DI's wording that he copy/pasted into his notions.  Gary still won't admit that it was just a pair of "Groucho glasses" the DI was using to hide "Jesus did it".  He certainly won't admit it lacks anything like the specificity it would need to get you anywhere scientifically.

 
Quote
was presented as/for theory


The DI tried to claim their hypothesis was a theory.  I think the bizarre as/for construction is Gary's attempt imitate the passive voice writing style of the papers he skims.  He should pick one or the other, but then it might be readable.

 
Quote
, which it is not


Gary agrees that ID was not a theory.  He completely misses the point that neither is his version.  And the thing is, accepting that his notions aren't a theory isn't admitting defeat.  We aren't insulting him by rejecting his use of the theory label.  (We are insulting him at other times, but that's eminently justified).

I thought I was doing fairly well at figuring him out, but I bow to your superior ability to translate from Gaulin to English.  Thanks for the clarification, because the original had me totally stumped.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1693
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,11:57   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 09 2018,11:26)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 09 2018,09:48)
Quote (ChemiCat @ June 09 2018,03:09)
   
Quote
An otherwise OK (to follow evidence wherever it leads from) premise/hypothesis was presented as/for theory, which it was not.


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

   
Quote
an otherwise OK


It's telling what Gary can sweep aside with that phrase.

 
Quote
(to follow evidence wherever it leads from)


This is one of Gary's favorite phrases, and you'd think he could get the grammar better, but no.  (The evidence, Gary.  Leads to, not from).  This is the magical phrase he thinks will mollify both the creationists and the scientists until they see that the answer is his unique God of Computer Circuits, or whatever.

 
Quote
premise/hypothesis


The DI's wording that he copy/pasted into his notions.  Gary still won't admit that it was just a pair of "Groucho glasses" the DI was using to hide "Jesus did it".  He certainly won't admit it lacks anything like the specificity it would need to get you anywhere scientifically.

 
Quote
was presented as/for theory


The DI tried to claim their hypothesis was a theory.  I think the bizarre as/for construction is Gary's attempt imitate the passive voice writing style of the papers he skims.  He should pick one or the other, but then it might be readable.

 
Quote
, which it is not


Gary agrees that ID was not a theory.  He completely misses the point that neither is his version.  And the thing is, accepting that his notions aren't a theory isn't admitting defeat.  We aren't insulting him by rejecting his use of the theory label.  (We are insulting him at other times, but that's eminently justified).

I thought I was doing fairly well at figuring him out, but I bow to your superior ability to translate from Gaulin to English.  Thanks for the clarification, because the original had me totally stumped.

You're welcome.  Years of trying to translate teenager to English helps.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,15:06   

I am possibly arguing with trolls who are purposely acting stupid. In this case though the actors are not necessarily a Russian misinformation organization:

www.pbs.org/video/in-plain-sight-1519162214/

Does anyone know how to test my hypothesis?

--------------
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: June 09 2018,15:24   

Quote
Does anyone know how to test my hypothesis?


Yes.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,15:55   

Quote (ChemiCat @ June 09 2018,15:24)
 
Quote
Does anyone know how to test my hypothesis?


Yes.

You are now either a troll, or are trying to be a comedian.

Then please explain how we test the hypothesis that I am "arguing with trolls who are purposely acting stupid."

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1693
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,20:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 09 2018,15:55)
Quote (ChemiCat @ June 09 2018,15:24)
 
Quote
Does anyone know how to test my hypothesis?


Yes.

You are now either a troll, or are trying to be a comedian.

Then please explain how we test the hypothesis that I am "arguing with trolls who are purposely acting stupid."

One way would be to present your writing at a number of sites over a span of time.  If the vast majority respond by comparing your writing to that of a gibbon with a brain tumor, they probably are sincere in that opinion.

Seriously, Gary, after all this time aren't you just a little bit tempted to think you might not be communicating clearly?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2018,04:26   

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 09 2018,20:33)
Seriously, Gary, after all this time aren't you just a little bit tempted to think you might not be communicating clearly?

Yes, constantly. Stop messing with my low self-esteem in my writing abilities.

Currently I'm attempting to in context of the systematics of a David Heiserman Beta class robot: explain a neuroscientific model for how the cerebellum works. The source information is in one of the recommended videos in a topic at the Numenta forum where Matt mentioned "Yeah the whole idea of incorporating motor behavior in learning makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?" in response to the "The Human Brain Coloring Book (Coloring Concepts Series)" that seriously helped him.

At these two points in the video they are describing changing the data at a RAM location that "presumably was contributing to the body making that motor error" or in other words "taking a guess". In this case we are born not even knowing what does and does not contribute to a given motor error. But the Heiserman based model shows that even a random guess is a good enough "modification/rectification of movements". It's then OK to force a small group of motor memory elements to change state without regard to what they become. If a new action later does not work then it simply guesses again. It's a very well worded video but these parts are not fully clear to me without my assuming they are explaining a guess mechanism for a motor RAM. As expected possible there seems to be both motor data output and ~10 input wide address related guesses. Addressing influences when an action is taken, while data stores what action that will be.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUkwqAaSrUg&t=321

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUkwqAaSrUg&t=498

And from: www.biologydiscussion.com/nervous-system/cerebellum-meaning-feature-and-functions-human-physiology/62885

 
Quote

Cerebellum behaves as a servo comparator. Movements are initiated in the body due to impulses coming to part of body through corticospinal tracts. A copy of the command sent to LMN by cerebral cortex is also sent to cerebellum through cortioponto- cerebellar pathway.

During every step of movements, proprioceptive impulses arising from muscles and joints are sent back to cerebellum from the part of body that is involved in movement. These inputs keep informing cerebellum about various aspects of movement that is taking place (like degree of movement, direction, force, etc.).

If movement is not according to motor command, cerebellum compares command for intended movement with the movement that is going on (afferent inputs will be informing about this) and any rectification of error is faithfully relayed back to motor cortex through dentato-rubro-thalamo-cortical pathway. This leads to modification/rectification of movements so that target is reached accurately.


From what I can see the "modification/rectification of movements" requires some guesswork to get up and running. Without a circuit anywhere shown drawn out like I would: I have to start with where others are at and be useful by for the first time in science history making that detail more clear that way. It's not something that can be worded from what's skimmed off Wikipedia.

If you want to be useful then help clearly communicate all the above. You can start with something like the use of coloring books for enhancing memory retention via episodic memory recall of motor actions while filling things in using different colors. Perhaps you have some of your own to share. Something else useful. Anything.

--------------
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: June 10 2018,04:39   

Quote
Quote (ChemiCat @ June 09 2018,15:24)

Quote
Does anyone know how to test my hypothesis?


Yes.

You are now either a troll, or are trying to be a comedian.

Then please explain how we test the hypothesis that I am "arguing with trolls who are purposely acting stupid."


That is not the question you posed.

Now do you see why clarity in language is so very important. Particularly when trying to convey science in an hypothesis or theory.

Unless and until you correct your many glaring errors in science, language and communication skills we will continue to point and laugh at you.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2018,08:04   

You have conceptual errors that are even larger than your language problems.  Making a guess is not a sign of intelligence, and it is certainly not a requirement of intelligence, because random responses do not require forethought or planning.  However, learning from the results of guesses (learning from trial and error) is one of the features of intelligence.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2018,19:13   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2018,08:04)
Making a guess is not a sign of intelligence, and it is certainly not a requirement of intelligence, because random responses do not require forethought or planning.

If there was no "forethought or planning" happening then the system would not know when it needs to take a guess.

The ID Lab 6.1 model shown in a video has an internal view of the external world all mapped out "in its mind" and intuitively knows which direction it should be heading, etc.. You conveniently ignored all that, and my getting an important signal ratio matching literature for live rats planning how to get the food without getting a shock.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2018,08:04)
However, learning from the results of guesses (learning from trial and error) is one of the features of intelligence.

Learning from the results of guesses is what happens when all four of the circuit requirements are met. This might be helpful to add to the text, but you talk like "learning from mistakes" and such are not accounted for.

Your attempts to discredit the model are very annoying. If it were not for their occasionally being useful then I would have no reason to bother with them.

The exercise at least shows how to "defend" a "scientific theory" and how having a model behind it (diagram of a circuit and coded program) makes all the rest a semantics argument over how to word an explanation for how it works that instead uses sentences.

I now need to make clear sense to those who are up against a brick wall of sorts caused by the data stream through the brain still leading to motors that produce vocal sounds while automatically using body motions to match what's being expressed in their thoughts, not digital text output. What is needed is an easy to conceptualize cerebellum that works with existing cortical models.

Adding guess to the addressing side of the RAM requires additional code that will slow down the program a little but doing so allows up to a million 10 bit wide addresses, where each is an 8 bit location containing (100% guess derived) motor action data. The newest model I did not yet make a video for and has no cerebellum is still able to get around on the spatial navigation network of it cortex alone, but has the poorly coordinated features of human patients with serious cerebellum damage.

I without knowing it (except for guessable address inputs) have been experimenting with what happens with and without a cerebellum. I previously stuck not knowing how to explain what it was I was experimenting with, now it's easy!

This is a breakthrough I was hoping for in regards to being clear. And the necessary reference information is a relatively easy to make sense of YouTube video. The way "science" gets around these days is truly amazing. I love it.

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2018,19:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2018,19:13)
Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2018,08:04)
Making a guess is not a sign of intelligence, and it is certainly not a requirement of intelligence, because random responses do not require forethought or planning.

If there was no "forethought or planning" happening then the system would not know when it needs to take a guess.

The ID Lab 6.1 model shown in a video has an internal view of the external world all mapped out "in its mind" and intuitively knows which direction it should be heading, etc.. You conveniently ignored all that, and my getting an important signal ratio matching literature for live rats planning how to get the food without getting a shock.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2018,08:04)
However, learning from the results of guesses (learning from trial and error) is one of the features of intelligence.

Learning from the results of guesses is what happens when all four of the circuit requirements are met. This might be helpful to add to the text, but you talk like "learning from mistakes" and such are not accounted for.

Your attempts to discredit the model are very annoying. If it were not for their occasionally being useful then I would have no reason to bother with them.

The exercise at least shows how to "defend" a "scientific theory" and how having a model behind it (diagram of a circuit and coded program) makes all the rest a semantics argument over how to word an explanation for how it works that instead uses sentences.

I now need to make clear sense to those who are up against a brick wall of sorts caused by the data stream through the brain still leading to motors that produce vocal sounds while automatically using body motions to match what's being expressed in their thoughts, not digital text output. What is needed is an easy to conceptualize cerebellum that works with existing cortical models.

Adding guess to the addressing side of the RAM requires additional code that will slow down the program a little but doing so allows up to a million 10 bit wide addresses, where each is an 8 bit location containing (100% guess derived) motor action data. The newest model I did not yet make a video for and has no cerebellum is still able to get around on the spatial navigation network of it cortex alone, but has the poorly coordinated features of human patients with serious cerebellum damage.

I without knowing it (except for guessable address inputs) have been experimenting with what happens with and without a cerebellum. I previously stuck not knowing how to explain what it was I was experimenting with, now it's easy!

This is a breakthrough I was hoping for in regards to being clear. And the necessary reference information is a relatively easy to make sense of YouTube video. The way "science" gets around these days is truly amazing. I love it.

Hogwash.  Many motile bacteria utilize random walks in a way that is the equivalent of making a guess.  They can then use the current strength of a chemical signal vs the previous strength of the signal to determine which direction to head in.  It may look like intelligence in operation, but none of that is cognition and reasoning - all of it is biochemical reactions that result in chemotaxis.  Specifically, the bacteria are too small to detect gradients by comparing concentrations at their head end to their tail end.  Instead they do brief random walks or tumbles in the middle of straight runs to obtain two readings some distance apart.  The onset of tumbling motion is chemically controlled:
Quote
the direction of flagellar spin is regulated in part by methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins (MCPs). The extracellular domain of an MCP is a chemosensor, which responds to changing concentrations of its target molecule by a shape change. The signal embodied by that shape change is transduced first through a membrane-spanning domain, then to one or more small linkers called HAMPs, and finally to a kinase control module, which can turn on, or turn off, a kinase, which then either does, or doesn’t, phosphorylate another protein. The ratio of the phosphorylated to unphosphorylated protein is the final determinant of the direction of flagellar rotation, and hence the movement of the bacterium.

www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(02)01424-0.pdf
https://microbiologybytes.wordpress.com/2013.......running

You and I have no guarantee that your model is grounded in reality: you merely think it ought to work that way.  Your language about "4 requirements of intelligence" is really confused and ad hoc (e.g. your language about "motors to control").  You do not talk about learning from trial and error, you just say that one of the "requirements" (which is not what you mean) of intelligence is "the ability to take a guess", which is not true.  Many non-intelligent systems do the equivalent of "making a guess" (e.g. Neato vacuum cleaners, pollen blowing in the wind, larvae floating in the ocean), but learning from trials and errors is far more a hallmark of intelligence.

As annoying as my comments are, they are entirely deserved, because you have yet to demonstrate  that you have anything of worth.  

Quote
The newest model I did not yet make a video for and has no cerebellum is still able to get around on the spatial navigation network of it cortex alone, but has the poorly coordinated features of human patients with serious cerebellum damage.
Your labelling something in a simulation with the name of a brain part does not make it that brain part nor does it guarantee that it is modelling that brain part accurately.  
Do
SnowTotal = SnowTotal + Snowflake
Loop until SnowTotal >= Blizzard
Hey - I just modelled a blizzard!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2018,19:10   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2018,19:52)
It may look like intelligence in operation, but none of that is cognition and reasoning - all of it is biochemical reactions that......

The Discovery Institute also teaches that "intelligence" is scientifically unexplainable, cannot be caused by biochemical reactions. Everyone in neuroscience is supposed to be dumbfounded and in denial, can't explain a single thing.

If you are not already one then you deserve to be made an honorary DI fellow.

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1693
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2018,19:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 11 2018,19:10)
Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2018,19:52)
It may look like intelligence in operation, but none of that is cognition and reasoning - all of it is biochemical reactions that......

The Discovery Institute also teaches that "intelligence" is scientifically unexplainable, cannot be caused by biochemical reactions. Everyone in neuroscience is supposed to be dumbfounded and in denial, can't explain a single thing.

If you are not already one then you deserve to be made an honorary DI fellow.

Notice the admission Gary just made (possibly without meaning to)?

He really does think the simple biochemical reactions are intelligence, and that bacteria are intelligent.  I expect he will now try to weasel out of this.

Gary, you dolt, of course scientists think that intelligence comes from biochemistry.  Generally, they don't think that literally brainless bacteria have it.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2018,19:46   

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 11 2018,19:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 11 2018,19:10)
Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2018,19:52)
It may look like intelligence in operation, but none of that is cognition and reasoning - all of it is biochemical reactions that......

The Discovery Institute also teaches that "intelligence" is scientifically unexplainable, cannot be caused by biochemical reactions. Everyone in neuroscience is supposed to be dumbfounded and in denial, can't explain a single thing.

If you are not already one then you deserve to be made an honorary DI fellow.

Notice the admission Gary just made (possibly without meaning to)?

He really does think the simple biochemical reactions are intelligence, and that bacteria are intelligent.  I expect he will now try to weasel out of this.

Gary, you dolt, of course scientists think that intelligence comes from biochemistry.  Generally, they don't think that literally brainless bacteria have it.

I'm not even going to bother with your wishful thinking.

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1693
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2018,19:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 11 2018,19:46)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 11 2018,19:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 11 2018,19:10)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2018,19:52)
It may look like intelligence in operation, but none of that is cognition and reasoning - all of it is biochemical reactions that......

The Discovery Institute also teaches that "intelligence" is scientifically unexplainable, cannot be caused by biochemical reactions. Everyone in neuroscience is supposed to be dumbfounded and in denial, can't explain a single thing.

If you are not already one then you deserve to be made an honorary DI fellow.

Notice the admission Gary just made (possibly without meaning to)?

He really does think the simple biochemical reactions are intelligence, and that bacteria are intelligent.  I expect he will now try to weasel out of this.

Gary, you dolt, of course scientists think that intelligence comes from biochemistry.  Generally, they don't think that literally brainless bacteria have it.

I'm not even going to bother with your wishful thinking.

Want to try using a phrase that actually applies to what I said.  Because "wishful thinking" doesn't.  But feel free to both demonstrate your cowardess and your inability to use the English language.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2018,19:56   

But for your reading pleasure:
 
Quote

CELL INTELLIGENCE
Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Ph.D.
Fellow, European Academy of Sciences, Brussels
Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies, Berlin
Robert Laughlin Rea Professor Emeritus of Cell Biology
Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago

SUMMARY.

THE NEED FOR CELL INTELLIGENCE
Nobody in his right mind would believe that the contractile protein molecules in a person's throat speak English. Clearly, the molecules follow orders issued ultimately by the person's brain. This is not a matter of the size of the organism. The contractile proteins in the muscle cells of a small nematode are not gliding or swimming, either. They, too, receive orders from the nervous system of the worm. In short, the interactions between the molecules of  any organism generally do not create the functions of the organism, but it is the other way around: The functions of the organism initiate and control the interactions between its molecules. The necessity for such control is obvious. Using the example of contractile proteins, the molecules can only polymerize, depolymerize or slide along each other, but they would not know when and with what force and when to stop. A signal-integrating mechanism is required.

www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2018,02:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 12 2018,03:56)
But for your reading pleasure:
     
Quote

CELL INTELLIGENCE
Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Ph.D.
Fellow, European Academy of Sciences, Brussels
Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies, Berlin
Robert Laughlin Rea Professor Emeritus of Cell Biology
Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago

SUMMARY.

THE NEED FOR CELL INTELLIGENCE
Nobody in his right mind would believe that the contractile protein molecules in a person's throat speak English. Clearly, the molecules follow orders issued ultimately by the person's brain. This is not a matter of the size of the organism. The contractile proteins in the muscle cells of a small nematode are not gliding or swimming, either. They, too, receive orders from the nervous system of the worm. In short, the interactions between the molecules of  any organism generally do not create the functions of the organism, but it is the other way around: The functions of the organism initiate and control the interactions between its molecules. The necessity for such control is obvious. Using the example of contractile proteins, the molecules can only polymerize, depolymerize or slide along each other, but they would not know when and with what force and when to stop. A signal-integrating mechanism is required.

www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

Yeah but absolutely nothing to do with your Bull Shit.

Did you actually read the paper blog post beyond your quote?

Don't bother to reply you wouldn't get it anyway.

The only reason Gary is here is for attention.

He mistakes criticism for stroking.

--------------
"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: June 13 2018,07:43   

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....=266288
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 10 2018,20:59)
The DI nibbles on the "most animal lineages are the same age" news


Mixed message:

Quote
New Paper in Evolution Journal: Humans and Animals Are (Mostly) the Same Age?
Andrew Jones
June 8, 2018, 2:00 PM

Animals

Could it be that animals were designed together with humans and instantiated at the same time too? Or did they get off the same spaceship? Or off the same boat?

An exciting new paper in the journal Human Evolution has been published which you can read here. Popular science reports such as this have incautiously claimed, “They found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.”

But to be more precise, what they actually found is that the most recent common ancestor of those species seems to have lived during that time period.

This could indicate intelligent design, an event where species came into existence for the first time. But it could also indicate something else, such as a population crash (or crashes) that affected almost all life on Earth. Either way, if the paper is right, it would be a shock to established scientific expectations.



From: evolutionnews.org/2018/06/astonished-and-amused-by-lamoureuxs-mistake-on-intelligent-design/
Quote
Astonished and Amused by Lamoureux’s (Mis)Take on Intelligent Design
Ann Gauger
June 13, 2018, 2:07 AM

5. ID does not require either instantaneous creation, or a kind of stasis in between obvious infusions of information. There’s some sort of confusion on Denis’s part about how intelligent design scientists view the process of change over time, whether in cosmic or biological evolution. Most ID scientists accept an old earth. Lamoureux appears to believe that we think the designer had no role from 14 billion to 4 billion years ago, leaving the development of galaxies, stars, and planets to purely naturalistic forces. This is not true. It should be obvious that it is not true. One of the arguments for a designer is the fine-tuning of the universe. Another is the incredible rarity of a planet such as Earth and of the conditions necessary for life on our planet. These arguments have been advanced in The Privileged Planet, as well as by Michael Denton in his work. Those are reasons to infer that the designer still works in guiding things. Now if I were to draw on my faith understanding I would say he upholds and sustains all things. But that is a belief based in Scripture. ID does not look to Scripture for a hermeneutic.


--------------
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: June 13 2018,08:32   

Albrecht-Buehler arguably gives Gary a little support on cellular "intelligence", but not on molecular intelligence by any definition.  A-B at least offers clear definitions and operational definitions.  In his view, if there is information processing going on (based on either present conditions or comparing present conditions to past conditions) that results in complex behavior with multiple potential alternative outcomes from which the best alternative is selected / put into operation, then that's intelligence at work.  

I agree with him that organisms as simple as bacteria can display complex responses to stimuli, that information is being collected and processed and acted upon.  

However, I don't see that as intelligence, as they don't involve processes like reasoning, imagining, planning, and choosing (i.e., thinking).  Chemically dictated responses can be very sophisticated (e.g. biological clocks, phototaxis, and chemotaxis), as detailed earlier for bacterial running and tumbling to determine the best directions for travel.

And with disrespect to the last post, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....is-hard

  
Lethean



Posts: 197
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2018,10:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2018,04:26)
If you want to be useful then help clearly communicate all the above. You can start with something like the use of coloring books for enhancing memory retention via episodic memory recall of motor actions while filling things in using different colors. Perhaps you have some of your own to share. Something else useful. Anything.




--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
k.e..



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2018,11:21   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 13 2018,16:32)
Albrecht-Buehler arguably gives Gary a little support on cellular "intelligence", but not on molecular intelligence by any definition.  A-B at least offers clear definitions and operational definitions.  In his view, if there is information processing going on (based on either present conditions or comparing present conditions to past conditions) that results in complex behavior with multiple potential alternative outcomes from which the best alternative is selected / put into operation, then that's intelligence at work.  

I agree with him that organisms as simple as bacteria can display complex responses to stimuli, that information is being collected and processed and acted upon.  

However, I don't see that as intelligence, as they don't involve processes like reasoning, imagining, planning, and choosing (i.e., thinking).  Chemically dictated responses can be very sophisticated (e.g. biological clocks, phototaxis, and chemotaxis), as detailed earlier for bacterial running and tumbling to determine the best directions for travel.

And with disrespect to the last post, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....is-hard

As you say A-B writes with a clarity that Gary will never possess.

The one thing that seems to drive A-B's ideas is that "biochemical processes" can not explain intelligence however as you say he doesn't say what his definition of intelligence is or "biochemical processes" for that matter, while at the same time attributing intelligence to anything that seems to move by itself.

It seems to me A-B could be both right and wrong at the same time. It is becoming clear that Artificial Intelligence in the form of Artificial Neural Networks with backward propagation can "learn" certain markers for intelligence such as pattern recognition at least as well as humans and already surpass humans in complex games such as Go. All without being taught the rules just evaluate a score each time they move/evaluate starting from random moves. ANNs are now capable of training themselves using no more than improving scores between the nodes/neurons and scores/weights for those connections which are a close analog of the way neurons in our brains work. Well may we say reasoning, imagining, planning and choosing are hallmarks of human intelligence but when deconstructed and reconstructed by AI on supercomputers intelligence may be shown to be a purely variable mechanical processes based ultimately on biochemical processes in an obviously highly specialized evolved adapted structure.

Maybe A-B means muscles have something that looks like intelligence (to him) which is similar to the way neurons work?

In any case a precise clear definition of intelligence would be a good step. And we can start by saying what intelligence is not. Such as an imaginary deity in the clouds. That is just another god.

--------------
"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: June 14 2018,01:16   

Oh look, a coloring book page that was already posted in the thread. From these things we can learn much about the human mind works.

I had to mention that I just posted the new information in the Numenta forum:

discourse.numenta.org/t/oscillatory-thousand-brains-minds-eye-for-htm/3726/17

Intelligence is best defined by what can be said about how intelligence works. What I have is still fine, no need for changes. Mentioning "imaginary deity in the clouds" seems rather unnecessary.

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 4856
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2018,01:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 14 2018,09:16)
Oh look, a coloring book page that was already posted in the thread. From these things we can learn much about the human mind works.

I had to mention that I just posted the new information in the Numenta forum:

discourse.numenta.org/t/oscillatory-thousand-brains-minds-eye-for-htm/3726/17

Intelligence is best defined by what can be said about how intelligence works. What I have is still fine, no need for changes. Mentioning "imaginary deity in the clouds" seems rather unnecessary.

Gary if intelligence is to learn from experience or to engage in various forms of reasoning then you clearly suffer from neither. As you have shown since this thread started.

Your appeal to authority by claiming that your deity created the universe makes the statement [intelligence is not an] "imaginary deity in the clouds" entirely necessary. Your use of the word intelligence and your peculiar definition of it are nothing more than hand waving to support Christian Dogma.

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

  
Lethean



Posts: 197
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2018,06:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 14 2018,01:16)
Oh look, a coloring book page that was already posted in the thread. From these things we can learn much about the human mind works.




--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

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

Pages: (619) < ... 612 613 614 615 616 [617] 618 619 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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